Ethics Dunce: Rep. Debby Wasserman-Schultz

Honestly, if you had told me that the Democrats could find someone to chair their national organization who was as big a buffoon, hypocrite and embarrassment as Michael Steele, I would have said that it was impossible. And then along came Debby...

On “Meet the Press,” the Democratic National Committee Chair. Rep. Debby Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), reacted indignantly to the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke incident, saying in part,

“…And the bottom line is that 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… Rush Limbaugh, in that apology, said that he was trying to be humorous. I don’t know any woman in America, David, that thinks that being called a slut is funny.”

By Wasserman-Schultz’s own conduct, however, we may apparently conclude that she thinks it is funny when a woman is called a “dumb twat” and a “cunt,” both of which vulgarities were directed at Republican women by HBO’s Bill Maher. After all, Wasserman-Schultz happily appeared as a guest on Maher’s show afterwards, and laughed along with him and his partisan audience as he skewered the Right. Did Wasserman-Schultz crticize Maher when he engaged in his misogyny? Did she call upon Democrats to condemn his words, on behalf of fairness, civility, respect and seeking to keep hate out of political discourse?

Of course not, because she, the official head of the Democratic Party, only objects to incivility, misogyny and hate when it is directed at political allies. 2011 began with Democrats claiming that hateful rhetoric from Republicans led a madman to shoot Rep. Giffords; 2012 began with Rep. Maxine Waters announcing that the leaders of the Republican Party were “demons” as a follow-up to her declaring that the Tea Party should “go straight to Hell.” There was not a word of criticism from Wasserman-Schultz regarding that, nor, presumably, anything but smiles in her committee when she learned that twat-talker Maher had given a million dollars to the President’s super-pac.

When I wrote about Maher’s initial slur against Sarah Palin (later he added Michele Bachmann to his victims list), I noted..

“I must have missed the press release condemning Maher from the National Organization of Women…have you read it or heard it? Where is it? If these and other so-called progressives possess any integrity—forget about decency— I would expect to see Maher’s post-twat invitations to appear on his show rejected. If they are not rejected, that will tell me everything I need to know. Indeed, no respectable journalist or politician or celebrity should be willing to enhance Maher’s show unless he makes a credible apology, not just to Palin ( forget about most of Maher’s audience, which appears to be as unencumbered by ethics as he is) but woman generally. If he thinks it is OK to call Sarah Palin a dumb twat, then the only thing stopping him from calling Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton or my sister or your mother a twat is that he likes her or doesn’t know her. This is anti-woman rhetoric, no question about it…. The question is, will the feminists let him get away with it?…If the dedication of progressives to civility and their rejection of misogyny and hate are suspended for Sarah Palin, they have no integrity. Bill Maher needs to be held accountable. Until he is, any guest, from any part of the political spectrum, who agrees to discuss politics with a man who calls women..or any women– twats on HBO is enabling hate and incivility.

“From now on, I’m taking names.

I’m a little behind on my name-taking, but I know that Wasserman-Schultz is on the list. She is and has been as great an embarrassment to Democrats as the GOP’s previous chair, Michale Steele, was to Republicans. Rush Limbaugh’s vicious attack on Sandra Fluke deserves all the criticism it receives, but Wasserman-Schultz is estopped from offering hers. She has made it clear that she approves of the tactic of denigrating women based on their gender. She just believes that only progressive hate-mongers and contributors to the President’s re-election should be allowed to use it.

17 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Rep. Debby Wasserman-Schultz

  1. I’ll give Wasserman-Schultz credit for one thing: whenever she delivers a whopper, she’s usually got a look on her face that betrays a “Gee – I wonder if I’m gonna get away with THAT one!” awareness.

    Contrast that to Nancy Pelosi, who’s so poker-faced when she lies that one might even suspect she believes it. Which leaves one to wonder: is the lady merely crooked, or is she delusional?

  2. Which, of course, doesn’t rule out
    A) Crooked
    B) Delusional
    C) So botoxed that facial expressions are nearly impossible
    D) All of the above

  3. Jack, I was wondering, though, if you make any distinction about the fact that Limbaugh’s comments were aimed at a private citizen — who, yes, was making a public testimony — while Maher’s comments were directed at very public political people. Make no mistake — I agree with you that Maher was wrong to make such incredibly crude and crass statements about anyone, regardless of public or private. But it just seems to me that there is a mild distinction to be made here. Also, while I would personally resent either statement (Limbaugh’s or Maher’s), IMNSHO, Maher’s statements were just filthy name-calling, while Limbaugh’s statement implied activity and behavior to Ms. Fluke. Again, both of these commentators disgust me with these kinds of stupid, degrading, puerile, attention-getting words. And I would object, as well, if they used the equivalent words about men — maybe they have done. Either way it’s wrong, and I feel that we perpetuate something else when we are incensed about name-calling and other horrendous statements against women but figure that men ought to just suck it up, just because, by God, they’re men! It’s still wrong, but that’s another issue.

    • Ah-HA!!!!!! You didn’t read Rush post #1, in which I wrote…

      “Yes, Maher’s words were uglier than Limbaugh’s, as El Rushbo only referred to Fluke as a “slut” and “round-heeled.” Sarah Palin, however, is a public figure. It is unfair and repulsive to insult her purely on the basis of her gender, but at least she is fair game to a political comedian like Maher. Fluke is a private citizen and student, properly participating in our system by testifying before Congress. For the nation’s highest-rated radio personality to attack her character and dignity in such personal and vile terms goes beyond unfair and cruel to outright bullying. It also smacks of intimidation,and an attempt to discourage political speech. Rush should have no defenders, None.”

      I think that addresses your point, yes? The fact that Rush’s conduct was worse, however, doesn’t justify Wasserman-Schultz’s double standard and hypocrisy.

      • Actually, I did read Rush post #1 and was surprised that you didn’t mention those points here. And, yes, Wasserman-Schultz’s double standard and hypocrisy are unjustifiable anyway. Just wanted to be sure!

        • Well, how are were those comments relevant? Wasserman-Schultz, hypocritical feminist that she is, focused on the words used and “women” as the targets, not students and private citizens. If we’re talking words, Maher’s were far worse and more hateful…they are pure denigration. And by Debbie’s own statement, the victims are the same—women. She just doesn’t care as long as they are Republican women.

      • Yes, Palin is a public figure, but her children are not. Some of the things directed at her children were absolutely disgusting. Where was the outcry? But two wrongs don’t make a right so there is still negative for negative. As far as Rush is concerned, he said he was sorry for his choice of words, but what he is really saying is that a slut by any other name is still a slut. Sorry, but I am disgusted with this whole affair. The Bishops had it coming. They supported Obamacare every step of the way and now they are screaming to high heaven because it hits them. In my opinion it is now purely political. Obama wants to appear the champion of women’s health in order to get re-elected. I find it so ironic than he wants to make sure women get their contraceptives free with no co-pay, but at the same time he wants the military and veterans to pay more for health benefits and is cutting some of their services. I give up! Everything about it stinks.

  4. “And I would object, as well, if they used the equivalent words about men — maybe they have done.”

    Patrice, I have heard Limbaugh use a term, which I believe is one of his originals – “new castrati” – that is at least a double-edged (if not pointed-at-both-ends) sword. I have heard him use that term in contexts that have caused me to take umbrage. I don’t take umbrage very often, even when (especially when) it’s personal. The male-bashing in that term is obvious.

  5. Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke
    Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 amFor me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

    In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.

    While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

    • Yes, Dorothy, but so what? The fact that she’s an activist and 30 still doesn’t make her 1.) a slut 2) someone who is fair game to be called sex-obsessed and “round-heeled” by a national talk radio icon. I don’t see that it’s relevant at all.

  6. She absolutey should not have been called a ‘slut’ or “sex-obsessed” by anyone. The point I was trying to make is we were all being “played.” I personally resent it. I thought her comments to the lawmakers were weird. I couldn’t and can’t figure out why everyone is expected to pay for contraception. For years and years women paid for their own. Right now, after reading about her history, it simply makes more sense since she planned it over a long period of time.

    • All true. Rush, like everyone else, should have focused on the reasoning behind her arguments. I think the argument that free contraception is a right is bizarre to say the least, and is, or should, be, easy for anyone with a modicum of common sense to refute. She’s nobody—she made a flawed argument; refute it respectfully. Attacking her just distorts the issue and gives her position support it can’t earn on its own.

  7. Good post, Jack. I’m embarrassed that I didn’t think to call out Wasserman-Schultz in my latest. She’s especially blameworthy because she’s in a position to raise the level of discourse. She missed a slam.dunk opportunity to make a difference. Sad.

    • You said it. (I actually saw your post on this topic while I was writing mine—you beat me.) Wasserman-Schultz is just awful. I don’t know why the parties keep choosing such people as their official voice, but it’s irresponsible.

      • I feel like I’ve been played, just like Dorothy said. Too bad, Ms Fluke was called a bad name, but people like Wasserman-Shultz, who I think is rather attractive, just can’t take it when it happens to one of their own. You always do a good job, Jack, presenting the facts. I may not always agree with what you say, but it is your blog.

  8. I’d just say, Jack, that you could probably start a new Ethics Monsters website and pretty well dedicate it to Schultzie. But be careful with those “botox” remarks. They’ve come to be considered sexist in liberal circles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.