Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Wasserman Schultz: ‘We’re on Offense’


Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) said Sunday that the Democrats are in a strong position for the midterm elections despite a growing litany of wobbly statements from party officials, elected politicians and liberal commentators.

Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said Democrats who are distancing themselves from the Affordable Care Act are a demonstration of “Legislation 101″ and evidence that her party is on course to perfect the unpopular law.

“The president is right and Jeanne Shaheen is right,” Wasserman Schultz said in an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, responding to criticisms of Obamacare by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who faces a potentially tough challenge in November.

“I will match up our ground game and our turnout operation . . . any day of the week,” Wasserman Schultz told host David Gregory. “We ran circles around the the Republicans in 2012 and 2008.”

Gregory countered that the president’s leadership on Obamacare, the Keystone XL pipeline and other matters has drawn criticism from major figures including former Obama advisor David Axelrod, Shaheen, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and other prominent Democrats.

But Wasserman Schultz denied that the November elections will be a referendum on Obama’s leadership. She asserted that only three House seats are seriously endangered by Republicans in November and that Senate races are “absolutely not” about the president and his policies.

“Each of these candidates have to run their own race,” Wasserman Schultz said. “They have to talk about the issues that are important to their constituents. If you look at the success rate and track record of these incumbents — Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich — they are all ahead of any of their Republican opponents. And these Republicans are mired in a civil war where the Tea Party has won. And they’re consistently nominating the most extreme candidates. And we’re on offense in states as well. So you’ve got Georgia and Kentucky and even Mississippi, where we have a very good chance to pick up those seats.”

Tags: Elections , Democratic Party , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Sunday Shows April 20 2014

Democrats Attacked Republicans for Saying What the CBO Says Today



A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says that the Affordable Care Act will result in more than 2 million fewer full-time workers in the next several years, providing Republican opponents of the law a powerful political weapon leading up to this year’s midterm elections.

The law is also expected to have a significant effect on hours worked, the nonpartisan budget office said in a regular update to its budget projections released Tuesday. With the expansion of insurance coverage, more workers will choose not to work and others will choose to work fewer hours than they might have otherwise, it said. The decline in hours worked will translate into a loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time positions by 2024, the budget office said.

You remember the sales pitch, right?

“It will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately,” Pelosi promised.

Also remember the pledge about how Obamacare would help the government save money? DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, last year:

The Affordable Care Act, according to the CBO analysis, the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan entity, has said, has calculated it will bring the deficit down. . . . There’s a lot of garbage out there about what the Affordable Care Act does. . . . The Tea Party latched onto opposition to the Affordable Care Act with all their might, and the truth hasn’t really mattered that much, while people like me endeavor to go out, like I’m doing right now, and educate people on what it does and what it doesn’t do.

Yeah, not so much, according to that same CBO she cited:

It also creates a major issue for the president, who has repeatedly said the ACA will be revenue neutral. Instead, the CBO projects that subsidies will account for increasing chunks of deficit spending, starting at $20 billion this year and steadily increasing to $159 billion in 2024, for a collective deficit of just under $1.2 trillion. The cumulative deficit from the ACA for the next decade could reach $1.35 trillion.

UPDATE: A reader reminds me of Obama’s pledge that “health care reform will not add one dime to our deficit.”

FACT CHECK: True. Obamacare doesn’t add “one dime” to the deficit, it adds trillions and trillions of dimes.

Tags: Nancy Pelosi , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , CBO , Obamacare

The Democrats’ Silly, Dishonest Excuse of ‘Voter Suppression’ in Colorado


David Axelrod joined DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former state senator Angela Giron in blaming “voter suppression” for Tuesday’s successful recall election against Giron and state senator John Morse.

The term “voter suppression” implies someone making an effort to prevent people from voting, which is not what happened here, where the elections were amply covered in local, state, and national media and all of the usual polling places were open for all of the usual hours, with no intimidation or other obstacles. The core of the Democrats’ argument is that because voting by mail was limited, some sort of nefarious authorities have prevented Coloradans from casting votes.

The lack of voting by mail stems from a lawsuit by the state’s Libertarian party, contending that the Colorado secretary of state’s office and county clerks did not give them the legally required amount of time to gather signatures to get their candidates on the ballot. On August 12, district-court judge Robert McGahey ruled the party had ntil August 26 to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot — meaning the county clerks wouldn’t have enough time to print and mail ballots to voters for the September 10 election.

The confusion stems in part from House Bill 1303, a sweeping elections bill passed by Colorado Democrats this year (including Giron and Morse) that requires all mail-in elections. McGahey called that new law “flawed” in his decision, declaring that its deadlines conflict with deadlines specified in the state constitution.

Democrats have yet to spotlight a Coloradan who wanted to cast a ballot but could not. And there’s simply no evidence that Tuesday’s results were a fluke result from some minuscule group of voters.

Turnout for the 2010 Colorado State Senate election in the state’s third state-senate district, electing Angela Giron to a four-year term, was 45,140.

Turnout in Tuesday’s recall election was 34,556.

In other words, turnout for the recall was about 76 percent of the most recent “normal” Election Day turnout — when voters are coming out to vote in the governor’s race, the U.S. Senate race, House races, etc.

Turnout for the 2010 Colorado State Senate election in the state’s eleventh state-senate district, electing John Morse to a four-year term, was 28,712.

Turnout in Tuesday’s recall election was 17,485 — about 60 percent of the “normal” turnout.

That’s pretty good for a special election for one state-level district office in early September. For comparison, when a special U.S. House election was held in Chicago earlier this year, 81,819 votes were cast, which was 43 percent of the 2010 turnout.

Democrats like to throw around the figure of what percentage of registered voters voted, but turnout is always significantly below 100 percent. Colorado’s statewide turnout was 48.4 percent in 2010; in the much-hyped presidential year of 2012, it was 67 percent.

The claim of “voter suppression” has a clear subtext: It’s not our fault, the voters really love our positions. It’s probably easier to lie to the electorate if you begin by lying to yourself.

Tags: Colorado Recalls , David Axelrod , Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Still Raising PAC Money


Back in 2011, Politico noticed that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s pledge that she doesn’t take PAC money is meaningless, because her own PAC accepts donations from other PACs.

A Campaign Spot reader points out that her PAC still collects, and in fact seeks, PAC donations. Back in 2011, her spokesman claimed Wasserman Shultz had not had “any involvement with the PAC since becoming DNC chair.” I guess that’s changed, since she’s now hosting their fundraising breakfasts. The invite:

Notice that the invitation helpfully mentions she’s on the Appropriations Committee.

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , PACs

The Mystery of the Sequestration Signs at Miami Airport


From the Tuesday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Morning Jolt reader Dexter flew through Miami recently and encountered this sign:


For a short furlough of a covered employee, the law (5 U.S.C. 7513) gives a covered employee the following rights:

At least 30 calendar days advance written notice by the agency stating the specific reasons for the proposed action. (Typically, the reasons for the action would involve a lack of work or funds.) The 30 calendar day period begins upon an employee’s receipt of the written notice. Therefore, agencies should plan accordingly to allow time for mailing the notice when hand-delivery is not possible.

As you know, it has been 19 days since the sequestration was announced.

So either someone broke the law and furloughed Customs and Border Protection employees without thirty days notice, or this sign is pre-emptive. Of course, the sign is in past tense, “staffing has been reduced.”

Gee, what else happened at Miami airports last month?

“The lines were not going to get better, they were going to get worse, “said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, “and that prediction came true.” The congresswoman toured local airports Monday to witness the delays firsthand. She called the situation “unacceptable.”

While he toured the airport with Napolitano and U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, [Democratic Rep. Joe] Garcia noted that half of the 72 booths at the international-passenger checkpoint were unstaffed on Wednesday.

Giant delays, and signs blaming sequestration furloughs that haven’t taken effect yet, one month after the chair of the Democratic National Committee comes to tour and declare the situation unacceptable? What an amazingly convenient sequence of events.

UPDATE: For a comparison to elsewhere in the government, a reader familiar with the Department of Defense tells me, “First furlough notices for DoD are due this Thursday – so it will be another 30 days from then…late April.”

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Joe Garcia , Sequestration

Drone Coverage Reveals Our Partisan, Not Merely Biased, Media


The Morning Jolt for today is full of debate reaction, but also a longer look at a topic that got only a brief mention last night – our current policy of using drones and a presidential “kill list” of targeted terrorists:

Kill Lists, Drone Attacks – Debbie Doesn’t Pay Attention to Those Things

Over at Reason, they spotlight Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress and chair of the Democratic National Committee, appearing to have absolutely no idea about President Obama’s “kill list.”, an independent journalism outfit, snagged a quick interview with Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, at last week’s presidential debate.

The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change’s pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won’t bite. She’s obviously in the “spin room” to spin the debate in President Barack Obama’s favor and certainly isn’t going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out — due process be damned — the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she’s being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff.

“If you missed this in Headlines this weekend, or even if you glanced at it in Headlines but didn’t watch the clip, stop what you’re doing and watch now,” urges Allahpundit. “My assumption always with DWS is that she knows the truth but is happy to lie to any extent her party needs, which is why you and I know her as America’s most lifelike talking-points robot. Not this time, though. Her ignorance is palpably genuine; she reacts the way you’d expect her to react if this guy had asked her where the government got the thermite used to blow up the World Trade Center. Two things here. One: Needless to say, this is no boutique counterterrorism issue. She’s not being asked whether she knows how many people work for JSOC, for instance. She’s being asked about the president maintaining a list of people to be targeted for death by U.S. intelligence, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. A member of Congress, not to mention chairman of the DNC, should probably have an opinion on that, no?

Permit me to offer two of the greatest paragraphs Glenn Greenwald has ever written:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It’s almost inevitable to become cynical – even jaded – about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president’s abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

So do we on the Right have any hesitation about our current policy of drone strikes overseas? Don’t get me wrong, my sense is that every time some jihadist who wants to kill Americans encounters the business end of a Hellfire missile, it’s good news and it’s Miller time for the forces of justice and freedom.

But you figure that picking out which guy on the ground is the bad guy, and who’s within the blast range, is a really tough call. Is the jihadist du jour worth the risk to the civilians around him? What if there are kids around? How much blood does an Islamist terrorist have to have on his hands to make it worth killing some civilians in the process? Is there a formula for this?

So when you see a story like this

President Barack Obama told CNN last month that a target must meet “very tight and very strict standards,” and John Brennan, the president’s top counter-terrorism adviser, said in April that in “exceedingly rare” cases, civilians have been “accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes.”

In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report — titled “Living Under Drones” — offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

Some of that is probably predictable lefty anti-war carping, but not all of it. This is a topic that is extraordinarily controversial in the overseas press, but little noticed as a serious issue here in the United States. You might argue that this is evidence that our press is not ideologically biased so much as partisan biased; liberals outside the United States are outraged by this policy (and a few inside, but not many), but the American mainstream media isn’t interested in giving Obama’s decisions much scrutiny – can’t have the voters thinking the Munificent Sun-King Lightworker is killing innocent civilians on his watch.

Tags: Barack Obama , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC , John Bryson

Wasserman-Schultz: GOP Should Be ‘More Muted’ During Hurricane


DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz criticized the Republicans for attending parties in Tampa on Monday night, and declared that for the remaining nights of the convention, “certainly in the face of millions getting battered by a storm, they could have been less crass and been a little bit more muted.”

She did not comment on the propriety of doing a Reddit chat or holding campaign rallies “in the face of millions getting battered by a storm.”

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Republican National Convention

What Everyone Ought to Know About Swiss Bank Accounts


From the midweek edition of the Morning Jolt . . .

What You Ought to Know About Swiss Bank Accounts

With Mitt Romney’s old Swiss bank account the latest to be cast in the role of Emmanuel Goldstein by the Obama campaign and its allies — displacing ATMs, stay-at-home moms, and cynicism itself in the constantly shifting locus of evil in the modern world — I began to wonder how many people have Swiss bank accounts.

The only time most Americans encounter the term is at the movies, when the villainous mercenary inevitably says to his sinister employers, “yes, yes, I will make sure the bomb explodes/our target is assassinated/Mister Bond ends up in a water tank with sharks with lasers on their head& — but only after the money is wired into my Swiss bank account!” This line aims to show that in addition to being a dangerous, cold-blooded mass murderer, this villain is greedy, and not even a true believer in the evil cause. He isn’t even willing to offer a line of credit to the sinister employers. His focus on his payment for the dangerous work he’s about to do is persistently demonized by those charitable, selfless, low-paid Hollywood types; his villainy is demonstrated by his focus on money, unlike the noble, heroic Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark, who had the decency to inherit a billion dollars or so from their parents.

Judging from pop culture, the clientele hanging around the lobby of a Swiss bank looks like Batman’s rogues gallery. “Ah, Mr. Stromberg, can I interest you in some of our long-term CDs?”

In fact, I’m going to quote TV Tropes directly:

No self-respecting big-money criminal would stash his loot in anything but a legendarily secretive Swiss bank account. In the hands of particularly lazy thriller writers, merely possessing a Swiss bank account is proof positive that a person is up to no good.

In real life, the usefulness of these numbered accounts is limited, due to how hard it is to get one nowadays . . . The Swiss, well aware of their banks’ increasing reputation as havens for no-good-niks (not particularly helped by their willingness to stash Nazi Gold, though they were originally formed to help people hide money from the Gestapo), require numerous references and a general OK from the person’s country of origin.

Yeah, but it’s not like Obama hangs around particularly lazy thriller writers, the kind of people who would write up hackneyed, axe-grinding drivel like this . . .

The intrigue begins when the Republican White House nominates Carl Satcher, an old foe that protagonist Sen. Elizabeth Fischer Lind defeated for his Senate seat, to be secretary of homeland security. During confirmation hearings, Elizabeth tries to debate his extreme views on antiterrorism and draconian stance on civil liberties. Meanwhile, a story about the Linds’ private finances is leaked, offering much fodder for Republicans and the media. As the fight escalates, Elizabeth’s staff swings into crisis mode while FBI director Douglas Brewer suspects more ominous doings are afoot.

Wait, that’s from Sen. Barbara Boxer’s second thriller novel. Yes, she wrote two.

Anyway, I was wondering how many Americans have Swiss bank accounts, and Matt Welch of Reason is here to help:

Do you know who else once had a Swiss bank account? I mean, besides Hitler? Various U.S. military veterans, dual-national citizens who haven’t lived or worked in America for decades, and panicked retirees who are trying to cope with new tax rules imposed capriciously by a revenue-hungry Congress and president in 2010. Thousands of such Americans are getting bounced out of their existing Swiss accounts and denied new ones, even if they live and work in Geneva for one of the city’s many international non-governmental organizations.

You can read dozens of their testimonies in this April 2012 letter [PDF] to the Internal Revenue Service from American Citizens Abroad, including this story from an American retiree who has lived in Geneva (where he worked at the U.S. secretariat for the United Nations’ International Labor Office) for all but four years since 1973 . . .

The utterly fantastic article offers all kinds of actual facts — you know, the sort of thing journalists used to do, before they outsourced all of that stuff to the opposition research staff of the DNC — and is joyous in the way that it ritually disembowels the phony populism of the likes of Sen. Dick Durbin.

Remember at the top of this article when Dick Durbin criticized people who “believe the Swiss franc is stronger than the American dollar”? Well, it is. Ten years ago a greenback reliably got you more than 1.40 Swiss francs, but the dollar was down to 0.86 when the Swiss National Bank announced a currency peg to the Euro last September. Though that helped break the fall, the buck still hasn’t clawed its way back above the 1.00-franc mark since, and I would be comfortable wagering that another decade from now it will be closer to 0.50.

Is Dick Durbin protecting his million-dollar portfolio through a buy-American-only strategy? Hell no, he isn’t — why, just right there I can see such asset items as “ING Clarion Global Real Estate Income,” and “Matthews Asia Dividend Investor,” and “Morgan Stanley Emerging Markets Domestic.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Switzerland is an unusually stable country with an unusually sound fiscal track record and an unusually strong banking sector. I would be shocked if any $100 million American didn’t have at least some stake in a country that has long been one of the largest foreign investors in the United States.

Elsewhere, Daniel Halper points out that at the DNC, real Americans invest in the state bank of India.

“Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?” the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama’s reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. “Just something, a thought, that I’d like to leave folks with.”

It’s been a consistent theme of Obama’s reelection strategy: Attack Romney for foreign investments he held, especially in Swiss bank accounts, “to try to promote his wealthy, out-of-touch businessman persona.”

But disclosure forms reveal that in 2010, Wasserman Schultz invested between $1,001-$15,000 in a 401k retirement fund run by Davis Financial Fund. As the fund discloses, it is invested in the Julius Baer Group Ltd. and the State Bank of India GDR Ltd., as well as other financial, insurance, bank institutions.

Why does a DNC Chair need to invest in the state bank of India like that?

I’ll let Jedediah Bila sum up: “It’s hilarious to watch the ‘Fast and Furious’ Administration shout for transparency over Romney’s bank accounts.”

Tags: Barack Obama , Barbara Boxer , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Mitt Romney

Castro’s Daughter: ‘I Would Vote for Barack Obama.’


The decision by the Obama administration to issue a visa to Mariela Castro, Raul Castro’s daughter, is sufficiently bad politics in Florida to get DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as well as Democratic Florida senator Bill Nelson, denouncing it:

Did the Bush administration do the same a decade ago? Sure, but she wasn’t nearly as appreciative and enthusiastic in her gratitude:

Fidel Castro’s niece on Wednesday hailed Barack Obama’s support for gay marriage and the loosening of US-Cuba travel restrictions, saying: “I would vote for President Obama.”

Why do I foresee “Soy Mitt Romney y apruebo este mensaje” on Miami television and radio stations in the near future?

Tags: Barack Obama , Bill Nelson , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Florida

DNC: We Haven’t Been Using the Term ‘War on Women,’ Really!


This is a pretty amazing comment in an article by Dave Weigel over at Slate:

In her fateful CNN appearance, right before she evaluated Ann Romney’s economics cred, Hilary Rosen begged the media to “just get rid of this word, ‘war on women.’ After all, “the Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it — this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using.”

On Thursday, as the Rosen saga unfolded, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse echoed her plea for peace. “I’m not a fan of the term,” he said in an interview. “I mean, I’m sure I’ve probably used it. We all fall into these easy vernaculars . . . but we in the DNC have not been running a campaign based on the term ‘war on Women.’ That’s a myth cooked up by Republicans.”

Besides all the use of the term “war on women” by members of the House and Senate on the floor of their chambers . . . besides all the times DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the term . . . Well, if Woodhouse really objects to the term, maybe he should talk to his friends at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who are selling “Stop the Republican War on Women” car magnets, coffee mugs, t-shirts, posters . . .

Tags: DCCC , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC

DNC’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stars in New RNC Web Ad


New DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz almost makes the RNC’s job too easy:


A slogan we’re likely to see a lot of between now and 2012: “They’ll say anything to save their own jobs… but what have they done to save yours?”

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC , RNC

The New DNC Chair: Selected, Not Elected


The Democrats pat themselves on the back for a low bar:

If [Florida congresswoman and nominated DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] wins the election, she will become the first woman elected by the full membership to serve as chair. There have been two other women who have served as Chair of the DNC but one was on an interim basis and one was appointed but never stood for election.

Er, she’s been named as the new chair by President Obama, and no one is running against her. How is this a genuine “election”?

Oh, that’s right, that’s how the president won his first office.

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , DNC

I’m Not Sure How to Measure the Gender Gap in This Race


I don’t want to hear any more talk that the Republican party isn’t a big tent:

Donna Milo — a Cuban-American, conservative Republican, transgender woman running for Congress — says she doesn’t like labels. “I’m an American. I make my way on the basis of ability. My triumphs are based on my abilities, not on a label or a crutch,” said Milo, a Miami Planning Advisory Board member running to replace U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston, one of the House’s most liberal Democrats.

We know Wasserman Schultz is for Obamacare and higher taxes, and so it’s time this South Florida district elected the right m…. w…  person for the job!

Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Donna Milo

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review