Comments
Hot off the video presses, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already won the award for the most ridiculous spin of the day:
For the record, Priorities USA is headed by Bill Burton who was, until February 2011, the White House Deputy Press Secretary.
Categories
She’s probably close enough to the Obama campaign that she needs to avoid the appearance of illegal coordination, so I think she’s doing her job well. I fail to see what’s noteworthy about this, besides her being a Democrat.
Although if campaign finance system is causing people to look ridiculous, maybe it isn’t working?
Can you tell the deference between smart playing dumb, and dumb playing smart?
Now that I think about it, of course you can’t.
I don’t see the outrage here. She is the head of the DNC and certainly has an obligation to make it abundantly clear that the party has nothing to do with the SuperPac. On the clip it is pretty clear that she is in the midst of making just that claim when the question poses the question slightly differently – are they democrats in the superpac, as opposed to are they Democrats (official party people). She is basically saying that we are not affiliated with them, so I don’t know who all is there (even though she obviously knows the boss).
Just remember, folks: the people who call Sarah Palin stupid put Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Nancy Pelosi in very powerful positions of trust and leadership.
As I recall, Sarah Palin is still a moron, and although you think I have greatpower, I did not put Wasserman-Schulttz in her current leadership position, and I still do believe that Nancy Pelosi did a better job than Eric Cantor.
@rudderpedals: Nevertheless a skilled vulture capitalist is on offer experienced only in ways that extract equity and value from others to maximize Mitt Inc’s return, devil take the hindmost.
Could someone translate that into English? “is on offer experienced only in ways…”
Huh?
@Jenos Idanian #13: I understand. You do not appreciate the challenge of comment composition from a PDA.
Pretend there was comma after ‘offer’. In the event of future difficulties I suggest that you consult a native english speaker. There should be one or two out at the dig FFS
@rudderpedals: Nevertheless a skilled vulture capitalist is on offer, experienced only in ways that extract equity and value from others to maximize Mitt Inc’s return, devil take the hindmost.
OK, that makes sense now. It’s insanely wrongheaded and thoroughly stupid, but at least it’s coherent. Thanks for clarifying.
Bain specialized in buying up struggling companies and turning them around to be successful ones. They succeeded a lot, making a lot of money for themselves and others, but not always. Their track record in picking winners, by the way, is far, far better than the Obama administration (green energy companies like Solyndra et al, GM, etc.).
And Romney? Yeah, real heartless. Totally heartless.
@rudderpedals: The edit works for me. I dunno why; if anything, I’d expect me to have LESS privileges than others.
But I ignored the apostrophe; the meaning was still clear. I really couldn’t make head or tails of that prior one.
Anyway… if you look at any act of alleged altruism hard enough, you can find some measure of self-interest at the core. But those examples of Romney? I think they show a decent side.
On the other hand, I don’t recall Obama doing much like that. You might draw a parallel between Romney’s giving away his inheritance to Obama donating his Nobel Prize money to charity, but I think that’s a less than perfect comparison. And for quite a few years, Obama’s annual charitable contributions as a percentage of his income was in the low single digits; Romney has consistently been in double digits.
Here’s it in a nutshell, as I see it: Romney is generous with his own money, but stingy with the public’s. Obama is generous with public money, but fairly niggardly with his own.
