Wasserman-Schultz can’t tell ‘the difference between a Democrat and a socialist’ on ‘Hardball’

Wasserman Schultz HardballChris Matthews’ “Hardball” delivered one of the most revealing moments on cable news in years on Tuesday when he asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference is between modern Democrats and socialists. She literally refused to answer the question. The spokeswoman for the DNC could not give an intelligent answer on what separates Democrats from socialists.

Mediaite reported:

Matthews: “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is? Between a Democrat like Hillary Clinton and a socialist like Bernie Sanders?”

Wasserman-Schultz: The more important question is the difference between being a Democrat and a Republican.

Matthews: But what’s the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist? You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.

Wasserman-Schultz: The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign [Chris Matthews’ slight laughter in the background] is ‘What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?’

Matthews: “I think there’s a big difference. I think there’s a huge difference.”

Wasserman-Schultz: The difference between a Democrat and a Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to succeed, and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists.

The look on Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz’s face when Chris Matthews asked her to differentiate modern Democrats from socialists spoke volumes. It was as if she were locked in a room with a man whose stomach was well into its way of processing a dozen rotten eggs he had eaten hours before.

Republicans are “strangled” be “extremists,” and yet the DNC chairwoman can’t tell a cable news host the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. Classic.

Ask yourself this question: If there was such a “huge difference” that wasn’t elucidated for Chris Matthews’ audience, then why did he move on to another subject instead of explaining it to them? The answer is that a “huge” difference does not exist.

Years ago I had a job that allowed me to travel all across the country talking to people about public policy issues. There were often older men and women at these events who really seemed to believe the Democratic Party was still one that would welcome a man like John F. Kennedy. As the DNC chair’s non-response demonstrates, those days are over.

The sad truth of the matter is that the modern Democratic Party essentially sees no area of American life that should be shielded from the bureaucratic bombardments of an ever-expansive federal government. The modern Republican Party is filled with spineless men whose jiggle-jowls wobble back and forth while they play lip service to the virtues of limited government, but little else.

The American people get what they deserve, and right now we deserve Debbie Wasserman-Schultz leading the DNC and Donald Trump leading in the polls. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know, then it is highly likely that you were a key player in creating the political climate that now exists.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: The MVP of partisan hacks

In a sick and twisted way, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a godsend for the conservative movement. She’s the epitome of everything that is wrong with American politics. Every time she’s faced with evidence that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the Democratic Party has lapsed in judgement or has done something beyond the pale she doubles down on stupidity. It’s odd and bizarre, but it makes anyone with a shred of dignity wonder how she lives with herself.

Say someone said: “Doug, when Bush was in office the national debt continued to climb, so why are you upset about it now?” There are many answers I could give, but it seems blatantly obvious that Republicans are, at least to some level, culpable of creating the situation we find ourselves in today. As I believe Mark Steyn may have said not long ago (I’m paraphrasing): “Democrats want to go over the cliff at 100 mph. and Republicans want to go over at 70 mph.” Either way — we’re going over a cliff if somebody doesn’t slam on the brakes soon.

If I was like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I might respond with some sort of explanation from the Twilight Zone that absolved Republicans of any responsibility. I suppose sleazy DC insiders would love me and I’d get invited to really swanky parties, but deep down I’d know I was a loser.

For a bit more of a breakdown, I explain it here. I’ll be doing podcasts regularly in the future. I promise the quality will improve.

The United States of Apology

We're a nation that now demands apologies for the slightest offense, even if they lack the substance of sincerity. It takes a special kind of insecurity to tie up multiple news cycles on radio talk show hosts when the national debt is over 15 trillion dollars.

The outrage over Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” jokes this week, the demands for an “apology”, and the eventual concession by the radio host is just another example of the sad state of affairs the country is in. If I was a partisan hack I’d say that it all began with Barack Obama’s apology tour of the world, which shows no sign of letting up, judging by the Koran burning incident in Afghanistan. Sadly, the national fixation over apologies has been going on for quite some time, and even my friends on the right have allowed this cultural bug to crawl into their ears and take root in their brain.

Did countless commentators on the left ever apologize to George Bush for the laundry list of ways they compared him to a Nazi for almost eight full years? If so, I can’t remember, but then again I also don’t recall Bush ever being one to play the apology game either.

An apology is something that’s supposed to come from the heart. It’s supposed to come after honest reflection. It is not supposed to come as a result of political pressures, dropped sponsors, or boycotts. Demanding someone say, “I’m sorry” is an exercise only a liberal can love, since they usually imbue certain words with powers that words can never really have. The same people who are enraged at the mere mention of certain words (regardless of the context), also tend to be the same people who need to hear “I’m sorry”, even if it lacks the substance of sincerity.

Every single day top liberal commentators insinuate or outright say that conservatives are racists, bigots, and homophobes. Does that “offend” me? Not really, but if it did I wouldn’t demand an apology. Their words and their actions speak for themselves.Fair-minded individuals are perfectly capable of looking at the details of a story and parsing out the extent to which someone is a jerk or in the wrong. The same goes for stories involving Rush Limbaugh.

On the Sunday morning talk shows, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said: “The bottom line is, the leading candidate on the Republican side for president couldn’t even bring himself to call Rush Limbaugh’s comments outrageous and call him out and ask him to apologize.” The response to Wasserman should be: “Get a life. The national debt is at $15,488,891,296,248.02. There are more important things to do than to get embroiled in the on air comments of random radio hosts.”

With everything that the Commander in Chief has on his plate, the notion that he would get involved with the back-and-forth between a radio host and a 30 year old woman attending Georgetown Law is depressing. For someone who campaigned on rising above the fray, all of his actions indicate he’d rather get into the mud to sling clumps. President Obama’s phone call to Sandra Fluke ultimately only serves to distract voters from the tsunami of debt that’s blocking out the sun and about to hit home. When opportunities have given him a chance to become a true statesmen, the president fittingly rose to the level of a community organizer.  Regardless of what one thinks about Rush Limbaugh, there are certainly more appropriate surrogates the president could tap to deal with him. The fact that he chose to directly intervene highlights how vulnerable he would be if only the Republican Party nominated a true statesmen.

The sad part about all of this is, the people who will owe the American people an apology for Washington’s complete and utter failure to address the nation’s debt crisis will disappear when the time comes.

Car Warning Label Bill Gains Liberal Support After Ryan Dunn’s Death.

The Federal Government has announced new warning labels for motor vehicles, inspired by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

Liberals in the House of Representatives are busy working behind the scenes on a new “Car Label” bill that would mirror the recent cigarette labels chosen by the Department of Health and Human Services. Tentatively titled The Family Driving Prevention and Motor Vehicle Control Act, even high ranking Obama Administration officials do not deny the similarities to The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (which Obama signed into law in 2009). At one point, even the President—who still occasionally leans on nicotine to get him through the day—commented on the nascent driving bill:

”I know —I was one of those teenagers,” he said, standing beneath a punishing afternoon sun at a Rose Garden ceremony. ”I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it’s been with you for a long time.”

Oddly enough, no one from the press asked him about the quote, which was identical to his statement on The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, however, did weigh in:

The bottom line is this: Cars are dangerous. Really dangerous. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there were over 37,000 fatalities in 2008 due to car crashes. That’s not including the effects on the rest of the 84,000 who were involved in an accident, whether something as serious as a loss of a limb to lasting psychological damage. If more people walked to work (with a helmet), we would have a safer, happier, and greener U.S. population.  Ryan Dunn’s untimely death should serve as a catalyst for the change America needs—not tomorrow—but now. If the federal government cares enough about its citizen-smokers to put labels on cigarettes, it should care enough about its citizen-drivers to put massive labels on the hoods of their cars. I’m looking forward to the recommendations the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration comes out with after our August recess, as are millions of other Americans.

When asked to comment, Speaker John Boehner got in his Jaguar XJ220, revved the engine, and peeled out down Washington Ave. towards Interstate 395.

Liberals in Congress want to know: If it works for citizen smokers, why won’t it work for citizen drivers?

Editor’s Note: This post brought to you by The Family Satire and Humorless Government Act of 2011.