Matt Boyle of the Daily Caller hung around CNN longer than I did last night, and caught DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) offering her thoughts on the debate to Anderson Cooper.
“Anyone watching the debate tonight, Anderson, watched the Republican candidates, as expected, worship at the altar with the Tea Party,” Wasserman Schultz said. “As a Floridian, I know my constituents were looking for them to talk about what they would do to create jobs, what they would do to get the economy turned around, how would they help the middle class, how would they help small business owners. None of that.”
In fact, all of those topics were extensively discussed by the candidates. Mitt Romney was even ticking off proposals on his fingers when it came to getting the economy turned around. If you watched the debate, and I say “Herman Cain,” I’ll bet a certain three-digit number pops into your head.
One would expect Wasserman-Schultz to disagree with what the candidates said, but pretending the topics were not discussed is an odd strategy, especially for someone with a well-earned reputation for cluelessness. Does she want us to believe she didn’t actually watch the debate, but showed up to read prepared talking points to Cooper’s audience? Or does she assume the audience is so stupid that she can erase their memory of the debate by lying about it?
The intrepid DNC chair had some deep thoughts about the marquee topic of the night, Social Security reform:
“[What we saw tonight was] just more of the same doubling down on proposals like repealing Wall Street Reform and then, for good measure, saying ‘let’s invest Social Security, privatize it and put it in the stock market,’” Wasserman Schultz said. “[They want to] give those same Wall Street folks the money that is supposed to be the safety net for retirees and let them gamble it away in the stock market.”
Yes, your money is much safer in the hands of socialist politicians like Barack Obama, who felt free to threaten seniors with stopping their benefit checks if he wasn’t given more imaginary money to spend. A program guaranteed to slide into insolvency, which you cannot refuse to join or escape from, is so much safer than “gambling in the stock market.” Collecting welfare benefits from a government that can change the terms of the deal at any time is better than owning a private account you can control.
It’s funny to hear Wasserman-Schultz throw “investment” around as a dirty word. I thought Democrats were all about “investment” these days. Or is it only a good thing when it’s compulsory?