This interview from today on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer makes it pretty obvious that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is resorting to the bottom-of-the-barrel politics we’ve called out before. This time, she’s deliberately misleading seniors, apparently hoping that (a) they’re all as batty as the movies say they are, or (b) the batteries on their hearing aids give out before she looks ridiculous. More under the fold…
If you haven’t heard, Republican VP candidate Ryan’s budget plan from two years ago makes some pretty sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Then again, if you haven’t heard that, you probably aren’t reading this.
Wolfy B: Isn’t it a simple factual matter that the Ryan plan makes no cuts to the benefits of those 55 and older?DWS: “No.” (That one word is a direct quote.) Then she has some long explanations that seem to explain, well… other words… words that she didn’t say. They particularly don’t explain the unequivocal “no” in response to a factual question.Wolfy B: Uh… I’m pretty sure what I said before is a fact. The Ryan plan just doesn’t cut benefits for those 55 and older.DWS: “It certainly does.” (Again, a direct quote.) More explanation… to questions not posed.
Etc., etc., etc.
By the end of the clip, it seems fairly obvious that she can’t back up the claim.
Here’s the interview:
There are plenty of ways to attack the Ryan plan. It may represent a fundamental change in the relationship between the people and their government, and that certainly bears consideration. But this is just smoke and mirrors… and not terribly effective smoke or mirrors, either. We’re hard-pressed to imagine any open-minded people watching this interview and not coming out with a low opinion of Mrs. Wasserman-Schultz. Seriously, how is this anything but a blatant attempt to mislead the public, and particularly seniors.
And, again, she was appointed to her position as a leader of the Democratic Party by a supposedly post-partisan President. That’s just Orwellian.
To be fair, the clip does cut off in the middle of the conversation, so the Democratic Chair may have said something more sensible later. It shouldn’t have taken her that long, though.
What do you think?