Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Congresswoman from Florida and head of the DNC, was on Fox News Sunday Sunday and she did not let anyone down with her Obama rah-rah rant bordering on lies. This is a woman who has been called out by liberal organizations like Factcheck.org for playing fast and loose with the truth. However, in true liberal fashion, when presented with a little inconvenience like THE TRUTH, she simply doubles down when she is not trying to avoid answers by changing the subject (another liberal ploy).
Of course, the first question was about the Ryan budget. DWS said: "...Paul Ryan's embrace extremism, suggest we end Medicare as we know it, shred the safety net for seniors in health care..." This was in reference to the Ryan budget. There is nothing new in this line of attack. On the May 29, 2011 edition of "Face the Nation," DWS said: "What they would do is they would take people who are younger than 55 today and tell the, 'You know what? You're on your own. Go find private health insurance... We're going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions..." As Factcheck.org noted then, "She is simply wrong..." What was true in 2011 is true in 2012. Like 2011, either DWS is a liar or she lacks the requisite intelligence level to hold her office. Perhaps, she cannot read. The Ryan plan specifically sets parameters for Medicare exchanges where one cannot be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. DWS conveniently forgets this aspect of the plan. She further stated that Obamacare is, "We're going to keep them (seniors) healthy," as if the Ryan plan will lead seniors to ill health and death. In fact, under Ryan's proposal, seniors with preexisting conditions would get a higher government subsidy. This is the old granny-over-the-cliff mischaracterization of the Ryan Plan being played out by DWS.
And again, the whole line of attack as concerns electoral politics is overstated. For example, practically every lamestream media report says that Florida will now be front and center in the election since, via Paul Ryan, Medicare has entered the political discussion front and center. DWS is quick to point out the number of seniors she represents and all the "great things" Obamacare has done and will do for them. What DWS fails to mention is that the Ryan Plan has absolutely no effect on the current beneficiaries of Medicare. All those seniors Wasserman-Schultz have nothing to fear other than her representing them for another two years. Afterwards, she was sure to note on her Facebook page that Ryan did not accompany Romney to Florida because he was, by insinuation, afraid of facing senior Floridians. Lost in the mix was the fact Ryan was in Iowa which has suddenly become a swing state and one that Obama won in 2008 and needs in 2012 and where Obama also decided to divert his campaign attention this week. Looks like Obama is the one afraid of losing votes there, not Romney and Ryan in Florida. Regardless, it will be important that Ryan explains that his plan to save Medicare will not affect current beneficiaries or even those nearing retirement.
Then shifting gears and getting a lot of airplay and derision in the press and even on some liberal sites is her assertion that "I have no idea of the political affiliation of the folks are associated with that Super PAC." "That Super Pac" is, of course, Priorities USA founded by a former Obama strategist - a Democrat. Again, DWS shows either her ignorance or her stupidity in that one line which later caused her to backtrack and Tweet that she thought she was stating the obvious- that the Obama campaign is not coordinating with a Democratic Super PAC. Maybe, maybe not but to assert you do not know the political affiliation of a Super PAC is a rather silly assertion.
Of course, she does not back away from the grotesque Soptic commercial that insinuates that Mitt Romney's decisions at Bain Capital killed Mrs. Soptic. The truth of that unfortunate incident is known- she lost HER insurance when she lost HER job and she died five years after the plant closed down and Joe Soptic lost his job and health benefits. That is like saying I have lung cancer from smoking because my employer did not have a smoking cessation program ten years ago. Again, an incredulous and lunatic assertion. BUT, did DWS back away from it?
She goes on to say that although she did not know this was a Democratic group, it illustrates that Romney's tenure and decisions at Bain Capital have effects on real people and that this is just one example. Then in classic liberal fashion, she feigns surprise that there is no indignation over Republican advertisements that question Obama's citizenship and other such attack ads. Of course, there is a huge qualitative difference here in that no Republican PAC commercial has insinuated that an Obama policy killed anyone or their spouse. Hence, one can only read her failure to denounce the advertisement as an endorsement of that advertisement. Or, in the alternative, she is really that obtuse.
Finally, the subject of Harry Reid's anonymous sources and Mitt Romney's taxes came up. When the moderator noted that she had railed against the use of anonymous sources used to denounce her personally, she deflected the subject yet again by stating that Harry Reid would have to answer that, but that the bigger question was why Mitt Romney would not release ten years of tax returns. NO- the bigger question is why should Mitt Romney respond to baseless allegations from anonymous sources spouted by the Majority Leader on the floor of the Senate and in the press. And, more specifically, why is the use of anonymous sources fine and dandy when Mitt Romney is concerned, but not when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is concerned? We find out at this point that not only is she stupid, but also a hypocrite. Her claim is that it is Romney is the one running for President. While that much is true, she is a sitting member of Congress and the question was about anonymous sources, not what is in some tax return.
I fully understand that her role is to defend the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. But every time she opens her mouth, she reveals how utterly silly their lines of attack are against Republicans and Romney (and now Ryan). Although it would be satisfying for the fine folks of her congressional district to vote her out of office, in a perverted sort of way, I would like to see her win. From the perspective of the Republican Party, with friends/members/spokespeople like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who needs enemies? She is a great advertisement to vote against Barack Obama.