Uh oh, Wendy Davis’ life story not what it seems

From Legal Insurrection:

Wendy Davis rose to national prominence when she conducted a filibuster to block a Texas bill restricting non-medically necessary abortions after 20-weeks. For that position, which is wildly unpopular, Davis became the next Elizabeth Warren — the Great White Hope in pink sneakers.

Erick Erickson dubbed her “Abortion Barbie,” which led to howls of sexism. But as I explained in Why is “Abortion Barbie” off limits for Wendy Davis?, Barbie and Ken analogies in politics are quite common. Erickson’s remark was directed not at Davis’ gender, but her self-professed ignorance of the Kermit Gosnell House of Abortion Horrors. That someone running on a pro-late term abortion platform didn’t know about the biggest abortion story of the year made her look, well, like a plastic impression.

Like Elizabeth Warren, whose life story does not hold up to scrutiny, Davis appears to have narrative problems, as detailed today by The Dallas Morning News, As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred:

The basic elements of the narrative are true, but the full story of Davis’ life is more complicated, as often happens when public figures aim to define themselves. In the shorthand version that has developed, some facts have been blurred.

Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter.

A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston. When they divorced in 2005, he was granted parental custody, and the girls stayed with him. Wendy Davis was directed to pay child support.

To summarize the rest of the article, which of course you should read in full, her second husband paid her way through her last two years of college and all of Harvard Law School, he raised their two daughters for whom she didn’t even fight for custody. She left her husband the day after he made her last student loan payment:

"When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there…. Over time, the Davises’ marriage was strained. In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out.

Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. “It was ironic,” he said. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.”

Will it matter? A misleading personal narrative didn’t hurt Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and doesn’t hurt her among progressives because they don’t care any more than they cared about Bill Clinton abusing his power over a young female intern to elicit sexual favors.

But Texas isn’t Massachusetts, and the Texas electorate doesn’t sleep with copies of The Nation and Mother Jones under their pillows.

The Drive-By-Media protected and enhanced the life story of Elizabeth "Fauxcohotas" Warren and as the article say, it's Texas not Massachusetts. Assuming Davis survives the primary, will she lose by 20 points? and the Drive-Bys will be asking themselves, "What happened?" and then write the loss off dues to a bunch of un-educated rednecks. Kudos to the Dallas Morning News for doing their jobs and digging into this woman's past.

Another thing that bothers me, the 2nd husband's comment, “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left.” It that all he has to say? I would have been livid about cashing in my 401(k) and taking on debt so my now ex-wife could go to college and law school, only to leave right after the last loan payment was made ! ! ! !

I remember when I was a high schooler and hearing stories to divorcing women retelling their stories about supporting their husband through college and medical/law school, only to be dumped for another woman and demanding that they get a slice of the ex-husband's future earnings. These women were backed by groups like NOW and others of their ilk. Where is the outrage for a woman doing the same thing to a man?

Crickets!