A New Entry for 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

Back in 2005 I wrote a book called 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America – and Al Franken is #37.   It was about the chuckleheads in our culture and politics who were, well, screwing up America.

At number 100 were Paris Hilton’s parents for raising such a twit. Paris was “hot” at the time so I figured, what the heck, and wrote this about her parents: “If they gave Nobel Prizes for the mom and dad who raised the most vapid, empty-headed, inane, hollow, vain, tasteless, self-centered, useless twerp in the entire country – maybe in the entire world – Rich and Kathy Hilton would be on their way to Stockholm to pick up the medal.”

The others who made the list were serious people who were causing real trouble.  There was Congresswoman Maxine Waters, at number 47, for her general hatefulness.  Bill Moyers made the list, at number 34, after he said  – in his oh-so-earnest way – that “right-wing wrecking crews” were out to bankrupt the government in order to enrich the corporate interests, and that, “I think this is a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America.”  Conservatives were intentionally trying to destroy America?  Come on, Bill!

Moyers’ intellectual soul mate, Noam Chomsky, came in at number 11, for his own anti-American brand of intellectualism.

At number two, was a no-brainer:  Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr, the publisher of the New York Times, which was once a great newspaper – before Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. took over.

And at number one, was our favorite hefty lefty, Michael Moore, who was in the news a lot back then for saying dopey things, like this about his fellow Americans:  “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet…”

If I were updating the book now, in 2012, there’d be a lot of contenders for the list – almost everybody on MSNBC, for example – but no one would deserve to be there more than the new Democratic National Chair … Debbie Wasserman Shultz.  She would make the list – maybe even topping it at number one – if for no other reason than she’s breathtakingly obnoxious.  Every time she opens her mouth, you have to figure that it’s a vote for some Republican – ANY Republican.  What were the Democrats thinking when they picked her as the face and voice of their party?  Never mind:  these are the same geniuses that picked Nancy Pelosi to speak for the party. By the way, I’m not ruling out the possibility that’s she’s a mole for the GOP, that she’s there because of some really, really cool Republican dirty trick.

We all know that politics isn’t for sissies, that it can get pretty rough.  But Ms. Wasserman Shultz is just plain nasty.  Take the recent Mitt Romney gaffe.  By now we know the dumb remark that Romney made about how he likes to fire people.  Yes, he meant he likes to fire insurance companies that aren’t doing their job the way we, the consumer, want them to.  Debbie Wasserman Shultz knows exactly what he meant, but that didn’t stop her from saying, “In a shocking and apparent moment of true honesty, Mitt Romney said, ‘I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.’ That’s precisely the approach he took at Bain where his business model was to put profits over people.”

She’s not the only one who knew better.  A few desperate Republicans joined the mud slinging.  But unlike the others who can be decent from time to time, Wasserman Shultz is an attack dog who can be counted on for nasty stuff any time she’s awake.

Just the other day, she linked the Tea Party to the 2011 massacre in Tucson – despite the fact that the shooter, Jared Lougner, is so crazy that a judge has ruled him unfit to stand trial.  There’s not a shred of evidence that he ever went to a Tea Party rally or that he even knew what the Tea Party is. That didn’t stop Debbie Wasserman Shultz from saying:

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords [was shot]. …The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it took a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Nice touch, Deb … saying “I hesitate to place blame” … right before you place blame.

Jonathan S. Tobin nailed the Wasserman Shultz hypocrisy in a piece on the Commentary magazine Web site:

“Many liberals initially tried to blame the Tea Party or Sarah Palin or anybody else they could think of on the right for the shooting. But once it was established that the perpetrator was an apolitical lunatic, they quickly dropped that ploy though few, if any, apologized. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to dredge this nastiness up a year later and to do it while calling for more civility in politics.”

That’s not the only time she used the Tucson tragedy to score political points.  Once she actually dragged her 11-year old daughter into the mud, alleging that the young girl said things I’m not at all sure she really said.  “After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, ‘Mommy, are you gonna get shot?  Does that mean you’re going to get shot?’”  After Wasserman Shultz supposedly said, “No, of course Mommy will be O.K,” her daughter supposedly said,  “But Mommy, Florida’s going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.”

Really?  An 11-year old girl said, “Florida’s going to pass an immigration law like Arizona ….”  Maybe.  But I don’t believe it.

And when Republican Congressman Paul Ryan came out with his plan to control government spending, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was at it again.

“We see a clear attempt for the government to back out of its commitment to seniors,” she said.  “As a result, many seniors in America will be forced into poverty, and worse.  Some seniors will end up dying because they are forced to put off getting that pain checked out due to huge out-of-pocket costs that will skyrocket for them.  … This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors.”

When Sarah Palin talked about “death panels” the so-called mainstream media went wild.  When Wasserman Shultz, a liberal not unlike the reporters who cover politics, says the Ryan plan “would literally be a death trap for some seniors” we get virtually nothing from the lame-streams in the way of outrage.  I’m shocked!

You know who else should be on an updated 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America?  Debbie Wasserman Shultz’ parents – for raising Debbie Wasserman Shultz.  All Paris Hilton’s parents did was raise a twit.  The Shultzes raised an attack dog who gives politics a bad name.

But I’m still not ruling out the possibility that she might be a Republican dirty trick.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Vie

    I read the alticre, and I am fully aware that the data is coming from a left-leaning think tank. The same kind of crap comes from right-leaning ones as well.





  • M. Shipley

    Obama was pretty hateful when he said the Cambridge Police were acting stupidly. Is that a Saul Aulinsky tactic? Undermine authority? It most certainly is a tactic of some left wingers.

  • M. Shipley

    I think the bickering amongst congress is due to the fact that America is fighting back against the left wing. I think it took the left by surprise and now they are desperate. They will say and do anything. And that is what scares me, because it becomes dangerous when the left wing is desperate. Things like Fast and Furious happen.

  • Jeffreydan

    Riiiight, Bob.

    I gave you multiple examples of hatred pointed at President Bush and Governor Palin, since you asked whether either of them was accused of this or that like Clinton was. You didn’t know about any of that? I didn’t change any subject, YOU avoided my response

    Seems like you suffer from what Barack’s followers in general do: applying a pathetically low standard to him, and losing your hearing and eyesight whenever democrats misbehave. “Strongly worded?” Your comedy writers deserve a raise for that gem.

    You seemed a smarter guy than to be unaware of Clinton being a crook. For example, committing perjury and stealing thousands of dollars worth of stuff from the White House apparently didn’t register with you.

    Open your eyes and develop a sense of intellectual honesty.

    • Bob Hadley

      Whoa Big Guy! Such ferocity and name calling. I thought that’s what liberals do when they’re out of arguments. I’ll unpack your statements. They’re quite a load for you.

      I have repeatedly said that both Pres. GW Bush and Gov. Palin were subjected to hate. My posts are a record of this. Go back and re-read them, including the ones from our discussion a while back.

      I’m well aware of your examples of the hate Bush and Palin were subjected to. There was no reason to get your bowels in an uproar over that.

      “If you think Governor Palin and/or President Bush can somehow be compared with Clinton in terms of ethics, you’re still napping.”

      I never commented on the comparative ethics of President Clinton vs. President GW Bush and Gov. Palin. Yes, you were changing the subject.

      “the ‘lipstick on a pig’ quote by Barack Obama.
      “Speaking of Obama being hateful, there was his baseless claim the police in Cambridge, MA ‘acted stupidly,’ not to mention his suggestion to a Florida audience that Republicans’ racism would be a factor in their campaigns against him, his constant shunning of Republicans when healthcare legislation was being discussed followed by accusing them of never offering any ideas, taunting opponents of Obamacare after it was passed, his saying Republicans ‘can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back,’ and his ‘they bring a knife, we bring a gun” statement’ ”

      None of those statements are nearly as hateful as your post above. BTW, “lipstick on a pig” is common expression meaning that you can’t make a bad idea good just by putting a bow on it. It was a metaphor. It obviously was NOT meant to compare Gov. Palin to a pig. Certainly you know that! I’ve heard that metaphor countless times before. For someone so bombastic, you’re laser quick to find offense.

      I asked you for examples of when Pres. Clinton was established as a crook. Judge Susan Webber Wright (the federal judge on the Paula Jones case) issued a detailed and well-reasoned decision after the Clinton trial in the Senate finding him guilty of civil contempt but also finding him not guilty of perjury. This decision took under consideration even his grand jury testmony.

      Perjury is a MATERIAL lie told under oath. None of Clinton’s established lies told under oath were material. Judge Wright’s decision is on the internet, in case you’re interested. I know I know I know. You don’t have to read her decision. You don’t like her decision, so you conclude she’s simply an activist judge, right?

      Even if Clinton was an established perjuror, that doesn’t make him a crook any more than it makes him a pickpocket.

      As for things allegedly taken from the White House, there was a lot of hoopla but I don’t think anything was ever established.
      Maybe I missed it.

      Before you fire off another misguided missle, why don’t you read this post twice, at different times. That way we can have a reasonable discussion. Good Luck!

      • Jeffreydan

        Responses in no particular order:

        There was no attempt to change the subject. I was furthering the point that there is no moral equivalency whatsoever between Clinton and the other two. Some of the insults aimed at Clinton were regarding his ethics, as there were certainly countless insults questioning Bush’s ethics. While the latter is, especially for a politician, an honest and ethical man, the same cannot be said about the former.
        Clinton was sued for sexual harrassment. Among his efforts against the plaintiff was lying under oath to a grand jury. Technically, you are absolutely correct that the word “crook” doesn’t apply in this instance. If it helps your comprehension in the future, I’ll make sure that more apt words like “scoundrel” or “cad” follow the words “lying” and “cheating” in instances like this. Now, are you going to try and refute my main point, that he was a liar and a cheat?
        As for all the stuff taken from the White House, it actually did happen. The outrage about it was pretty widespread, and was the only reason they returned the items. The word “crook” is quite apt in that regard, BTW.

        The lipstick comment by BO was clearly at Governor Palin’s expense, who made her lipstick/hockey-mom/pit bull statement shortly before. BO’s audience knowingly laughed and cheered at the crack. Keep kidding yourself if you must, but I’m not that gullible.

        I’ve never blindly accused unwitting people of racism. I’ve never told millions of people that police officers who did nothing wrong were the stupid ones in a situation I knew nothing about. And I’ve never thwarted every attempt by others to do their job, told millions of people they weren’t doing their job, and rubbed their faces in it. I’ve never exhibited that kind of hatred for others, but your suggestion that I’ve done worse brings an interesting perspective on things nonetheless.

        • Bob Hadley

          “If you think Governor Palin and/or President Bush can somehow be compared with Clinton in terms of ethics, you’re still napping.”

          “There was no attempt to change the subject. I was furthering the point that there is no moral equivalency whatsoever between Clinton and the other two. ”

          You’re dancing. Moral equivalency or relative ethics between President Clinton and President GW Bush/Gov. Palon was never an issue. When you inserted that issue with such bluster you were focusing on a different issue.

          The original issue (a while back) was: who was the subject of more hate as president – Clinton, Bush II and Obama. The more recent issue is: who was subjected to more hate – Palin or Clinton – and what hate has Obama himself spewed?

          You accused Clinton of being a liar, a cheat and a crook. I did not dispute the first two allegations. We all know he cheated on his wife and lied about it. I only questioned your allegation that he is a crook. So knock off all your sanctimony.

          And I comprehend the English language well. You’re the one who has the probelm. If you don’t know the English language, don’t get mad at me. Why not also accuse him of being a pedophile?

          As for the items supposedly taken from the White House that didn’t belong to the Clintons, that facts haven’t been established as far as i know. I know you strongly believe it was thievery (and you’re strongly biased), but your beliefs are not facts.

          To my knowledge it has not been established 1) that any item the Clintons took they had no right to take and 2) that they knew they were taking items that they had no right to take.

          For the final time, Obama made the “lipstick on a pig” comment about John McCain’s economic policy when he said that McCain’s econmic policy was a replica of GW Bush’s except that it had a little window dressing. The McCain camp scurried to bring Sara Palin into the picture as a desperate attempt to put the Obama peope on the defensive. The maneuver failed, because it was obviously contrived. I doubt even the McCain people actually believed it at the time. I think you’re being naive, and the McCain people would probably agree with me.

          “I’ve never blindly accused unwitting people of racism. I’ve never told millions of people that police officers who did nothing wrong were the stupid ones in a situation I knew nothing about. And I’ve never thwarted every attempt by others to do their job, told millions of people they weren’t doing their job, and rubbed their faces in it. I’ve never exhibited that kind of hatred for others, but your suggestion that I’ve done worse brings an interesting perspective on things nonetheless.”

          If Obama really believed what he was saying (which apparently he did, at least at the time he said these things) they could not be hateful. The remarks may have been wrong or irresposible, but hateful is a completely different category. BTW, I disagree that he told millions the weren’t doing their job. That’s nothing more than your opinion.

          Yes, your posts are more spiteful than anything I’ve heard Obama say. Because I dare to disagree with you, you lob personal attacks at me, calling me dishonest, pathetic (a favorite buzz word of the Right), and a joke. I’ve never heard of Obama saying anything similiar to the his detractors.

          You strike me as someone who’s quick to dish it out, but who can’t take it in.

          • Jeffreydan

            If you still doubt the Clinton theft story: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

            I’m completely aware of what the phrase “lipstick on a pig” means. You may suffer from the bias you say I have with your continued insistence that BO’s use of the phrase within days of Governor Palin’s crack had nothing to do with it. Sorry pally, don’t expect me to fall for it too.

            You might not think that the examples of BO’s hate qualify as hate, but then again you think I called you dishonest (it was intellectually dishonest, meaning you were fooling yourself because of personal bias. I haven’t seen anything here suggesting you are a liar), that I am angry with you (far from it), that nothing has been proven about the Clintons’ theft (reports on it can be found in about 20 seconds), and that somebody wasn’t hateful because he believed what he said (hate and personal belief are not mutually exclusive).

            I admire your passion, and that you aren’t a drive-by like Wil Burns. And your condescending analysis of me is cute, so feel free to keep it up if it makes you feel better.

          • Bob Hadley

            As for your link to Clinton “theft” story with ABCNews, I read the whole thing. Did you read any of it? It supports exactly what I suspected.

            It said that the Clintons returned the items when as soon as a controversy erupted. The items in question were clearly gifts. The only question was whether they were gifts to the Clintons or gifts to the Whte House.

            In the article, the federal liason to the White House made it clear that the Clintons may well have been correct in thinking that the items were gifts to the Clintons.

            The important points are that there was probably no intent to commit theft and that the Clintons returned the items as soon as a question arose. I don’t think there’s a prosecutor in the nation who would be dense enough to bring charges under these circumstances.

            Remember, theft involves 1) intent – the knowledge that someone else owns the items and 2) the act itself.

            So, no this action does NOT establish President Clinton as a crook. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrell.

            As for the lipstick on a pig comment, it was made a weeks ro so after Palin’s speech. But Obama wasn’t even talking about Palin. If you fell for that one, then you’ll fall for almost any line as long that supports your pre-conceived notions. Do yuo believe that Obama was born in Kenya?

            Calling someone dishonest is the same as calling someone a liar. It’s a personal attack on his integrity. There’s virtually no difference. And calling someone intellectually dishonest is like calling someone a liar lite.

            In general, hate and personal belief are not mutually exclusive. But, for example, if you really think I’m a racsist and you say that my racsism will work against me, you are not making a hateful statement. Your statement in that event is an honest assessment. It may be wrong. it may be stupid. It may be irresponsible. But it is not hateful. On the other hand, if you do not believe that I’m a racsist, then it can easily be seen as a hateful remark.

            On the other hand, if you say that I’m pathetic, a liar and (in essense) a joke, and you say that merely to gain a tactical advantage, then you are leveling a nasty personal attack. One may even say it’s hateful.

            As far as your perception that my anlysis is condescending to you, rest assured my analysis merely responds to your posts.

  • Shmooviyet

    At least that vile dingbat’s parents have been convicted of something, if not for raising her. We are waiting for the new book, Bernie!!

  • T. Rodriguez


    DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz are they related like some people are saying?

  • Shane

    She is the perfect attack dog for the Democrats, as she will say anything negative about conservatives and Republicans whether true or false. She is a nasty piece of work.

    • Richard Hilger

      This may sound like hyperbole, but I have never heard her say anything that is not clouded by bias.

  • Randy

    To call this Schultz woman oxymoronic is to insult the real oxymorons of the world. I know politics has never had a “golden age of bipartisanship”. Politics is a world of cruelty, lies, hatemongering, cheating, and all the human failings all rolled into one concurrent action. I doubt anyone in politics has ever been truly altruistic. It amazes me sometimes anything good does come of the political efforts of man. But it does. In spite of the Schultzes of the world things do seem to work out. She embodies all the ugliness of the political world covered by a thin veneer of beauty. She is the perfect spokes politician of the liberal elite. I just hope people will be able to look past the haze and see through to the truth.

    • Viet Vet

      “covered by a thin veneer of beauty”

      I sure hope you’re not talking about her physical looks here, ’cause she’s a most ugly duckling.

  • Bjorn

    It’s the description of a demagogue…

  • Fred Pasek

    The economy sucks, our foreign policy is a disaster, we have a 16 trillion ton debt ball dangling over our heads, and this president is incompetent. She’s doing her job, distracting the public from reality with the nastiest crap she can dredge up in a desperate attempt to get her guy re-elected. You don’t hire a campaign chairman to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. That said. She’s a flaming ass.

  • brad gillespie

    I honestly think there should be a website that allows people to post their thoughts on Wasserman. She is worse than Allan Colmes, the sneering skull so totally programed to make no sense ever. Wasserman lives in a robotic wasteland of leftwing horsepuke, totally articulate about absolute nonsense; and so totally confident about everything she says, but always saying things that are so absolutely untrue with the utmost seriousness. Wasserman grates with her overwhelming aspect of wrongness, coupled with her nasty contempt for those who are generally a lot more right than she is.


    I agree with you Ms WS talk is BS. The American people will be wise an see what despicable person she is. Like in the greek mythology, she as akin to those monsters as the medusa was. She should be shamed and denounced everytime she acts in such despicable terms.

  • Sunnyr

    Thank God this despicable lying-machine is representing the DemocRAT Party! She is the best thing Republicans can hope for. Go for it, Debbie Downer! You are exposing your Party for what it is: Incompetent, Disorganized, Dishonest and Contemptible! Knock yourself out!

  • Shirl

    If her mouth is moving, she is lying..I’m with Ray; why does FOX allow her lies to be spewed. They sure can find some of the vilest liberals for debate, making people change the channel every time.

  • Ken Besig, Israel

    As Governor Mike Huckabee, a truly great man by the way once said, “don’t go into politics if you can’t stand the sight of your own blood.”
    The political atmosphere is simply poisonous largely due to the radical Left which has lost all sense of decency and proportion. Wasserman Shultz is perhaps an even greater embarrassment than the Democratic Congressman who once represented a district in Florida who accused the GOP of wanting people to die.
    Get used to it, the politics of personal destruction works only as long as the electorate tolerates it. That is to say, if that is what it takes to get elected, then that is what the candidates will do.
    A disturbing state of affairs.

    • http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/ Bernard Goldberg

      i completely agree, Ken

    • Bob Hadley

      The political atmosphere is poisonous largely due to a toxic mixture of partisan politics, base passion, the explosion of the 24-hour news cycle through a spectrum of media and profiteering.

      To single-out the “radical left” – whatever that is – is misplaced. Just look at the current Republican primary campaigns. Just look at the smears of every Democratic presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis (with the possible exception of Al Gore: the media took care of that). Just look at the viscousness and hate that was spewed at President Clinton from the time he took office in 1993 and that is currently being spewed at President Obama.

      In modern Ameican history, this politics of personal destruction may have come from Democratic partisanship during the Reagan and, perhaps, the Nixon presidency.
      But the point is that both sides currently engage in this.

      When you have partsans on the Left and the Right both whining at a fever pitche about being victimized by the other side, its hard to imagine self-correction.

      You may be right in saying that only the voters/consumers can change things. A possible long-term resolution might be for politicans or retired politicians of all persuasions who favor the boundaries of decency and of substantive discussion of real issues to come together to rally a race to the top.

      Maybe this will happen when things bottom out.

      • Steve Angers

        “A possible long-term resolution might be for politicans or retired politicians of all persuasions who favor the boundaries of decency and of substantive discussion of real issues to come together to rally a race to the top.”

        Former Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Paul Tsongas (D-MA) had a similar idea when they founded the Concord Coalition about twenty years ago, Bob. They were focused more on a non-partisan approach to responsible government, but their intent was also to help reduce the partisanship in Washingon. Unfortunately, the Coalition seemed to lose a bit of steam with Tsongas’ untimely death in 1997. But it’s still out there, trying to advance their goals of fiscal responsibility and less partisanship. It would be good if we could find similarly influential figures today to pick up their torch and move the cause forward.

      • Ron Kean

        I disagree totally. I believe there is no comparison between the viciousness, hyperbole, exaggeration, and hate that is spewed by the left to that of the right. No president has been treated anywhere near to that of GWB. No blacks are treated worse than conservative blacks.

        The difference is best illustrated by the behavior of tea parties to occupy wall street. The first group dressed decently, acted in a responsible manner and cleaned up after themselves. The latter was obviously disgusting and lawless.

        Another microcosm of the difference is the behavior of radio and TV personalities. Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman have no equal on the right. Rush, Ann, Glen, you name it. Call them condescending and smug but they’re not crude or overly emotional.

        It’s been the nature of the left from the early days of Karl (violent overthrow) Marx, Mao, Fidel and Stalin to be violently proactive in a way conservatives are not. Alinsky is an icon of the left. Hitler was a national socialist. Even Franco wasn’t as bad as his counterparts of the left.

        Your attempt at moral equivalence is wrong.

        • Viet Vet

          Absolutely right on everything Ron. Bob’s use of moral relativism is a well-worn tactic of the left.

          What has the left in a frantic and what causes their extreme hatred towards the right, is that the right has said enough is enough and has become engaged in the battle (re:culture war). There was no problem in their (the left’s) estimation, things were so calm and serene, when they ran the show, had complete contol over the dissemination of information and there was little or no opposition from the right beyond the gnashing of teeth. Their unreasonable hatred of Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and others is directly proportional to their profound exasperation at being confronted. Their arrogance, elitism and condescension doesn’t allow them to acknowledge there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Opponents therefore can only be hatemongers, racists, bigots, homophobes, religious fanatics and the like.

      • Paul Courtney

        Bob: You discredit yourself with this post. There is no comparable talk from anyone on the right where routine martial-image talking points from Dems is tied to mass murder. Nor is there anything like Chomsky-ites blaming G. Bush for 9/11- not even close. I’ll grant that political discourse is uncivil on both sides, but 3 points- we don’t see Rs trying to tie Ds to mass murder; when Rs do go over the top and are proved false, they usually shut up(and when they don’t, they are shushed from the right); and DWS is not some radio or FOX bomb thrower, she’s a national leader of the Ds. She should be called on this, not only by Bernie, but by Ds and the progressive press. Instead, crickets. Even you, who think you’re the voice of reason here, use the opportunity, not to call her on it, but to say the right does this as well. And the worst part is, we’re not surprised.

        • Bob Hadley

          The two posts above illustrate my point – or one side of it, that self-correction is unlikely because both sides are adamant that they are being victimized by the other side.

          First, let’s be factual. My information is that Chomsky says the truthers’ claims are at best dubious and are diversionary from what he condiders important causes.

          And I was talking about liberals or those on the Left who operate within our mainstream electoral system. Chomsky is much more of a movement person. I think he has little or no use for Dems or Repubs.

          Truthers are pretty much of a fringe element (and yes, Howard Dean and Congresswoman Jackson did unfortunately elevate the truthers by mentioning them once, but to my knowledge they never endorsed them.) As far as I can tell, many truthers are apolitical.

          Paul, did you see the post of Ron Kean (who normally is very civil) above where he linked leftists to Mao, Marx, Castro, Stalin and even Hitler? What about all the Nazi/Hitler metaphors used by O’Reilly, Beck, Rush and others on the Right? What about that public figure in Kansas who recently said he finally can say a prayer for President Obama – Psalm 109? Have you read all the vile, hateful things Ann Coulter wrote in her book Slander? I could keep this list going all day.

          I’m sure you’re aware that Washington Republicans who call out Rush for his excesses apologize a day or two later. Have you ever wondered why?

          I think you know that I have criticized the Left on this website. Just because I don’t join the Amen Chorus here, doesn’t mean I condone Leftist antics.

          If this were a liberal website, I’d focus on the liberal excesses. And when i do, your liberal counter-parts react like you.

          I’ll tell you what. If you will unequivocally and specifically condemn the posts below that have made fun of DWS’s appearance and her imagined love life, I’ll unequivocally condemn any incivility coming from her. Deal?

          • Ron Kean

            1. Chomsky is much more of a movement person. Huh? Who else are movement people?

            2. Mao, Marx, Castro, Stalin. These guys started the left as we know it. You know that. You can admit that. Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynahan are gone but not replaced. The Hitler reference was too much and I regret saying it. My point was already made.

            3. Washington Republicans who call out Rush… You’re speaking of straw men now.

            4. …the Amen Chorus here… Name calling like this is much more typical of the left than the right.

            5. On which liberal websites do you defend Rush, Ann and Glen like you defend Chomsky? Do they react like us or do they call you names? And do you call them names?

          • Bob Hadley

            1. As far as I know, Chomsky has little use for our electoral system. He deals primarily with grass roots movements and more global movements. Who else does this? There’s quite a few, but why name them?

            2. To say that Democratic party politics comes from Mao, Marx, Castro and Stalin is absurd. Remember, this discussion began as a response to the antics of DWS. The Left in general as we know it comes from a reaction to the national and global excesses of industrial society. These characters are only a small (albeit extremely excessive) part of this reaction. At most, the followers of these people see Democratic party politics as a marginal means of reaching their goals.

            3. By Washington Republicans I meant congressional Republicans. Any time one of then criticizes Rush even a little they apologize a day or two later.

            4. I used Amen Chorus as a descriptive term. I didn’t use it as a pejorative. It pales in comparison to some of the name calling elsewhere on this website. I think you’re being overly sensitive, but if it offends you i won’t use it on this website.

            5. I didn’t think I defended Chomsky. I thought I defended the truth. As Bill O’Reilly says, “We’ve got to be fair.” So far, I only grace this website with my comments. :) But i have liberal friends and associates. I will defend the truth whenever they make untrue or excessive statements about anyone, including those on the Right.

            I don’t remember them calling me names, but some get defensive or even hostile like a lot of those on this website. Occassionally I characterize their remarks as bigoted. Sometimes I call them ideologues. But I use these terms advisedly, not so much as verbal weapons. And I typically use these terms in conjunction with explanations.

          • Paul Courtney

            Deal. Folks, please knock off the snide talk re. DWS’s hair, looks, and imagined love life. She’d look the same if she woke up today, realized how damaging her leftie talking points are to this country (and the world), and started to atone. Her vain attempt to look as pretty as Nancy P. is a common human failing, so us sinners should avoid casting stones. Stick to the real point, that she is a truly hideous person inside, far beyond mere human failing, more than enough material there. OK, Bob, surprise me.
            Before I go, a couple notes- Didn’t an Obama cabinet member or czar (I can’t keep track without a program) express her admiration for Mao? To schoolchildren? I won’t bother with Van Jones, but didn’t Tom Friedman (who ordinarily commands my respect), wish we were more like China? Obama himself wistfully thought being Pres of China was somehow easier (he’s right, if he sees his job as imposing his will on his people). Many more examples are out there of the left making these connections, so when Ron Kean, Rush, Ann C or Glenn B (some list, huh Ron?) draw such a connection, it’s fair game. As for N Chomsky, he’s a movement, alright. Keeping it civil, we’ll just say he’s a #2.

          • Bob Hadley

            Dear Debbie Wasserman Schultz, If by some fluk you are reading this, I condemn any incivility you have shown. It would better for every one in the long-run if you’d help promote an issue oriented campaign. There’s plenty to passionately criticize Republicans’ on without stooping to the politics of personal destruction. I know that many on the Right, even some on this website, do this. But, to quote O’Reilly, “bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.”

            How’s that for tit-for-tat?

            As for the Obama official expressing admiration for Mao, I heard something about it but don’t recall the details or the context. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was over-blown.

            As for Tom Friedman saying we can learn certain things from the Chinese, SO WHAT????? Rick Santorum and many, many other prominent Republicans have said this very same thing. Like it or not, China is our economic competitor. None of these people are saying our government should be totalitarian or brutally repressive, however.

            But to use statements like this to link Democratic politics to the likes of Mao, Stalin, Castro and Marx simply debases yourself. And BTW, China abandoned the Maoist model a long time ago.

            Your comment on Chomski was uncivil. This is coming from someone who is not a follower of his and who pays little attention to him. I know I know I Know. He is one person who deserves it, right?

          • Paul Courtney

            Bob: How’s that? Good enough. Yes, we each worked in a few, but …. Sign me pleasantly surprised.

          • Viet Vet

            Contemporary democrap party politics come from Lenin, Marx, Mao, etc., by way of Antonio Gramsci the Godfather of Leftist culture.

          • Ron Kean

            We’ve been going at this for a little while. Just today I saw this on Powerline that says it better than I.


      • Jeffreydan

        Minor correction needed here, Bob. As follows:

        “…and that is currently being spewed BY President Obama.”

        Bernie was absolutely right. To be sure Clinton got a lot of vitriol regularly, but there is just no reasonable comparison between what he got and what President Bush got. I’ll go a bit further and say Governor Palin got a world of hatred in the course of 2 or 3 years that Clinton never saw through 2 terms. And which of the two has been established as a lying, cheating crook?

        • Bob Hadley

          Geez Jeffrey, haven’t we already had this back and forth about who has gotten more hate – Bush, Clinton or Gore? Why do you want a retread?

          Were Palin or Bush ever accused of murdering their aides or people who supposedly had inside information on them. Were they ever accused of drug running?

          When was was Clinton established as a crook? Did Palin or Bush ever lie? It depends on what your definition of “is” is. Was Palin beat up for several hours almost daily on talk radio and on TV talk shows the way Clinton was during his first term? If you want a more comprehensive list just read my posts before when we had this discussion.

          Suffice it to say that one can make a case for any one them–Clinton, Obama, Palin, Bush 2, Nixon, etc.–being the recipient of the most hate. What does it matter?

          And could you give examples of the hate currently spewed BY President Obama?

          • Ron Kean

            Anita Dunn, an appointee by Obama made the statement about Mao being one of two she respects most and her husband is a personal advisor and attorney for the president.

            I stand by what I said about the communists. Their philosophy which includes organizing, socialism, media control and the encouragement of violence (thuggery) have many parallels in the left today. I used the reference to illustrate the much greater uncivil behavior on the left.

            Left=OWS(rape and murder). Right=Tea Party (peaceful, working within system and voting). Left=Ed Schultz(radio slut) Right=Rush(idiots).

            Debbie W. S. Goes too far. This is typical of the left and much much less typical on the right.

            And please forgive me when I say that I don’t consider you one to judge what is or is not debasing.

          • Bob Hadley

            To compare Democratic party partisanship with mass murders like Stalin and Mao is hideous. If you can’t see that, there’s nothing more to be said.

            I looked up the text of Anita Dunn’s remark.
            Yes, the remark (that Mao was one of her two favorite philosophers) was inartful at the very best. In the past, I occasionally made reference to a saying that Mao is credited with saying: “Dare to struggle, dare to win.”

            When I repeated the quote, however, I didn’t mention where it came from. Doing so would promote Mao.

          • Ron Kean

            ‘…is hideous. ‘

            I’ve never written anything like that. It would be easy to tell you here that your (anything) is vile and disgusting. Your (something) is sickening and idiotic. Absurd or totally ridiculous. I don’t use those types of descriptions.

            It just lowers the discourse.

          • Jeffreydan


            No, they were spared from that terrible ordeal. However, President Bush was called a terrorist numerous times, compared to Hitler/called worse than Hitler, accused of intentionally letting 9/11 happen, characterized as having lower character than Saddam Hussein, called a bigot, a liar, and an idiot regularly, and accused of orchestrating mass voter intimidation. But I thought the pinnacle was reached when several high-profile liberals focused on the idea of, and a movie was made about, President Bush being assassinated.
            Governor Palin wasn’t beaten up on talk radio like poor Bill Clinton…no, she got it from major network news reporters & commentators, comedians, magazines, newspapers, and the usual Hollywood jerks. She was called a bigot, a liar, and an idiot regularly, as well as a bitch, white trash, and mentally retarded. Let’s also recall all the talk suggesting Trig wasn’t her child, the frivolous lawsuits that essentially forced her to resign the governorship, the writer who moved into the house next door to her and authored a book filled with unsourced character assassinations, and the “lipstick on a pig” quote by Barack Obama.
            Speaking of Obama being hateful, there was his baseless claim the police in Cambridge, MA “acted stupidly,” not to mention his suggestion to a Florida audience that Republicans’ racism would be a factor in their campaigns against him, his constant shunning of Republicans when healthcare legislation was being discussed followed by accusing them of never offering any ideas, taunting opponents of Obamacare after it was passed, his saying Republicans “can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back,” and his “they bring a knife, we bring a gun” statement.

            If you truly aren’t aware of anything that indicates Clinton was crooked, then that must have been some nap you were taking. If you think Governor Palin and/or President Bush can somehow be compared with Clinton in terms of ethics, you’re still napping.

          • Ron Kean

            Anita Dunn and Mao.
            Ayres said he was a ‘small c’ communist.
            Van Jones defended communism.
            Obama supported and The American Communist Party supported OWS.
            How many examples does anyone need?

          • Ron Kean

            “Dare to struggle, dare to win.”
            Mein Kampf means my struggle.
            Jihad means struggle.

            Try instead,
            Work hard and you will succeed.
            The home of the free and the brave.
            With liberty and justice for all.
            Freedom fighters.
            Freedom of religion.

          • Bob Hadley

            “I’ve never written anything like that”

            “Mao, Marx, Castro, Stalin. These guys started the left as we know it”

            “I stand by what I said about the communists. Their philosophy which includes organizing, socialism, media control and the encouragement of violence (thuggery) have many parallels in the left today. I used the reference to illustrate the much greater uncivil behavior on the left. ”

            Ron, All these are exact quote from your posts. The article above and the comments in this section were about the excesses of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, i.e. the excesses of Democratic Party partisanship.

            YOU were the who brought up mass murders like Mao, Stalin and even Hitler. I gave you a chance to back-off, but you did so only on Hitler. And you chide me for using the term Amen Chorus?

            You’re right, it does lower the discourse. In fact, it serves to shut down discourse.

            You illustrate my original point: that the gulf between between Democratic Party partisan politics and Republican Party partisan politics is unlikely to be bridged through self-correction because each side claims to be the victim of the other side.

            ” ‘Dare to struggle, dare to win.’ ”
            Mein Kampf means my struggle.
            Jihad means struggle.”

            Huh? There you go again, bringing up Hitler.

            “Try instead,
            Work hard and you will succeed.
            The home of the free and the brave.
            With liberty and justice for all.
            Freedom fighters.
            Freedom of religion.”

            I use whatever is fitting given the particular situation. I am not an ideologue. The slogans you listed fit certain situations. Dare to struggle, dare to win is useful to other situations. I bet George Washington would have used that slogan in the revolutionary war.

            “Obama supported and The American Communist Party supported OWS.
            How many examples does anyone need?”

            There you go again. Right wing Republicans and unions both support the oil pipeline. We supported Stalin World War II. We supported Osama Bin Laden in the early 1980’s. So what?


            You changed the subject. We were talking about who was the recipient of more hate – President Clinton or President Bush or Gov. Palin, not about their ethics.

            You never answered my question about when President Clinton was established as a crook.

            Nice try, but no cigar. :)

          • Bob Hadley

            Oh, and one more thing JeffreyDan, you failed to list any hate spewed BY President Obama.

            Just because a statement is strongly worded and just because one strongly disagrees with it doesn’t make it hateful. If that were so, then there’s a lot of hate on this website and in the Republican Party and in politics in general.

          • Ron Kean

            Your point was that there is a moral equivalence between the right and the left. As I read it, you say the sides are equal in tactics, temperament, and behavior.

            So in this way, I believe you’re defending Debbie by implying she and a large group of her allies are no different that her Republican counterpart. Most here don’t think so and that’s why you called us the name.

            So when I refute this by explaining the origin of today’s left going back to union organizers in the 30’s and 60’s radicals and how those same radicals have advanced to positions of power, you say I’m as bad as they are for explaining their origin.

            There is no other way to account for the tactics and behavior of the left other than communist influence. I went to marches in 1969 both in DC and Chicago and saw red flags and communist pamphlets. I was at the demonstration you saw in Forrest Gump (it was real) and at the Days of Rage march in Chicago (somebody was crippled by a violent protester). I ignored the communists in DC and walked away from them in Chicago.

            The right, however has been nationalistic and almost exclusively focused on this country, freedom and isolationism for the most part.

            My point is and was that the hyperbole, exaggeration and even violence is much more common among Debbie and the like than their opponents to the extent that your argument of equivalence is just not true.

          • Bob Hadley

            Ron, I’ll give this one more try. Then you can have the last word if you wish.

            First, the Left had its origins long before the 1930s, but that’s a different discussion. And, I’ve never said that you’re as bad as they are.

            Second, yes I do see Democratic Party partisan politics and Republican Party partisan politics as both having tremendous deficits. I don’t think they’re quite equivalent (“moral equivalence” seems to be a buzz term), but both sides are far too inflammatory.

            “As I read it, you say the sides are equal in tactics, temperament, and behavior.

            “So in this way, I believe you’re defending Debbie by implying she and a large group of her allies are no different that her Republican counterpart.”

            Huh? If I say DWS, et al. is no better than Republican Party partisans (who I say are often way too inflammatory), how is that a defense of DWS, et al.?

            “There is no other way to account for the tactics and behavior of the left other than communist influence. I went to marches in 1969 both in DC and Chicago and saw red flags and communist pamphlets. I was at the demonstration you saw in Forrest Gump (it was real) and at the Days of Rage march in Chicago (somebody was crippled by a violent protester). I ignored the communists in DC and walked away from them in Chicago.”

            Do you really think that DWS and her fellow Democratic Party operatives have anything to do with those people? You obviously want to conflate Democratic Party partisan politics with the excesses of the Left (which are present). There is virtually no credible evidence of this.

            “My point is and was that the hyperbole, exaggeration and even violence is much more common among Debbie and the like than their opponents to the extent that your argument of equivalence is just not true.”

            OK, I understand your point about hyerbole and exaggeration (although I don’t agree with it), but violence??? Are you accusing Debbie Wassserman Schultz and her Democratic Party team of violence. Don’t you think that warrants an explanation?

            And what was all this about bringing mass murderers like Stalin and Mao into the discussion?

            Just out of curiosity, what did you think about Paul C. calling Debbie Wasserman Schultz a “truly hideous person inside, far beyond mere human failing…” is his post above that was also a call for civility in discourse?

            To say that I justify DWS’s excesses or the excesses of Democratic Party partisan politics is not true. Read my posts again. You seem to think that because I don’t focus the brunt of my my criticism on her, that I’m defending her. This “either/or, heaven or hell” thinking is a major factor in our partisan meltdown.

  • Ron Kean

    You couldn’t be more right on with this one.

    The real tragedy is that she’s not alone!

    I reacquainted myself with an old friend on Facebook and he challenged a couple of posts. He had sold a decent sized business and retired to a very nice place an hour outside the city.

    He gave me some leftist talking points and I just didn’t have the energy to respond. Like many on the left, they’re just like her-prone to the worst hyperbole and exaggeration.

    I was one of them once. It’s like religion. You can’t persuade them. The change has to come from inside them. They have to experience a revelation of some sort.

    I bought and read your book and the only one I remember disagreeing with you on at the time was Michael Savage.

  • Ray Cellar

    Ms.DWS brings shivers to my soul every time FOX News gives her ‘face time’ – Knock it off, FOX, you’re just boosting her ego – can’t you find someone with less of a ‘snarl’ to spew the Democrat Party’s gibberish?

    If ever there was an anti-vigra medication put on the market, Ms. DWS would be the poster child!

  • Cooter

    This video should make you think.


  • Gena

    You had mentioned that whenever she opens her mouth that’s at least one more vote for a republican. I would like to add, more and more people are coming to realize whenever she opens her mouth chances are 10 to 1 that what comes out is a lie, and usually not a very good lie, and you can tell, usually, that even she doesn’t believe what she is saying while she is saying it. You can tell she is a fighter for her party, tooth and nail, but when I watch her carefully, even she seems uncomfortable with the BS she is given to tell the rest of us. She looks like she knows it is a lie, knows everyone else knows it is lies, and is aware no one in the country believes a word she says anymore, and usually, to me at least, looks like she feels some guilt or embarrassment at having to put her name of that BS. But being the good, reliable, party operative that she apparently is, is willing to go out and do her best for the party, to Hell with the country. Sorry woman. Would feel sorry for her except she doesn’t have to do it, she chooses to do it, so I can’t feel any pity for her.

  • Roadmaster

    Her initials stand for Definitely Without Scruples.

    I said the day she was picked for the job, she’ll be the gift to the GOP that keeps on giving, and I wasn’t wrong.

  • Don R. In Dallas

    She is definitely a little frizzball of hate.

    • Gena

      Her hair does appear to indicate she stuck her finger into an electric outlet, does it not? Perhaps when she did that, she fried her brain as well. That would be the best excuse she could give to explain the things she says and does. Otherwise just another party hack, toeing the party line and hoping there are still people who haven’t realized she is a chronic liar.

  • Bill

    Maybe as with Anthony Wiener, also a totally despicable Democrat (am I being redundant?), Debbie can get caught in some scandal. As is usual, other Democrats will defend her until it gets to the point that it affects their chances for reelection–then all the rats go scurrying.

    • Neal Angel

      It’s safe to say, she’ll never be caught paying $400 for her hair as long as she keeps getting perms at Petsmart.

      • Gena

        I wish there was a “like” button I could have clicked on your remark. That was good.
        Wish I had thought of it.

      • Bruce A.

        Petsmart perms? Dogs close their eyes when they mount her leg.

      • Kevin T

        Great comment, hope you do not mind, but I am going to steal that one

    • brad gillespie

      Anthony Wiener was the male Wasserman. Interesting you should mention him. He was just more upbeat and energetic about it, not quite as contemptuous.

  • Paul Borden

    Debbie a Republican mole? Don’t think she’s that smart. Love the comment from Doom who says his polling shows that kids under 12 are all concerned about enforcing immigration laws.

  • EddieD_Boston

    Liberals can say whatever they want with zero repercussions b/c the media agrees. And if they dont necessarily agree they are careful not to criticize their soulmates on the looney fringe.

    And your point about why the Dems would put her in her position as leader of the party…these are the same fools that made Pelosi minority leader after the ’10 elections when Dems got trounced. To say liberals are deranged an huge understatement.

  • Barker

    Dopey Wasserman Schulz is just a typical liberal. She has nothing intelligent to say so ahe tries ro find fault with Republicans by using lies and distortions.
    Anyone who believes her also believes in the Tooth Fairy.

  • Drew Page

    Bernie — I love your picks for the ‘nitwit list’. Conspicuous by their absence however are the following:

    President Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, SCOTUS justices Sotomayor and Kagen, the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawyers and leadership of the ACLU, all of Obama’s ‘czars’, Rachel Madcow, Keith Oberman and the other main stream media “news reporters”, anchors and commentators and the editorial staffs at the Washington Post, New York Times and the L.A. times.

    • Gena

      You apparently have not read Mr. Goldberg’s book, many of the people you mention are already on the list. The book, by the way, is still available on Amazon, and makes good reading. And he even mentioned a couple of them in the article if you read it all the way through.

  • Ted

    Loved “100 People” and “110 People.” Thoroughly enjoyed the above personality profile on Debbie Wasserman Shultz. I’m sure the loony left adores her because she succeeds at riling everyone who is even slightly right of Karl Marx. They are unlikely to boot her since she spews a froth the attack-sipping liberals find so palatable. Understandably, the right would never pink-slip Rush Limbaugh for occasionally swinging out over the edge. Somewhat similarly, the left’s faithful choir will be unwilling to banish their most vocal preacher for continually dipping too deeply into the lie-laden swill. They’re in the tank and none of them is swimming toward an exit ladder. Of course, if she actually is a GOP plant, the ruse may have been orchestrated by the aforementioned commentator of the Excellence in Broadcast network. And we might all agree such a maneuver is well within the bounds good strategy.

  • Texas Trooper

    Well if you want to know who raised Deb Wasserman Garble Mouth here ya go http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/06/richard_rubin_sentenced_to_10.php
    Richard Rubin (married to debs mom) Sentenced to Ten Months in Federal Prison. He is debs step dad after her father passed.Richard Rubin — husband of former Broward County Commissioner Diana Wasserman-Rubin, who still faces seven felony charges of her own — was sentenced this morning to ten months in federal prison.Apparently both of them are FELONS!

  • Elaine

    Wasserman Shultz is portent of the content yet to come this campaign year – Yuck! Count me out completely. Since I am an “I told you so”, I will vote for whoever runs on the Republican ticket. This summer I plan on watching the golf channel, thank God! I know, I know some will say “God” is not pc…I rest my case:)

    • Richard Hilger

      As an adjunct to Elaine’s voting plans, might I mention that I became politically active in ’64 (Johnson/Goldwater) before I was even of age to vote. It was then that the seed of anti-liberalism was planted and I have voted in every election since ’68- national, state, local- and have never, in any capacity, ever voted for a Democrat. I watch that organization drift further left every year and wonder what happened to a once great political party. They are nothing now but seemingly cheap, mindless hacks of a radical socialistic regime that seeks to destroy our country as we know it. I cannot imagine how any American could support that travesty of a party with the complement of a vote.

  • Jenna

    Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.

    The name fits her. The DNC always knows how to pick ’em.

  • DOOM161

    I actually poll as a hobby. Whenever I poll likely voters under the age 12, their biggest worry is that states will start enforcing federal immigration law.

  • Dave O’Connor

    Alas! And Kudoes!
    Citing the parents of these clown like Hilton and Wasserman-Schultz (which is the “nee”) is where the crux of today’s issues. (Would one add Ann {Nee: Stanley} Dunham to the roster?)
    At seventy, I abide in the age category of those most likely parents. When I hear contemporaries lament the sorry condition to which we’ve fallen, I give a heads-ups.
    “You know, when it was happening, we were right here.”
    It doesn’t go over very well, but when I remind people that “do’in my own thing” was a cliche` from the 60’s onward; the “Me Generation” and all the permutations of personal license that followed, I find I generate some thought.
    Hell, Yeah! Bernie! Script up the folks.

    • Conil

      In the old days the Democrats just itertucnsd their KKK to lynch political opponents. And you thought lynching was all about slavery, it was not, it was all about power, Democrats power.

  • Ken Hansen

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz lives in a fact-free world, where accusations and innuendo suffice for her ‘base’ voters.

    I believe the so-called ‘Ryan Plan’ did nothing to Medicare & Social Security until 2021 (ten years out) and only impacted those folks that entered ‘the system’ starting in 2021 meaning it did nothing to change any benefits, services, and payment to any senior either currently in the system or entering the system in the next ten years.

    In fact, the only cuts I’ve seen in Medicare in recent years was from the Democrats who cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to fund Obamacare – literally cutting Medicare to subsidies healthcare for others… Why wasn’t she appalled at that successful effort to cut into Medicare?

    • DOOM161

      It would be quicker to just say she’s a liberal.

  • DOOM161

    1. What’s wrong with firing people that don’t perform? One problem with the federal government is that you can’t fire anyone that does do his job.

    2. I don’t recall the TEA party being around when people were likening Bush to Hitler and burning US Soldiers in effigy. Or purchasing full page ads in the New York Times accusing General Patraeus of lying before he even said anything. Or when Bill Ayers committed his terrorist acts (or even several decades later when his only regret was that he didn’t do more).

  • Webmaster

    Debbie chipmunk reminds us all again of the 22 ways to be a good Democrat:


  • Wallace Flint

    Hi Bernie,
    We rally need a new group of people (like Republicans) to take over in government, making government smaller anf less intrusive in our lives! When I see that ‘clown princess”, Debbie Wassernam Schultz, shooting her yap off all the time- I often wonder, where the hell did the Democrats get this jerk from? She’d be better off just keeping her damned trap shut! Many thanks for your time.

    In God We Trust!
    Wally Flint- Boonville, NY

  • flataffect

    I nominate Newt Gingrich.

  • Stuart savanuck

    Every thinking persons eyes are open to the irrationality of ms. Schultz’s ravings….The person to be pitied is Mr. Schultz…..he has to share a bed with this beast of a person every night!!

    • Rick Johnson

      I couldn’t resist. I suspect she lies to him, too 😉

      • Gena

        And I would be interested to know if they even sleep in the same bedroom, not that it is any of my business. I just can’t imagine him spending much time around her and staying married to her if he did. Of course the pay and retirement plans she will get are good. Might be one reason to stick around even with a lamebrain like her.

        And, Mr. Goldberg, you time yourself when you use the term “twerp,” you and I are, I believe, the only people still using that 60’s terminology.

  • Iklwa

    Application for DNC Chair Position

    1: Are you able to look someone in the eye and tell a blatant lie without smiling?
    2: Are you able to look someone in the eye and tell a blatant lie without blinking?
    3: Are you able to look someone in the eye and ell a blatant lie without blushing?
    4: Are you able to appear on national television and do all of the above simultaneously?

    If you answered all of the above “Yes”, you are our new chair, speaker, or president!

    Heck this woman (Shultz) has had training, instruction and mentoring from a long list of the best panderers, liars, haters, racists, sexists, cheaters and philanderers in the history of modern man.

    All I have to do is close my eyes, slightly stick my fingers in my ears and I can’t determine whether or not I am listening to Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy. It all sounds the same to me.
    Only the faces have changed to protect the slime (No offence to any slime that may be looking on!).

    • Bill

      Excellent thinking.

    • Gena

      Perhaps that is why so many of them get the botox injections – they pretty much make you expressionless. Botox makes it hard to make a real smile, raise the eyebrows, or otherwise look really human. Biden and Pelosi we know use botox, probably more of them, to try to freeze the face so they don’t give away they are lying.

  • Jay

    Wasserman Schultz repeats over and over and over forever the same Obama and the Democratic parties hate Republicans and Cons ervatives propaganda.I have never heard her answer a question directly because Schultz is unable to think for herself.Schultz is a disgrace.

    • Ken Hansen

      DWS is NOT a disgrace, she is quintessential – as in the quintessential Democrat…

  • Charlie

    Excellent choice, Bernie. No one, other than perhaps her party’s presumptive leader, deserves to make the list more than she. She is the preemptive leader in the use of her party’s only effective tactic, The Oft-repeated Lie. No one does it with more audacity, or less conscience.

  • Joy F Friedberg

    The numero uno has to be BO for damaging this Nation. I am personally embarrased as a Jewish woman, how many Jews are Left wing enthusiasts and have contributed to this mess. The great importance to me of the Torah, is that it is our history, warts and all. It is a lesson how scacred it is to have a truthful historic narrative and to look at history to learn what works and what fails. Socialism, or idealistic Utopias don’t work. They do not create the success for comfortable living as true Capitalism. Faith is healthier than intellectual cynicism. We have a majority of kind, decent, ethical citizens who are being derided as stupid nutcases. Give me a Common decent person of faith over the intelligencia left any day. They are the people that built this great Nation. I did my part raising two professional lawbiding sons. You won’t find either sexting or camped at City Hall. Thanks for allowing my comments. Joy

  • Joseph Maloney

    President Obama should be added!

  • Bruce A.

    Great article Bernie. But, did you have to post her picture.

    • John Daly

      I know this is petty, but I had to laugh the other day when Greg Gutfeld said that someone should get her a hairdryer.

  • John Daly

    AMEN! This woman is absolutely amazing. Who would have thought that Howard Dean could have ever been replaced as the most pathetic individual to ever head the DNC?

    • Steve Angers

      Never underestimate the DNC. Faced with a seemingly insurmountable challenge, they rose to the occasion.

  • Pingback: The News Factor, an online Conservative News Magazine » BERNARD GOLDBERG ON ASSIGNMENT: A New Entry for 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America()

  • Steve Angers

    You’re right on target with this “honoree”, Bernie. It’s your list, so my opinion really doesn’t matter, but I figure Wasserman Schultz has to debut in the top five, with a bullet. She’s nothing but a spinning dynamo, contributing nothing useful to society unless some genius can find a way to harness her chaotic energy for humane purposes.

    Wasserman Schultz has emitted some indefensible, even reprehensible, drivel in recent years. But she has such an ineluctable delivery that many often aren’t even aware of what she says. And they certainly won’t have the time to formulate a contrary argument once Deb’s brazen and dizzying defiance of reality works up a head of steam. Her style effectively confuses and deceives many about the positions and goals of her political opponents, while providing cover for the incompetence and malfeasance of her left-wing allies.

    If someone could figure out how to manufacture a Deb Wasserman Schultz doll, it would probably be every liberal parent’s must-buy gift for their children next Christmas. “Pull her string and watch her spin! Don’t touch her string and she’s still spinning! It’s amazing!” Exposure to all that spinning too early in life might severely damage a child’s ability to reason later on, but I doubt many on the left would even notice. And being of fairly libertarian principles, I figure that people should have the freedom to make that choice for themselves; and even for their children. But I really don’t appreciate the DNC forcing something so intellectually harmful on me and the rest of society.

    • Barrie in PA

      D W-Schultz knows that any lie repeated often enough publicly will have a telling and damaging effect. So did Hitler’s mouthpiece Goebbels. Is she democrat, or something else?

      • Steve Angers

        Oh, she’s certainly something else, Barrie.

    • Richard Hilger

      Steve, you used the word “bullet” in reference to DWS. The left will go bonkers with that. You’re advocating violence against their little princess. You must apologize now, like the lefties have attempted to teach us to. We’re responsible for what we say, they’re not. Didn’t you know?

  • Rick Johnson

    I’d wager you could fill the book with members of Congress (or their parents). Mostly Democrats, but certainly not all. By the way, thank you for including Barbara Walters in your first version. For years I’ve said Barbara Walters was ‘screwing up’ America and people looked at me sideways. I’m glad you added her, because your credentials lent me much needed support.