SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

Nancy Smith

DWS Stands for 'Debbie's Worn out Her Schtick'

September 3, 2015 - 8:00am

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, famous for making public gaffes her party pretends it doesn't notice, might be in real Democratic doo-doo this time. Washington insiders say the National Committee chair has incurred the wrath of the party's two most powerful people, President Barack Obama and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Word is, Obama wanted to fire DWS for years over a string of transgressions that embarrassed the party. In the latest, for example,  she couldn’t give an answer when asked on national television what was the difference between a Democrat and a socialist. But Obama stopped short of using the hook because of the Florida congresswoman's "special relationship" with the Clintons, especially Hillary. On top of that, political observers say, she "threatened to retaliate by publicly accusing him of being anti-woman and anti-Semitic."

But now she might have crossed the line Obama wraps around her neck like a noose: She failed to support the Iran deal.

It's the talk of the town. And the press has picked up on it.

Said The New York Daily News on Sunday, "Numerous Democratic Party voices are now claiming that (Wasserman) Schultz killed a resolution which would have expressed party solidarity for Obama’s non-nuclear deal with Iran. With most Democrats in Congress planning to vote for it, that puts the DNC chair directly at odds with not only her president, but also the majority of her own party."

Jonathan Martin of The New York Times told a CNN audience of millions Sunday morning, "The Obama-controlled DNC could not pass a resolution this weekend expressing support for President Obama’s Iran deal. It’s a bit of an embarrassment for the administration seeing as how it’s his party, he appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and it’s revived the sort-of latest round of eye-rolling among Democratic operatives about the state of the party.”

And Esquire magazine published a column Monday calling for her head. Charles P. Pierce wrote, "If DWS wants to oppose the Iran deal in her capacity as an otherwise insignificant member of the House minority, that's fine with me. But if, as it appears, as national chairman of the president's party, she actively campaigned against a measure designed to show the support of the president's party for a monumentally important White House policy initiative, then she should have been fired from that post yesterday."

As if the Iran deal isn't enough, she may have lost her Hillary Clinton safety net, too.

The Daily Kos reports that various low-polling Democratic Party presidential candidates have accused DWS of rigging the primary by staging only six debates. The implication is that front-runner Hillary Clinton wants it that way. But on Sunday the newspaper suggested Clinton actually wants more debates, not fewer, "suggesting DWS may be carrying out an agenda of her own that’s fully divorced from what any of the party leaders want."

Oh, yes, and in case the president doesn't get around to firing DWS all by himself, a petition is circulating on the internet to convince him. It's a long way from its goal of 100,000 signatures, but since Aug. 18, 7,448 people have signed up.

Finally, the socialist  Daily Kos has printed "An Open Letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dictator of the Democratic National Committee." Nothing fancy, mind you, just straight talk: "In a year when the Democrats should have easily trounced the Republicans, retained the White House, and taken back the Senate and possibly the House, you have divided the party and are flushing both it and the country down the toilet. You are a joke, and we will all have to suffer because of you." 

This time Debbie Wasserman Schultz's defenders are conspicuous by their absence.

Buzz increases that fiery political commentator and former governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm already has been chosen to succeed her as DNC chair. Certainly more than one Washington insider is betting DWS won't go past Christmastime. 

In all fairness -- same as Allison Tant in the state Democratic Party -- you have to ask yourself what's taken the Democrats so long to get to this point.


Reach Nancy Smith at or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith







Gee, after all this SSN demonizing, imagine my SSN indoctrinated surprise to find this simple Debbie Wasserman Schultz statement in an actual news source: "I’ll be casting my vote to support the (IRAN) deal and if necessary sustain the president’s veto" . . ."There’s nothing more important to me as a Jew than to ensure that Israel’s existence is there throughout the generations,” adding “There is no way that we would be able to ensure that better than approving this deal.” . . . . . . . . and then that was followed by former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsing the agreement as well . . . . . . . . gee, the actual inconvenient truths one can learn by actually reading something besides SSN . . . . . . . . . PATHETIC . . .

Try this for an explanation: Socialism means the state controls the means of production (read Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' - especially the preface) and the Democratic Party is concerned with positive liberalism - removing obstacles to individual freedom such as disability, institutionalized poverty, racism, sexism, and discrimination in employment and housing (NOT the nationalization of industry or centralized planning). This is not to say Democrats are not concerned about negative liberalism as well - the 'original' meaning of liberalism was opposition to the monarchy and totalitarianism, but the Republican party has chosen to make that issue - the overreach of government - one of its main banners. In truth, both parties are concerned with the freedom of individuals, but their emphasis is different. Democrats are likely to come down harder on 'executive overreach' such a police brutality and Republicans save their ire for what they see as over-regulation. It's a matter of whose ox is gored, the poor and downtrodden or big business. The shame of what currently passes for political discourse is that there is validity on both sides but little effort is made to find common ground and solve actual problems.

Never liked the politics of DWS. Never liked them at all. Figured she was one more Broward County resident drinking the water laced with toxic levels of mercury. There could be no other explanation for the behavior of the residents of that communist enclave. But I have never met her. Ain't personal. And now I find that she has more balls than John Kerry and in a sneaking sort of way I - if not like her - do have some new found respect for her.

Does anyone opposing the JCPOA have a better realistic strategy? If so, I've not seen one.

Loved this article, Nancy. Point by point it hits the mark! Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is, after all, a Jew. How could she be expected to vote for anything that is designed to destroy Israel? I am no fan of her's, but I admire the guts it took for her to take this stand. Heretofore, I thought she didn't have an ethical bone in her body. Finally--there is something she cares about enough to stand up for truth. To me, it is imperative that Democrats take notice of the Wasserman-Schultz' position on the Iran deal and do likewise.

I would like to know what rules or laws allows and/or empowers the President, who is a democrat, to "fire" the Democratic party National Committee chair. The chairperson isn't put there by the democratic President. Is the only authority the spoken words at the back-of-the-hand? This entire matter could be media hog wash. And I can understand why the woman could not provide an answer to what the difference is between Democrats and Socialists. There is no difference and the democrats know it. The bigger question is what is the difference between Democrats and Communists. I bet President Obama can not answer either of those questions in a direct and unobfuscatory manner. His answer would have to offer up significant distractions so that the listener would "just think' he got a direct and factual answer.

It is about time people are recognizing that socialism is taking over!!! Thanks to Obama!!! Then comes communists!!! Then comes another Hitler in sheeps clothing!!!

What a wonderful article Nancy. Why have you failed to cover Rick Scott and his antics costing Florida Tax payers a million dollars because of his behavior. Oh I forgot you work for the Koch brothers.

Go Debbie go. Run your mouth.

How dare she have a mind of her own?!?! She must be held accountable for not toeing the party line!!! 1000 lashes!!!! Instead of squashing legitimate debate, perhaps 0bama should inform us exactly why this deal is in our interest and convince us to vote for it by persuasion rather than coercion.

Because "Dick", Obama can't ever persuade us that the "Iran deal is in our interests".....and Obama has already long known this to "be the case", don't ever expect to see him 'posture' before we "fact checkers"... Obama's "Iran deal" is dangerous to America, and the cowardly John "Fonda" Kerry "lives up to his cowardly VietNam personna by actively "selling out America" (May he rot in hell along with his incompetent "puppet master")

Never understood how she got that position??? Big mouth small brain!!

You just answered your own question, Erik

Comments are now closed.

nancy smith


Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.