Tag Archives: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

RNC boss seeks dictator status


I feel the need to revisit briefly an idiotic notion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

He’s issued a warning to former GOP presidential candidates that they might “face consequences” if they seek the presidency in the future if they continue to refuse to back this year’s nominee, Donald J. Trump.

My question simply is this: Who in the hell does Priebus think he is?


Priebus said potential future candidates such as, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might find some insurmountable obstacles if they seek the party nomination in 2020.

Wait a second! Didn’t former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz face the scorn of her partisans for allegedly rigging the party nomination to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Priebus now insists that the former GOP presidential candidates line up behind Trump … or else face the consequences.

That is a ridiculous and gratuitously ham-handed approach to pre-determining who the party’s next nominee ought to be.

The GOP presidential field signed a pledge to support whoever the party nominated for president. The pledge, though, isn’t legally binding. It’s not even politically binding, given that neither major party has a rule requiring blind loyalty.

Chairman Priebus is exhibiting delusions of grandeur if he thinks he can hand out “consequences” for future candidates who don’t abide by his wishes.

Schultz gets tossed; the recriminations continue

dem chair

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has violated one of the fundamental tents of running a major political party.

You’re supposed to be neutral while your party seeks to nominate candidates for high office.

She wasn’t. Schultz, as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has the bad taste to say negative things about Bernie Sanders as he battled Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.

What’s been the impact of that revelation as Democrats have convened their gathering in Philadelphia? It has energized the Sanders supporters. They’ve been booing any mention of Clinton’s name. Even their guy — Bernie himself — has been booed and jeered for encouraging his delegates to rally behind Clinton … as he has done himself.

Then came the amazing mea culpa from the DNC. It has apologized publicly to Sanders, effectively tossing Schultz under the proverbial bus.

She has earned the hoots and jeers she is getting at this convention. Schultz this morning got the bum’s rush from her own home-state delegates in Florida.

Did she rig the primary campaign, greasing it for her friend Clinton? It is beginning to feel that way.

Schultz, though, is gone. Her resignation from the chairmanship is effective at the end of the convention. The reality, though, is that she’s done.

The task for Clinton’s team — and for Sanders — is to bring the delegates together. We’ll see if Schultz’s resignation and the apology from the DNC will be enough to calm the storm.

‘Damn e-mails’ plaguing Clinton once more


Do you remember when Sen. Bernie Sanders told Hillary Clinton he was “tired of hearing about those damn e-mails”?

He said so during a Democratic Party primary debate. It drew big laughs and applause as he sought to put to rest  the hubbub over Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.

Well, it turns out that “damn e-mails” of quite another variety are rising up to nip at Clinton as she prepares to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee.

This time they involve Sanders himself. They also involve communication from lame-duck Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who apparently really and truly didn’t want Sanders to be nominated by her party.

The e-mails appear to paint a picture of a conspiracy to deny Sanders the nomination. Schultz, after all, is a good friend of Clinton. So, she wanted her pal nominated, as the e-mails suggest.

The chairwoman has tendered her resignation. She won’t gavel the convention open this evening. She’s going to be keeping the lowest of profiles possible for the next four days.

That’s probably a good thing.

But oh brother, the chatter has begun about the “rigged system” that’s going to nominate Clinton. The chatterer in chief is none other than Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who had his own political rigging to deal with as he sought his party’s nomination.

I’m not going to take the Hillary-colluded-with-Debbie bait. No one has offered any proof that the Clinton campaign was party to what Schultz sought to do, which allegedly was to use skullduggery to deny Sanders the nomination.

Still, Clinton’s got another e-mail matter she must clear up.

I don’t know how she does that. She’s pretty damn smart. My advice to her is to get busy and find a way to get this mess cleaned up.

Party ‘disunity’ surfaces … within the Democrats!

dem chair

It appears that party unity is as elusive a commodity among Democrats as it is among Republicans.

Just as the Democratic Party is set to convene its presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia, the party chair — Debbie Wasserman Schultz — submitted her resignation effective at the end of the convention.

Eh? What? You mean … ?

Schultz, it turned out, doesn’t think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief primary foe, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some e-mails got leaked in which she refers to Sanders as an “ASS” and not a real Democrat.

As they say … oops!


Will this blow over? I reckon so — to the extent that Republicans led by GOP nominee Donald J. Trump will allow it.

I’m quite sure Trump and his followers will take to social media to let us all know about the “rigged” system that allowed Clinton to be nominated this week for president. They’ll remind us that Sanders got the shaft. They will possibly concoct conspiracies where none exist.

Party chairs don’t usually resign on the eve of these big events. Thus, the timing of Schultz’s resignation all by itself makes it a big story.

It was so interesting to me that during his acceptance speech the other night, Trump took a few moments to extol the virtues of part of Sanders’s message, the part about income inequality and Wall Street influence.

So, in that moment, “the enemy of my enemy” became “my friend,” in Trump’s view.

Donna Brazile will take over the party chairmanship; she’ll have to give up her gig as a CNN “contributor.” But, as a one-time Republican operative who “contributes” to ABC News, Matthew Dowd, noted this morning, Republicans might rue the day they wished for Schultz’s resignation. Brazile will take charge — immediately! — and will reorganize the party apparatus quickly.

In the meantime, the hunt for “party unity” will continue. So, you see, Democrats and Republicans have something in common after all.

Hey, Hillary … take a look at what these guys are saying


Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the inevitable Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It’s not a done deal just yet, given Sen. Bernie Sanders’s big wins this weekend in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. Clinton, though, still has the big lead in delegates and the primary campaign is heading into more Clinton-friendly territory.

But here’s the thing, according to Bill Moyers (yes, that Bill Moyers) and Michael Winship: She remains captive to the big-money interests that are poisoning the political system. It’s time for Clinton to stand up, spit into her palms and then do what she needs to do, they say, which is call for the immediate resignation of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

They ask a valid question: Is she the candidate of the past or of the future?

If it’s the latter, then she needs to demonstrate it. Forcefully.

These two figures — Emmanuel and Schultz — represent what’s wrong with the Democratic Party, say Moyers and Winship.

Emmanuel’s tenure as mayor has been rocked by controversy. The shooting death of an African-American teenager, Laquan McDonald, went unreported for months. Laquan was shot to death by Chicago police while he was strolling down the street. He presented no weapon; his hands were in the air. A cop shot him multiple times dead in the street.

Emmanuel then took responsibility for the shooting, given that he’s the mayor and the chief of police answers to him.

But before he became mayor he was a three-term Illinois congressman and White House chief of staff for President Obama. He is soaked in corporate money. Emmanuel, Moyers and Winship write, “chaired the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (calling on his Wall Street sources to get in on the gravy by electing so-called New Democrats over New Deal Democrats), and soon was back in the White House as Obama’s chief of staff. There, he infamously told a strategy meeting of liberal groups and administration types that the liberals were ‘retarded’ for planning to run attack ads against conservative Democrats resisting Obamacare. Classy.”

He’s a longtime ally of Hillary and Bill Clinton, which is why he continues to loom so large on the Democratic Party landscape.

Schultz is just as tainted by money, say Moyers and Winship, who write that “she embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence.”

Of the two essayists, Moyers — of course — is the better known. He’s an East Texan who came to prominence during the Lyndon Johnson administration, where he served his fellow Texan as White House press secretary. He then went on to become a fixture on public television.

The Sanders campaign has lit a fire all by itself with the candidate’s call for reform of the political financing system. His sole aim is to finance presidential campaigns solely with public funds, while seeking to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that unleashes corporate donors.

Moyers and Winship make the case fairly persuasively that Hillary Clinton is too wedded to the deep-pocketed donor class that they say has corrupted the political system.

She well might want to consider seriously what these men are suggesting, which is to cut her ties to the past and demonstrate that she’s the Democratic Party’s best hope for the future.


Can politics intrude on a politician’s day job?

DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-FL, speaks at the Democratic National Committee's Womens Leadership Forum Issues Conference in Washington, DC on September 19, 2014. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN        (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

I’ve long wondered something about full-time politicians who take on jobs outside of the job they were elected to do.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Well, she’s my latest example.

Schultz is a Democratic member of Congress who represents southern Florida. She also is chair of the Democratic National Committee.

She’s certainly not the first full-time pol to assume duties unrelated to her congressional work. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole once represented Kansas while serving as chair of the Republican National Committee. Interestingly, he resigned his Senate seat when the GOP nominated him to run for president in 1996; he said he couldn’t do both things at the same time, so he decided to set aside his Senate duties.

Schultz doesn’t do that. No, she runs the Democratic Party while serving her constituents in south Florida.

How well does she do either job, or both?

This issue of running for a higher office while holding down an elected job already has come up during the 2016 presidential campaign. GOP contender Marco Rubio has been criticized for missing many Senate votes while stumping for his party’s nomination. New Jersey Democrats made noise about seeking Gov. Chris Christie’s ouster after Christie declared he wanted to be the Republican nominee this year.

Other members of Congress are seeking the presidency this year. To my knowledge there’s been little said about how well they’re doing their current job while they seek to be elected to another one.

Schultz was re-elected in 2014 by a wide margin, so I guess her constituents think she’s doing all right.

It’s fair to wonder though: How does she deal with purely local issues? How much attention do her constituents get from her — or her staff — when they have concerns about their Social Security or military pension checks?

Schultz has a big job running a major political party. She also has a big job representing her constituents on Capitol Hill; the latter job also pays her $175,000 annually, plus all the ancillary perks she and her colleagues get while serving in Congress.

I occasionally wonder whether politicians who hold down full-time government jobs can do those jobs adequately when other matters divert their attention from the duties they were elected to perform.