An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Ed Shultz to Weiner: Resign Now
I have often been critical of Shultz for his hyper partisan attitude but I have to give credit that he’s calling out one of his own. Admittedly he may be doing so in this case for equally partisan reasons (IE Weiner is hurting his cause) but fairness demands I acknowledge the statement.
Click here to watch the video courtesy of RCP
5 Responses to “Ed Shultz to Weiner: Resign Now”
I often like Big Eddie. Yes, he barks the far-leftie-populist bark, but I believe he’s sincere, and I often like his style (and content). I saw Schultz last night and yes, it was good. He did great — was last night his first day back after his suspension?
I’ll just note that I watched the other lefty shows on MSNBC as well as Fox and CNN, and I thought Rachel Maddow’s little two-axis creepy-prosecutable sex-scandal politician placement (and display) was great.
And specifically with Weiner, I noticed how professionally remote Maddow was when describing Weiner. It’s not only as if she was describing a Republican, but as though she had never met Mr. Weiner.
I am not sure that I would say this ISN’T politicking. If Weiner resigns, he goes away. Thus, it is arguably Shultz’s saying that Weiner should step down because it will continue to hurt the party.
It is time for Weiner to have the grace to GO. Just GO. You are hurting yourself, your party, your wife, your own career. Such epic stupidity requires your resignation, and disappearance from the public stage. Just GO.
I bet B. Clinton advises him to stay- IF there was no physical contact.
Vera, do you remember the later-1990s cover of the Economist during the Clinton scandal? No, not the “Foolish Love” cover that featured the starry-eyed and dippy more than lusty groupies (who were photographed watching him during an appearance). Rather, the cover that said,
“Just Go”
Cover article:
http://www.economist.com/node/165034