LOS ANGELES, September 6, 2014 — Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz offered up another example of why DNC stands for the Downright Nasty Committee. With Democrats headed for an electoral bloodbath in November, Debbie Downer is turning into Debbie Desperate, or possibly Debbie Deranged. This is not a liberal thing or a conservative thing, but a crazy thing.
The Florida congresswoman, speaking at a roundtable event in Milwaukee said:
Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality … 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.
(comments at 14.25)
Violence against women is wrong, but Walker has never been accused of violence against any woman. Wasserman-Schultz is tarring him with a metaphor that has real power and meaning for women who have been abused. She is reducing a crime to a political cliche. What she is doing looks and smells like partisan, left-wing hate.
Walker is a conservative Republican. He is also a devout evangelical Christian who takes care of his family and practices the threatening religious tenet of love thy neighbor. These beliefs make Walker a “tea party extremist” for some. They also open him up to every bigoted slur Wasserman-Schultz cares to throw at him.
Wasserman-Schultz has apologized for her remarks, but that does not excuse them. Liberals like her have a habit of accusing conservatives of being racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes. And they never stop bashing conservatives, even after the apology. If Mitt Romney chose to run for president in 2016 they would starting slinging binders at him before he could hold his first press conference.
Given how absurd her comments were, an equally absurd explanation might be warranted. Women most likely find Scott Walker attractive. Maybe Wasserman Schultz is having fantasies about Scott Walker.
Perhaps she is an uptight woman attracted to a man she considers a he-man. She would not be the first Jewish person to lust after forbidden fruit.
Since Democrats like to dance around the grey, even when the issue is clearly black or white, maybe she simply spent the 2014 recess reading “50 Shades of Grey”; the story’s erotic theme is coloring her thoughts. Since Wasserman-Schultz never explicitly stated how Walker was supposedly hitting women, it could have been an erotic, masochistic assault or a playful tap to the bottom.
For liberals, it is out of bounds to invoke sexual stereotypes when discussing the behavior of women. So should a theory about Debbie Wasserman’s sexuality be dismissed outright? Why? She is human, just like Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer and Bob Filner. They all engaged in bad behavior, which was discussed — and discussed.
Was Wasserman-Schultz implying that Walker was a violent abuser like Filner, or your garden variety pervert like Weiner and Spitzer? A man who made a baseless insinuation about a woman’s character on the basis of crude sexual stereotypes would find his career shredded. Should Wasserman-Schultz be treated any differently due to her gender? Would that not be sexist? Anti-Feminist?
Scott Walker is a dignified man who speaks in a calm voice and did not deserve to be categorized as an abuser. He has never displayed a trace of violent behavior. On the other hand, Wasserman-Schultz has a history of angry histrionics. Her hands gesticulate wildly, she grits her teeth, she seethes until she explodes.
Is this violent behavior pure political passion, or is it sexual repression unleashed? We simply cannot know. Unless Wasserman-Schultz clarifies her remarks, we’re left to speculate about what lusty thoughts are going on underneath her 50 shades of ‘grey’ hair dyed blonde.
It’s fun to speculate about the dark recesses of her mind, but this kind of speculation deserves, like the crude slurs of Wasserman-Schultz, to be banished to the darkest parts of Crackpotistan. It is no less the love child of lunacy than her comments about Walker.
The reality may be simply that Wasserman-Schultz is simply repulsive, and repulsive people say and do repulsive things. She is like Kate from “Taming of the Shrew,” only much less pleasant.
As for Walker, he will not play her Petrucchio; he is married to a nice Christian woman who treats people of all stripes with respect. They have children who are well-mannered and polite. First lady Tonette Walker said that Wasserman-Schultz said “horrific things” about Walker while “belittling victims of domestic violence.”
“We can’t allow this type of offensive rhetoric from Mary Burke’s allies to continue,” Tonette Walker said.
Maybe this is not about sex, violence, or gender. Maybe it is just an issue of decency.
Maybe Debbie Wasserman, who acts like she knows everything, simply has no shame. That might explain the hostility and hysterical ranting. Whatever the reasons for her latest rantings — whether repressed sexual desires, projected violent fantasies, or cold political calculation — they were totally inappropriate statements from a woman who keeps saying totally inappropriate things.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a most indecent woman. There are no shades of grey in that.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.