@Bwoodhouseb: .@ReincePriebus Wrong! @DWStweets [would] never politicize Tucson. [She] was discussing civility in politics as transcript shows.
The Democrat Party spokesman fired off more than half-a-dozen tweets on the subject last night, several of which denounced Priebus for demanding an apology from his counterpart. His clan's game-plan seems to be: (a) Don't apologize, (b) pretend DWS didn't say what she clearly said, entirely within in the context of the Giffords shooting, (c) attack Republicans and Tea Party supporters for taking offense to her vile insinuations. In case there's any doubt here, watch the clip again. In response to a question, DWS addresses the issue of civility, "particularly in light of" the Tucson shootings. Then, after feigning hesitation "to place blame," she eagerly assigned it anyway:
"I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement...You had town hall meetings that [the Tea Party] tried to take over, and you saw some their conduct at those town hall meetings," Wasserman Schultz said today. "When they come and disagree with you, you're not just wrong, you're the enemy."
The Democratic National Committee insists that these statements do not qualify as "politicizing" the massacre. In fact, DWS would "never" do such a thing! Oh yes -- far be it from any elected Democrat, party strategist, liberal organization, left-wing blogger, or prominent media personality to instantly and shamelessly engage in ahistorical, evidence-free scapegoating of political opponents in the wake of last year's unspeakable act of violence.
Did the occasional Tea Party rally or town hall meeting get heated, especially during the Obamacare debate? Of course. One-sixth of the US economy and major liberty principles were at stake, and Democrats were lying and ignoring the will of the people to achieve their Statist dream. Did any of this free speech rise to the level of violence? Absolutely not -- from conservatives, anyway. Yet Democrats sanctimoniously intone about "civility" and the importance of embracing a "new tone" in politics whenever it serves their interests. That impulse has always been about silencing and disqualifying conservative dissent. If DWS were genuinely concerned about demonization, violent imagery, incivility, and politics-as-war rhetoric, she'd be reaching for the smelling salts over her own party's behavior. A small handful of post-Tucson examples:
(3) A sitting Democratic Congressman urging government sector unions to "get a little bloody" with their opponents.
(4) A union boss screeching about "taking out" Tea Party "SOBs" at a presidential event, mere moments before President Obama spoke from the same podium. (Neither the White House nor DWS would condemn his venemous remarks).
There's much, much more material out there, of course, but I don't have all day. It is Debbie Wasserman Schultz's job to distort, spin, and lie about President Obama's record. Fine. It was her choice to advance a baseless slander, then have her minions claim that she did no such thing. Shame on her.