I guess when you are behind by about 15 points with two weeks to go and you are Texas Democrat gubernatorial candidate, state senator Wendy Davis, you throw the kitchen sink at the front runner, Republican attorney general, Greg Abbott.
A couple of weeks ago, Miss Davis decided that Mr. Abbott was a hypocrite for suing his then next door neighbor after the incident that rendered Mr. Abbott a paraplegic and winning a $10,000,000 settlement. After making a slight-of-hand implication of Mr. Abbott's disability and if he really needs to be in a wheelchair in the first place, Team Davis said that because Mr. Abbott seeks tort reform, after he got his, that he does not want to see other people compensated in a similar manner. As Mr. Abbott has noted here, the law that he gained a settlement from is still the law in Texas and that it could still be the same result.
Which is actually an out of court settlement. That is noted here. And also noted here, and this is the real issue, is that Mr. Abbott never sued for punitive damages.
And that is where many legitimate lawsuits go off the rails.
Punitive damages is exactly what it means. Punishing a party beyond legitimate compensation. It is why we see multi-million dollar jury rewards in lawsuits. In essence, its how to stick it to the man. Whoever and whatever the man may be. Because no doubt, evil intent was done.
That is another issue for another post.
So, how is the race hitting a new low?
With an assist from the San Antonio Express-News, Mr. Abbott was asked a question that is absurd on the face of it.
Mr. Abbott was asked if he would defend a ban on interracial marriage.
A little digging that the questioner might have done would make the question moot. For you see, Mr. Abbott is married . . .to a Hispanic woman named Cecilia Phalen.
But dig deeper my friends and the real thrust of the question is about same-sex marriage, which Mr. Abbott is opposed to.
Sorry but the link to the Express-News is a pay firewall but the headline and little one could read lays it all out there and why the question was asked in the first place.
It's all about same-sex marriage.
But the race question, while a set up, did have the tone that if Mr. Abbott would in his capacity, as attorney general, defend such a law had the side benefit of trying to see in Mr. Abbott was indeed a closet racist.
The answer is seen as a dodge my many, but it is not and in fact is a hit on other attorney generals that decided defending some states laws not recognizing same-sex marriage is OK. Thus by default it is exactly how same-sex marriage became legal in California. Not by a vote of the people (not a vote recognized by a federal court) not a vote of the legislature and a governor's signature reflecting the will of the people. Nope, by judicial fiat.
So, how did Mr. Abbott answer the question? Here is his answer per The Dallas Morning News:
“And all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me,” Abbott said. “The job of an attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down."
Well, I guess he would defend such a law. As attorney general, he could defend it but not with any passion or gusto and hope the other side makes a better case. Which is the point about other state attorney generals who just throw in the towel like ours did in the person of Kamala Harris.
Does that mean he would be for an interracial marriage ban? Again, not likely since he is married to a Hispanic woman. But let's suppose he is not married and running for governor. He can say that while he is the sitting attorney general he has to defend the law passed by a state legislature and signed by a governor. But he wants to end the law and would fight hard to do so if elected governor.
Here is the rub.
Same-sex marriage advocates have based much of the reasoning why there should be same-sex marriage that homosexuals are born to be homosexuals and they can not nor should not change their "natural" same-sex attraction. Much the same way that a person can not change their race.
Thus, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you must have opposed interracial marriage as they are really the same thing.
OK, most people can not change their race, unless one is the late singer Michael Jackson, but one can choose not to be married. It is not exactly a constitutional right nor a God-given right either. There are many heterosexual people that are not married and do not intend to. They are making a choice. Many homosexuals also can make that choice. But a minority of a minority think that while their intimate relationship of some one of the same sex can only be sanctioned by society if marriage is allowed.
Of course today, that is really flawed thinking as people are changing their views about homosexuals in general. Most people, myself included, want to give homosexual couples as much of the state benefit of marriage without changing the definition of the institution.
Having said that, an argument that those who support the position of non-state recognition of same-sex marriage is that one can choose to be in that kind of relationship or not. But one can not choose the race that they are and that miscegenation laws are pointless.
So, advocates of same-sex marriage get the twofer courtesy of a question asked of the current sitting attorney general. And the answer to them makes him not really honest and a homophobe and closet racist.
This is why many conservatives and Republicans have problems discussing the media approved social issues, especially regarding same-sex marriage.
Mr. Abbott should have gotten the context of the question. It was not about miscengenation laws. It was defending traditional marriage. It was about if Mr. Abbott was anti-gay. Because if he would defend traditional marriage, he was by extension a bigot.
This is what the left is reduced to.
Character assassination and even making up stuff as they go along.
Again, in this case they got a twofer. Why by his answer, Mr. Abbott would defend any law banning interracial marriage and supporting the state in traditional marriage.
Also this takes away from the fact that the Texas Democrats hitched their hopes on a one-note Wendy. All she is famous for is a pointless filibuster regarding an abortion law. A filibuster that never derailed the law from taking effect. For some reason, they thought that in the effort to turn Texas into Blue heaven, social issues are the ticket.
Most people talking about this latest low of the governor campaign are talking about the interracial marriage issue and ignoring the real thrust of the question. Which is his approach to same-sex marriage.
No matter what, the Texas gubernatorial race has hit a new low. And there is no reason to think that it will not get any lower.