In an update to this post, the disgraceful, shameless Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, known for her insane, over-the-top, way beyond the bounds of basic civility, has issued a non-apology “apology” of sorts for her vile remarks likening Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) to a physically abusive husband:
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says she used words she “shouldn’t have” in her attack against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in which she said he “has given women the back of his hand.”
“I shouldn’t have used the words I used,” Wasserman Schultz wrote in a statement on Thursday. “But that shouldn’t detract from the broader point that I was making that Scott Walker’s policies have been bad for Wisconsin women, whether it’s mandating ultrasounds, repealing an equal pay law, or rejecting federal funding for preventative health care, Walker’s record speaks for itself.”
The DNC chairwoman slammed the Republican governor and the GOP during a round-table discussion in Milwaukee on Wednesday. Her remarks quickly sparked outrage.
“Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality,” Wasserman Schultz said, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
She continued, “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”
Sorry – her lame “walk-back” was not good enough. While it was refreshing today to see even some in the normally reliably left wing media take her to task for not just what she said, but how she said it, she really should have the decency to resign from her post as Chairwoman. But she won’t because, as I noted this morning, this is exactly the type of in-the-gutter public discourse she gets paid to come up with.
So because she won’t resign, I’m calling on people to do exactly what prominent Democrats and their allies in the press would do had this been a Republican: Keep talking about it for the next couple of weeks at least (that’s about the normal timeframe for an MSM scandal cycle, right?). On social media, on your blogs, on political message boards, everywhere you can. Remind people Wasserman Schultz’s brand of “hardball is part of a larger Democrat party election-year strategy – one in which Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC), currently in a fierce battle to try and keep her seat, is also taking part – of blatantly trying to emotionally manipulate women with baseless, false, in some cases outright reprehensible political and personal attacks against their opposition … because they’re desperate to win in November. Of course, this is something they do all the time, but this time around they’ve cranked up efforts to levels previously unseen for a non-presidential election year.
Keep what’s happening, the stunts they’re trying to pull, fresh in everyone’s minds. Don’t let Democrats get away with throwing everything but the kitchen sink again.
Just when you think the left hadn’t stooped low enough this election year. Via The Week:
On Wednesday, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used some fairly graphic language to describe Republican Gov. Scott Walker during a visit to Wisconsin.
“Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand,” Wasserman Schultz said at a roundtable discussion in Milwaukee on women’s issue, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. “I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality.” She added: “What Republican Tea Party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch.”
In response, Republican Lt. Gov Rebecca Kleefisch said she was “shocked” that Wasserman Schultz used language that would normally describe domestic violence, in reference to Walker: “I think the remarks were absolutely hideous and the motive behind them was despicable.”
The campaign of Walker’s Democratic opponent, businesswoman Mary Burke — whom Wasserman Schultz was attempting to boost — distanced themselves from the comments. “That’s not the type of language that Mary Burke would use, or has used, to point out the clear differences in this contest,” said Burke press secretary Stephanie Wilson, who also added: “There is plenty that she and Governor Walker disagree on — but those disagreements can and should be pointed out respectfully.”
The Burke campaign is right on the surface, even if they really don’t mean what they say. We’ve seen this all play out before, haven’t we? Wasserman Schultz makes inflammatory remarks that go wayyyy beyond what is acceptable in the political debate arena, the mainstream media – typically – gives her a pass on them (unlike how they’d treat this if the words came from the mouth of a Republican), the GOP calls her out on them and her left wing allies respond with muted “criticism” of what she deliberately suggested and then we’re all supposed to move on as if she never said anything.
This, my dear readers, is part of what this viper is paid to do – and why Democrats keep her in this position. To say the worst things imaginable about the opposition, and then hope/expect the (glaringly phony) image they’ve painted of them will stick in the minds of enough voters that they’ll vote against them at the ballot box. In essence, this is what you call “selling your soul” for political advantage. Wasserman Schultz didn’t think – and likely still doesn’t think – her disgusting broadside against Walker is wrong, in spite of the fact that it’s likely the case that she knows women who have been real victims of actual, horrific domestic abuse, just like many others of us do.
Falsely insinuating domestic violence is in no way, not ever acceptable as campaign rhetoric (or any other rhetoric, for that matter), Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Many women have the life-long emotional and physical scars, and some have even been murdered, at the brutish hands of men they thought loved them. For you to cheapen their experiences, to water down the definition of the term “domestic abuse” in your attempt at partisan one-upping someone in the opposing party defines gutter tactics at their absolute worst. Shame on you – not that you have any.
Read more via Memeorandum.
Prominent conservative talker Glenn Beck is making waves this week in like-minded & non-like-minded alike circles with his prediction that Hillary Clinton will win the presidency in 2016. Via The Politico:
Hillary Clinton will be the next president, Glenn Beck said on his radio show Tuesday.
Beck said a friend of his spoke with “some Hillary people” about her 2016 campaign strategy and after he heard it, he realized the former first lady and secretary of state would become the next White House occupant.
“You guys are going to all be fighting on Benghazi and everything else,” Beck said his friend told him. “And here is what Hillary is going to do: ‘Do you remember when America was good? Do you remember when America, we had jobs and we were building towards a brighter future? And things were really happening? Clinton administration. We had it under control. Things were good, they weren’t great. We’re going to do better. But we’re going to replant our flag in the traditional things that you understand. But the traditional things in the Clinton administration. We could talk about Ronald Reagan all we want. … But the Clinton years were the golden years.’”
“While we’re talking about technicalities and the past, they’re going to be talking about a past that was brightly remembered, and they will talk about the America we will become,” he added. “She. Will. Win.”
As much respect as I have for Glenn Beck and his opinions on all things political, I’m not buying it. This is the exact campaign Hillary Clinton ran in 2007-08 against Barack Obama. ‘Vote for me and we’ll return to the glory years you saw before President Bush was elected’, blah blah. And she lost. Granted, she wouldn’t be running against a slick talker like Barack Obama the second time around, but that doesn’t mean it’d be smooth sailing for her during the primaries, especially if Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has become a major darling in hard-line Democrat circles, throws her hat into the ring. As much as the left would love to “coronate” Hillary as the first female president in US history, they want someone who embodies more of their core left wing values and Hillary is largely seen right now as conveniently “playing it safe” and “down the middle” rather than attempting to appeal to her party’s base – unlike Warren – also a woman, of course, and one who is unashamedly liberal.
There seems to be this growing sense of “inevitability” – even on our side – that Hillary will be elected the next president. Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think her election is a done deal. There’s still a lot of ground to cover – both for her potential Democrat and Republican challengers, and for Hillary as well – between now and the time everyone starts announcing their intentions, and in an era where the “fresh and new and different” kind of candidates seem to be more appealing to the masses, someone like La Clinton who has been a national political fixture since the early 1990s may end up struggling to make it into the top three in the primaries.
Of course, it’s early still – and anything is possible so, as they say, stay tuned …
Enough is enough, they say. Via Fox News:
Dozens of government watchdogs are sounding the alarm that the Obama administration is stonewalling them, in what is being described as an unprecedented challenge to the agencies they’re supposed to oversee.
Forty-seven of the government’s 73 independent watchdogs known as inspectors general voiced their complaints in a letter to congressional leaders this week. They accused several major agencies — the Justice Department, the Peace Corps and the chemical safety board — of imposing “serious limitations on access to records.”
The inspectors general are now appealing to Congress to help them do their jobs uncovering waste, fraud, and mismanagement.
“Agency actions that limit, condition, or delay access thus have profoundly negative consequences for our work: they make us less effective, encourage other agencies to take similar actions in the future, and erode the morale of the dedicated professionals that make up our staffs,” they wrote.
The letter to the chairmen and ranking members of relevant oversight committees in the House and Senate claimed agencies are withholding information by calling it “privileged.”
In the letter, they said this interpretation poses “potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”
Gotta hand it to IG’s willing to put their name to the complaints in this letter. After all, we’ve seen what happens to inspectors general in this administration when they run afoul of the President’s do as I say, not as I do agenda.
“Transparency” you can believe in! At least many in the mainstream media aren’t even falling for it anymore. Baby steps ….
**Posted by Phineas
That’s the unavoidable conclusion of a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which, if I recall correctly, has been friendly towards the ACA. Byron York reports:
According to new polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has closely tracked Obamacare for years, 37 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act, while 53 percent have an unfavorable view. That’s an eight-percentage-point jump in unfavorability over last month, and a two-point drop in favorability over the same time.
Why the shift? It’s not because millions of Americans have suddenly become conservative Republicans. Kaiser found that disapproval of Obamacare has risen across the board. Among Democrats, for example, the law’s unfavorable rating jumped six points in July, while its favorable rating fell four points. A similar thing happened among independents and — it hardly seemed possible — among Republicans who already hated the law.
Obamacare’s unfavorables also rose among all income groups — people who make less than $40,000 a year, those who make between $40,000 and $90,000 a year, and those who make more than $90,000. The same among all age groups. And the same for race and ethnicity: Disapproval rose among whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Rather than a shift among some identifiable group, Obamacare’s rising unpopularity seems to be a product of the simple fact that, several months into its implementation, more and more people are having personal experience with the law.
Remember how Democrats swore people would love the law, once they got some experience with it? Critics suspected that was wishful thinking, and we seem to have been right.
Read the rest of York’s article for the details, but this is really the result of two things: 1) monumental progressive arrogance in seizing control of a health insurance system that a majority of the nation was satisfied with, substituting their judgement for that of their constituents and face-slapping the constitutional order in the process; and 2) doing a crappy job of writing the actual legislation, causing all sorts of problems for people across the nation. After the disruption of doctor-patient relationships, shrunken provider networks, increased deductibles, and massive cancellations of policies people were happy with —and the savaging of large group plans is still to come!— after all that, is it any wonder more and more people hate this thing, the more they get to know it?
Obamacare has been pushed into the background somewhat, as other crises du jour have taken it’s place on the front pages. But it’s still there, and it is still going to annoy the heck out of people, especially as the rate increases hit this summer and group policies start getting cancelled. And you can bet that surveys like this one fill Democrats with dread as we approach November.
As they should.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
A fantastic column from Ron Christie in today’s Daily Beast regarding the disgusting racist attacks being waged by Democrats in Kentucky against former Secretary of Labor (and wife of KY Senator/Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) Elaine Cho (hat tip):
But Democrats who imagine racist slights and “dog whistles” at every turn would be wise to look at the vicious anti-Asian bigotry on display in Kentucky, which is being fomented by supporters of their so-called progressive party.
This past weekend, as Senator McConnell spoke to supporters at the Fancy Farm event in Kentucky, he sought to confront the “War on Women” rhetoric of his Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, by noting his wife’s accomplishments. “And the biggest asset I have by far is the only Kentucky woman who served in a president’s cabinet, my wife, Elaine Chao,” he said to applause from the crowd.
It didn’t take long for Kathy Groob, the founder of the pro-Democrat PAC Elect Women, to start mocking Chao’s heritage on Twitter. “She’s not from KY…She is Asian and [President George W.] Bush openly touted that,” Groob said. In other tweets, Groob referred to Chao as McConnell’s “Chinese wife,” and said McConnell is “wedded to free trade in China.”
She later deleted her offensive tweets and deactivated her Twitter account. National and Kentucky Democrats, to their credit, quickly denounced her remarks.
Still, the incident left me scratching my head. A prominent Democrat attacks a spouse of a Republican candidate based on the color of her skin, but the reaction from the national media has been largely muted. One can only imagine the reaction had a GOP operative made the exact same slur against the spouse of a Democratic candidate. There would be wall-to-wall coverage on MSNBC, disapproving editorials from The New York Times, and warnings from the DNC that Republicans are looking to bring us back to the days of internment camps and Jim Crow. Talking Points Memo, a liberal website that delights in highlighting the ramblings of obscure GOP statehouse backbenchers, would use a story like that to insinuate that conservatives are, by and large, racist.
And this isn’t even the first time Democrats in Kentucky have attacked Chao’s ethnicity. Last year, a Democratic super PAC called Progress Kentucky tweeted that McConnell’s marriage to Chao “may explain why your job moved to #China.”
Make sure to read the whole thing.
Double standards like this, which I’ve written about many, many times before, will never change – at least as far as the mainstream media is concerned. But all the same, they’ll always be worth pointing out. Sunlight is the best medicine, and all that …
It is to laugh, my dear readers. It is to laugh:
So you think that President Obama’s rise stemmed in part from media favoritism? Reid Cherlin, a former Obama campaign media liaison and later a White House spokesman, has different ideas, as outlined in a Rolling Stone piece:
No, Barack Obama never had reporters eating out of his hand the way that right-wingers love to allege — even though Obama’s intellectual approach made him seem like someone who could just as easily have been a columnist as a candidate. Appearing at his first Correspondents’ Dinner, in 2009, the president joked, “Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me.” But even as polite laughter settled over the black-tie crowd, there was ample evidence that the old way of the news business – in fact, the news business entirely – was falling away, and with it, the last shreds of comity between subject and scribe.
Time to book Cherlin on a conference panel with Mark Halperin. The co-author of “Game Change” and well-traveled pundit and reporter said after Obama’s 2008 victory: “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”
Halperin was, of course, correct. And several years later, unfortunately, not much has changed.