Posted on 10/13/2014 9:14:29 PM PDT by WeatherGuy
But Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said that the initial outpouring of negative reaction may be giving way to a more receptive response as the ad continues to air. “I think opinion has shifted over the past couple of days,” he said. “It is a galvanizing ad, and it stops and commands attention.”
By referring to his disability in his political campaign, some analysts say, Mr. Abbott effectively opened the door for Ms. Davis’s depiction of the wheelchair in her ad. “Greg Abbott has made the wheelchair a representation of his strength and his determination,” said Professor Jillson of S.M.U.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Trial lawyers are the top political donors in Texas. And their party of choice is Texas Democrats.
Follow the money.
Such a cheap ploy.
Did he really sue a homeowner for a tree that fell on him when it was hit by lightning? And if his career is fighting against lawsuit abuse, than I have to say this is a good ad. Sorry guys.
No one cares in Texas what Abortion Barbie has to say about anything.
“By referring to his disability in his political campaign, some analysts say, Mr. Abbott effectively opened the door for Ms. Davis’s depiction of the wheelchair in her ad.”
Uh, this isn’t a criminal trial.
Perhaps. I don’t know the facts of the case, but if the insurance company settled for millions, I would tend to believe there was some merit to his case, not merely lawsuit abuse. Otherwise one would think the insurer would have let the case go to trial or settled for a much lesser amount.
Ping
blah. smu should care about having retards on their faculty.
I think it’s a despicable ad. She and her party would do anything to get that power. Seems odd she would insult someone is disabled like that. It kind of fits in with the democrats. Only they can like veterans who are democrats, handicap citizens who are democrats, women who are democrats, blacks who are democrats etc. the rest of the population are sub humans / misfits or something that could be eliminated in a heartbeat. You have to admit, most democrats are some of the most hatefulness people on the planet. They go out of their way with dollars and investing time in pushing laws to kill babies, like this Wendy person.
And yet, Abbot would trade whatever money he received to be able to walk again.
I know I would if I was in his situation.
Hildy is no lefty. If Abbott did this, then he has to answer for it.
The ad still sucks. He should put one up on how Abortion Barbie left her husband and took all his money. You’ve come a long way, baby!
Hildy.....you would have done exactly what Abbott did. The tree that fell on him crippling him for life was on someone’s property. I am sure his lawyers advised him to sue the property owner, who was most likely covered by homeowner’s insurance. If you were suddenly paralysed for life...you would have done the same thing to cover your medical bills and all the after effects that follow!!!
And....Abbott is the Attorney General for the state of Texas...and, a darn good one. He always follows the letter of the law. I suggest you do some in-depth reaseach into the cases, that idiot Wendy davis cited in her ad...and you will come to conclusion that in everyone of them, Abbott defended the existing, standing law of Texas!!!
In closing...I predict that Abbott will politically slaughter Wendy Davis on November 4, 2014....winning election by a massive, 12 to 17% margin!!!
Excuse me but why should we care what an Arizona moderate (hildy) thinks!
Indeed. But you are in the wrong place to expect intellectual consistency.
On the other hand, if a Republican had done this add, no matter what the circumstances, he would have been forced to bow out of the race.
“Did he really sue a homeowner for a tree that fell on him when it was hit by lightning? And if his career is fighting against lawsuit abuse, than I have to say this is a good ad. Sorry guys.”
Troll!
Ignorant demonrat plant.
Maybe an Abortion Barbie supporter
Or just someone who is a fool.
In order to get the homeowner insurance to pay he had to sue the home owner. That is the way the game works.
It does not mean that there was any malice toward the homeowner.
First I’ve heard about lightning. Story is the tree was rotten and it was determined the home owner was liable. The homeowners insurance settled so evidently they thought the homeowner was liable too!!
Everyone would say that would be beyond the pale. Liberal doublestandards still apply.I
Does anybody in Texas care about what’s written in the NYT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.