Last Sunday on Washington Watch, a public affairs program hosted by Roland Martin on TV One (co-owned by Comcast), DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the following about attempts in Florida to pass a voter ID law:
[N]ow you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.
This comment draws the ire of two sorts of people: people who hate people who misuse the word "literally" and people who don't like Republicans and/or conservatives being accused of being racist.
Dee Dubya Ess added:
Well, photo I.D. laws, we think, is - are - are very similar to a poll tax. I mean you look, just look at African-American voters as a snapshot. About 25 percent of African-American voters don't have a valid photo I.D. I mean - and - and the reason it's similar to a poll tax is because you've got the expense. You've got the effort. The - there's difficulties for - for many people in getting a photo I.D. So, you're literally just throwing a barrier in the way of someone who's trying to exercise their right to vote. And the reason that it's not necessary is because we already have very legitimate voter verification processes, signature checks that are already in place; and there is so little voter fraud, which is the professed reason the Republicans are advancing these - these laws. There's so little voter fraud, and I mean you're more likely to get hit by lighting than you are to see an instance of voter fraud in this country, but Republicans are imposing laws all over the country, acting like it's not - voter fraud is rampant, and it's ridiculous.
The Congresswoman from Florida walked back her comments a tad, calling Jim Crow "the wrong analogy to use". "But," she added, "I don't regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans."
Over at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog, Steve Benen says, "I can understand why DWS backed off, but I’m not sure she was entirely wrong in the first place." Adam Serwer at the Washington Post calls the remarks "inappropriate" and says they "show a startling lack of historical perspective".
Well, I can't understand why she backed off. Well, OK, I can, but I don't think it's a good idea because her analogy was a good one. (And Mr. Benen, instead of saying you're not sure she is entirely wrong, implying that you think she is at least partly wrong, you should say that you think she is at least partially right, implying that she might be completely right.)
So, this is where Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be like Sarah Palin. Because Sarah Palin would never take back a hyperbolic historical analogy, whether accurate or not. The ignorant caribou instinctively understands that apologizing is a sign of weakness in the political arena.
Taking back her comments cements a narrative that Wasserman Schultz is a loose cannon prone to verbal gaffes which she will have to apologize for later. If she wanted to call attention to Republicans championing a de facto poll tax in the guise of halting non-existent voter fraud, she should have held firm, doubled down, even, by repeating the analogy of Jim Crow. Using provocative language, encouraging conflict, and embracing controversy is how to get attention in our reality TV culture besotted by shows like Survivor, American Idol, The Apprentice, and Dancing with the Stars.