It’s Time to Neuter Obama’s Attack Dog

“Ozzie will get what’s coming to him.”

Those were the words of Florida Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as said to an associate of congressional candidate Ozzie deFaria after deFaria used the photo at right in recently disseminated fundraising materials.

Unfortunately, deFaria’s take on the statement made by the Florida Congressman, known for her penchant for rhetorical bomb-throwing, is absolutely dead on.

“Wasserman-Schultz told a close associate of mine that she was offended by my use of the picture, which I used to highlight her as Obama’s biggest attack dog,” deFaria said, pointing out the dog collar.  “We all know what that means — Debbie and the Obama attack machine are going to spend millions of dollars to destroy my family, my reputation, and my professional life in South Florida.”

When it comes to those like Wasserman-Schultz, there is an old expression in America’s oldest pastime that certainly seems to apply: What do your eyes tell you?

The expression applies to batters judging a pitcher–when and how does that pitcher challenge a batter who is slightly ahead in the count, and with what?–just as it applies to pitchers judging a batter–how confident is he? how juiced up and overexcited is he?–and just as it applies to an infielder preparing to make a split-second decision after the crack of the bat.

When it comes to politics on both a local and national scale, the expression applies to character. Sometimes, all it takes is a good, hard look into a person’s eyes to know whether or not they are trustworthy, violent, shifty, principled, or somewhere in between. Other times, it’s a split-second assessment of a person’s body language that dictates whether it’s okay to let your guard down, or whether it would be beneficial to grow eyes in the back of your head. In any event, like a batter making an instantaneous judgment with regard to the location of a 102-mph fastball, whenever one person gives some kind of impression to another, it’s generally best practice to trust instincts and go with a gut feeling.

Here at America’s Right, there are certainly more than a few politicians who come off as genuinely concerned about the plight of the nation and the challenges faced by constituents.  Unfortunately, the converse is also true — there are more than a few of their colleagues who just simply make us uncomfortable.

When it comes to the latter, one such politician comes to mind before nearly any others:  the aforementioned Florida congresswoman and DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

This November’s election is crucial for the entire country insofar as the person at the top of the Executive Branch will be able to use or abuse executive power according to his perspective on the proper role and function of the presidency.  The elections are also critical on the congressional level, and in no place more than South Florida, where the financial health of that region given its demographics and the health care challenges facing us all will depend largely upon the character of the man or woman they send to Congress as their representative.

While many nice things can be said about Karen Harrington (despite obvious electability problems that led to a 22-point defeat in her 2010 electoral challenge of Wasserman-Schultz, no less noteworthy due to 2010 being a tailor-made year for Republican success), over the course of about the past month or so, we here at America’s Right have been doing our best to promote the candidacy of Ozzie deFaria.  Editor John Feeny has built a relationship with him, and founder and managing editor Jeff Schreiber was fortunate enough to spend a few serendipitous moments with him outside the second presidential debate in North Charleston, South Carolina.

Ronald Reagan talked about hoping for the ideological contrast of bold colors rather than pale pastels, and we believe that there is no more stark a contrast from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz than that presented by Ozzie deFaria, insofar as Florida’s District 20 and the nation is concerned.

America has indeed arrived at a precipitous crossroads in its history, both culturally and economically. Discussions about the outrageous, inexplicable, unconscionable, and incomprehensible debt that the people of this nation have been forced to incur by seemingly equally unconscionable political leaders have been one of the most important issues, if not the single most important issue on the minds of everyday Americans over the course of much of the first decade of the 21st century.  The decade began with the people of America taking note of threats from abroad, but only in the past few years have the people awakened to the threat from within.

The elections this November will, for all intents and purposes, decide whether socialism or freedom will be the immediate future of our constitutional republic, and whether a constitutional republic is indeed something we can keep at all.

Time and time again, as the resurgent right has defined itself on the American political landscape, something that we’ve heard time and again is that we desperately need “business-minded” leaders elected to positions of influence in our nation’s capital.  Only then, when the halls of Congress are filled with people who have signed the front of paychecks rather than those who have only signed the back, can we begin to clean up the mess that’s been left from decades of fiscal malfeasance. Certainly, we have started to see the tide changing, as the so-called “Tea Party freshman class” sent to Washington have done all they can to stand their ground against the forces of larger government, endless spending, peddled influence, and inconceivable corruption.

If, for that reason, business acumen is perceived as a general prerequisite for the candidates who are now beginning to emerge from Main Street in an effort to continue the work of the Republican Revolution of 2010, Ozzie deFaria should be at the top of the list for elite pundits and everyday patriots alike. Heck, considering his success in the private sector, perhaps the man should just run for president.

The problem, however, is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Now that New York Congressman Anthony Weiner has retired to a life of obscurity (unless you count webcam exposure), Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz has become exactly who Ozzie deFaria says she is, as she has fully embraced the role of petulant Democratic Party attack dog.  If there is a camera within three miles of her current location, she will find it.  If there is something to be fabricated about Republicans, she will say it. And if there is a fact that countermands whatever argument she is making, she will ignore it.

For example, my favorite Wasserman-Schultz-ism came in May of last year, when Debbie decided to opine on illegal immigration.  From HotAir:

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.

So, in this case, her complaint about Republicans was that–oh no!–they wanted to make illegal immigration … illegal.  Unfortunately, the Florida congresswoman’s statements more often than not are less ludicrous and more nefarious.

For example, while speaking to a crowd in New Hampshire just a month ago, Wasserman-Schultz doubled down on laying the blame for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party movement.  From a TownHall piece written last month by the inimitable Katie Pavlich:

“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 — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “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 take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.”

Not only nefarious but also wrong, as clearly and convincingly addressed here at America’s Right more than a year ago.

In December 2011, for the sake of another example, when faced with a question from a Fox News reporter about how unemployment has increased since President Barack Obama took office (a fact), Wasserman-Schultz replied: “That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below nine percent.”

Wrong again.  But we digress.

Since Ozzie has begun actively campaigning against Wasserman-Schultz we here at America’s Right have noticed some very subtle changes in the manner in which the congresswoman is conducting herself before the camera.  Our eyes are telling us something, and they should be telling you as well.

As Ozzie has begun to ramp up campaign efforts, one of the overarching themes he has noted with regard to Wasserman-Schultz is that, in a very real sense, as chairman of the Democratic National Committee she is running a “scorched earth” campaign for the Obama administration. By utilizing the age-old socialist tactic of taking misinformation and repeating it over and over and over again in order to make said misinformation seem true to those who only pay attention to soundbites, it appears that the congresswoman could very well be   sacrificing herself for the sake of the larger Democratic agenda.

Regardless of whether the self-sacrifice comes to pass (one can only wish), only a week ago the Florida congresswoman was quoted by The Daily Beast as admitting her habit of catering to soundbite-driven voters: “I make strongly worded statements,” she said, “so people pay attention a little to what I’m saying.”

As the DNC chair, Wasserman-Schultz is ideally placed to implement such a strategy, as she is always going to be in demand by the mainstream media for evening news segments, talk radio interviews, and the more-than-occasional Sunday morning talk show. In repeating facts and figures that completely run against the grain of the most basic sense of reality, Wasserman-Schultz is no doubt aiming her soundbites and talking points at those who pay little real attention to what is actually taking place politically in our country, not to mention those who have been softly led to dependency on the government for their stake in life and no longer want to know what’s actually going on, because the truth would probably be far too psychologically damaging.

Wasserman-Schultz’s message, beyond being overtly fictitious and inherently nefarious, has also been altogether vicious. Her manner of engaging the press has always been borderline nasty to begin with, but with a century of the progressive agenda literally hanging in the balance this November, it’s probably not too much of a stretch to think that she has now been instructed to up the ante and to carry out her marching orders by taking no prisoners and falling on her own sword if necessary. Take, for example, her insistence upon reopening that blame game with regard to the Giffords shooting — by pleading for pleasant discourse while subsequently throwing rhetorical bombs, Wasserman-Schultz is only inflaming things further.

(We here at America’s Right, who truly admire the former Arizona congresswoman for her strength, courage and resolve, wonder what Gabby would have to say about her friend’s continued use of the events of January 2011 as fodder for cheap, politically advantageous sound bites aimed at those on the left most susceptible to fiery rhetoric.)

Even aside from the New Hampshire appearance, some of Wasserman-Schultz’s more recent appearances in front of the camera strike us as slightly different. Her courteous demeanor–albeit forced–seems to run afoul of her established habit of appearing less than courteous and chipper.  If we had to venture a guess, we’d say that Ozzie’s attempt to show the people of South Florida the nature of her very basic mission as DNC attack dog is having an effect, to the degree that she has to be more conscious of the manner in which she comes across.  She must, after all, be concerned not only about her own political future as representative but, as the spokesperson for the DNC, she must worry about the members of her party as well.  Certainly, given Wasserman-Schultz’ penchant for ignoring fact and inflaming passions and the growing public disdain for Washington infighting, perhaps the president and his strategists have asked themselves whether the Florida congresswoman is the person they want out there as the public face of the Democratic Party.

What do your eyes tell you?

Some would say that Ozzie’s characterization of Wasserman-Schultz as President Obama’s “attack dog” is on the strong side.  Our problem with criticism of that characterization is that, well, it’s true.  As DNC chair, it is her job to navigate the divide between congressional members who want to be re-elected and a Democrat presidential standard-bearer who wants who distance himself from those very same congressional members.

In our opinion, the label fits.  This is a woman who denied unequivocally that unemployment has increased under Barack Obama’s watch.  This is a woman who insisted that Republicans are “waging a war on women.”  This is a woman who, in blaming the Tea Party for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others, has engaged in a rhetorical attack designed to serve as a de facto abridgment of our First Amendment right to complain–responsibly–about out-of-control government.  There are nice and decent liberal Democrats, even in Washington.  She is not one of them.

Her threat directed at Ozzie deFaria should only serve as a reminder of that.  While she and her Democratic Party cohorts often claim to be advocates of a robust democratic system–remember how she called South Carolina’s Voter ID law a “return to the time of Jim Crow”?–by engaging in the personal assault we all know is coming, Wasserman-Schultz and those who engage in such Alinsky-like tactics only deter and discourage good, hard-working, eminently qualified people like Ozzie deFaria from running for public office.

When you look at Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, what do your eyes tell you?  Here at America’s Right, our eyes tell us that Ozzie deFaria is the real deal.  Our eyes tell us that he has an excellent shot at defeating Wasserman-Schultz, and that her statements indicate that Ozzie is striking a nerve.

It is our hope that you will join us in supporting Ozzie’s candidacy.  On the Republican side, it is between Ozzie and a woman who lost to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz by 22 percentage points in a year that Barack Obama was not on the top of the ticket.  He can win, he should win, and with your support he will win.  It’s high time that Barack Obama’s favorite South Florida attack dog gets neutered.

To donate to Ozzie’s campaign, visit




  1. Kay Nein says:


Speak Your Mind