The DNC Chair: A Gift

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is either A. off her rocker or B. in the process of falling off of her rocker?  I just happened to scan over the news and saw this story.  In a discussion about "who is to blame" for the Giffords shooting (yes, they are still trying to assign blame elsewhere even though they know who did it and why).  So, she is trying to re-ignite the hypocritical "tone" debate from a year ago.  If you wonder why this person should even matter to you, some knuckleheads thought it would be good to appoint her as head of the DNC (Democrat National Committee).  This means she is essentially the mouthpiece for the Democratic party.  To be blunt, she is a gift to her opposition.  Her recent statement in relation to the Giffords shooting regarding the Tea Party:

"The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I'll tell you.  I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement."

 Remember the "civility" debate?  Somehow, speech is responsible for someone's actions.  This is a very slippery slope to go down.  But, that's not why I think she is ridiculous for saying something like this.  Here is why I think she is ridiculous:

All of the below quotes were straight from Wasserman Schultz.

"Some seniors will end up dying because they are forced to put off getting that pain checked out due to huge out-of-pocket costs that will skyrocket for them.  … This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors."

 Death trap sounds like pretty un-civil speech.

"Aren't we at the point where the closer we get to chaos, the more concern that there should be about coming to the table and compromising with Democrats? This is not leadership. This is almost like dictatorship."

 Dictatorships aren't all that civil, either.

"Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House right now seems to have been strangled by the tea party."

 That's pretty violent speech, there.  I think the sales of garrotes skyrocketed after that comment.

"We do not need to end Medicare. We don't need to throw people who are younger than 55 years old to the wolves which is what we do."

 Call me silly, but being torn apart by wild animals sounds pretty horrific to me.

The thing is that I completely disagree with her.  My posting her quotes is not about me saying, "yes, I agree and look you did it too."  My point is that she is a hypocrite.  I think that hyperbole and exaggeration are nothing more than speech.  Speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, remember.  Absolutely, words mean things.  Yes, you can say stupid things and people will view you as a fool.  Yes, you can lie and will be seen as a liar.  Yes, you can say irresponsible things and be seen as irresponsible.  In Ms. Wasserman Schultz's case you can say something hypocritical and be seen as a hypocrite.  None of that makes you complicit in someone's act as a raving lunatic. 

With all of that said, the sad thing is that the whole premise of her quote is flawed.  I'm not a member of the Tea Party by any means, but what exactly is she talking about?  To quote another person "Show me the money!"  Where is the quote(s) from the Tea Party with the "lack of civility?"  Not once did I see anyone in the news provide proof that the Tea Party organization said or did anything inciteful.  If they did, you would have heard about it, trust me.  If you hear this much about what people like this think they MIGHT be saying, imagine if the party had actually said it.

Why does all of this even matter?  Just log this into your little memory box.  You'll be hearing more from her with this year being an election cycle.