An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Ed Schultz Says He’d Cheat To Beat Brown
Here’s something interesting
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz says “I’d cheat to keep the bastards out”
No media reaction at all to the statement. Imagine if a Fox host had said something like that
Weasel Zippers: Honest Democrat Ed Schultz Says ?I?d Cheat? To Keep Scott Brown From Winning…
And before you ask, the reason I am linking to this blog is it’s one of the few places to report the story but we’ve got Ed’s own voice saying it.
If anyone has more details or broader context I’d welcome the info. But it sounds pretty straightforward.
38 Responses to “Ed Schultz Says He’d Cheat To Beat Brown”
Who is Ed Schultz?
In all honesty – I can imagine republicans and democrats whose opponents I would allow to cheat. But Brown is no less despicable than Coakley.
Schultz is wrong and should apologize – America's polity is psychotic and relativist enough as it is.
Easy for him to say that without repercussions. He might not be able to legally run for the position. I think it's likely that all this noise about Ed running is just to lay cover for a “real” candidate. Let the state GOP tune a campaign against a guy who isn't even running!
Apparently Ed Schultz is someone whose passion overode his sense of right and wrong.
And according to those blatantly dishonest partisans over at Weasel Zippers he is an “honest democrat” for saying he would cheat. The blogosphere never fails to fail to disappoint.
Easy to say whatever you want when the media has your back. It's worked for Obama just fine.
“Who is Ed Schultz?”
Left-wing talk radio actually is surviving and even is growing, beyond the scope of fringe-cult extremist Democracy Now or Alternative Radio that already have existed for years (even if few Americans know, care, or respect it), but it's far from a common, well-known place on the map everyone knows about, the way right-wing talk radio (which defined talk radio) has been for years.
Ed Schultz (who joins people like Rachel Maddow, another “Who?,” on MSNBC extra-liberal TV in addition to having his own radio show, and appearing live all over the country, is this guy:
http://www.bigeddieradio.com/about/
I actually like “Big Eddie” and his straightforward language, even I disagree with him frequently. (When I'm on the road and have the radio on, at his show time, it's almost always tuned to his show if on AM, rather than on Hannity, with whom he competes and is doing quite well. Hannity is for checking when there are commercials on the “progressive” station or if Schultz or his guests feature a bad subject or especially bad line of thought or direction of conversation.)
“Who is Ed Schultz?”
Don't you know that since Air America's floundering, in the past few years, lefty talk radio has grown?
Ed Schultz is such a classic liberal limp-wrist. His EXTREME leftist views are intolerable. I don't know why all my redneck friends are tuning in. It's like they've all gone soft!
…lol..
Schultz is pro-union moderate centrist. Attaching the word “liberal” to Ed Schultz is programmed to backfire on the GOP since anyone with eyes and ears can discern that he's all about the blue collar working men and women. Really GOP, who will be left of your base when you're all done lying to them baldfaced? Even the dumbest of the knuckle-draggin' stalwart right are starting to scratch their heads to rants like this one and say “huh?”
Silly GOP…tricks are for kids..
“But Brown is no less despicable than Coakley.”
Actually, not true. Look at Coakley's record with the Massachusetts sex crimes case. That probably is a good part of why she's not easily winning, as everyone would normally expect a Dem to do in that state, replacing Kennedy at a time when the Dems also need support for a recovery effort. (Health care “reform” legislation is important, too, but hardly the only thing at stake here.)
* * *
“all this noise about Ed running “
… is understandable, given the example Franken has set, not only for running and winning, but already, in office. Not only is having a celebrity (to them) run for office the kind of thing many lefties would support (it's not surprsing at all that they would consider and support it), but they're also motivated by the frustrations they're starting to see in recent months as the Dems not only flounder, but compromise on farther-left and extreme policy objectives. The “progressive” Obama voters are the same kindswho are the main audience for lefty-talk radio (farther left and fringier than righty-talk radio, which sometimes is definitely rightward, but often mainstream, and usually far from fringist), and they're the ones most frustrated and “betrayed” by what is happening now. They'd like to replace establishment Dems, beholden to special interests (currently, the health insurers, Big Pharma, etc. with health care) with those who share their farther-left views, which includes Schultz.
In fact, any of you who have questions cannot do any better than to do what you ought to do in cases like this, and take the time to listen to lefty talk radio, and in this case, to the Ed Schultz show, yourselves, and decide what he's like and what you think of him and shows like his. That''s particularly true of this Web site and so many people who visit it, for you largely are left and often well left of center.
What Shultz is describing is wrong, of course, but he is like a lot of farther-lefties who are frustrated with the lack of “progress” this past year — yes, even last year, when the mainstream was alarmed by the rapid pace of Washington, with the Dems going too far left with bad legislation, the “progressives” wanted more, and are frustrated at the way things are going now, and hate the thought of more setbacks — hence I'm not surprised Schultz would say what he did. His attitude is, “It's war, goddammit, and they [GOP] are the enemy! Not only of our candidates, but of real Americans, of Main Street, of American values! …”
Listen to Big Eddie yourself and then you'll understand better.
“Silly GOP…tricks are for kids..”
Dems, kids, same thing often in practice.
* * *
“Schultz is pro-union moderate centrist. “
You left out “middle-of-the-road” from your revisionist label. (“The Middle-of-the-Road Voice,” like Ed's)
“he's all about the blue collar working men and women”
Actually, he's not limited to that, but you're one of those who needs to listen yourself (or again, and learn).
I love how someone who would nationalize health care, limit physician pay, let the government set the prices of drugs, and centrally plan medical research is a centrist. I have also heard Ed talk about nationalize other parts of the economy such as the automotive industry.
[My connection is quirky today -- hope it doesn't go down]
“a centrist”
Yep, like the UAW or AFSCME. “Mainstream”…
I like his style, though. There's a place for and a value for more elaborate and sophisticated ways not only of viewing but expressing political and economic subjects, and related social subjects. But often it's inappropriate or wasted — a fancy way of saying something actually of little or no value, as if (in addition to merely being weighted by the amount of words) the fanciness of one's words determines their, and one's, value. As Ed refreshingly would spit about that (at a high pitch and high volume): “B – S!”
Between Schultz (and Thom Hartmann, when the latter isn't whiny or hopelessly far-lefty-wrong about something), and Charlie Rose, you've got the best of lefty sources.
“compromise on farther-left and extreme policy objectives”
Personally, I'm disappointed that the DNC is too scared to take a real stance against the recent war crimes and against homophobia. Calling that too “extreme” is of course the oldest play in the book – but it is transparent and arbitrary. Not only does it seek to imply that policies need to be non-ideological and centrist in order to be good or acceptable, it also gives the sheep far too much clout and respect and assumes the presence of some esoteric spectrum of right-left politics which only the employer of the trope somehow has the true scope of. Anyway, I call shenanigans on your line – the DNC congressmen the lefty blogopshere are disappointed in aren't “centrists” but simply sectarian, selfish and without any concerns for what voters think. They made the bill worse for no good reason – and the same right-wingers who scream about the voters being denied influence are the same people who call the blue dogs responsible, even though the blue dogs don't give a toss about the voters.
Memo to DLS: Spiting liberals is neither centrist or responsible by default. Stop making your country's maniacal political sphere even more reflexive and partisan.
“yes, even last year, when the mainstream was alarmed by the rapid pace of Washington, with the Dems going too far left with bad legislation”
Shenanigans on that as well. People are unhappy because the public option is out, because all the bigshots had a large say on the bill and because generally many dem senators lack spine. In short, the pseudo-centrist scum is dragging the house democrats and perfectly honest democrat senators down with them because their corporatism and stalling is making the public sour. They are not centrists, but corporatists, and they are parasites on their own party.
How much opposition to the bill comes from unhappy left-wingers, who don't accept the idea of making a bill worse just to appease idiots and corporations? How many are against the bill ebcause of the lack of a public option?
DLS overlooks this in his giddy push to claim that the current reform bill is too left-wing and that the public disapproves because of that. Of course, this is in line with today's American political discourse – no perspective, no good faith and no real attempt to increase the understanding of the audience. Just marketing, shifting goalposts, spreading memes.
But this will all be solved by the magical unicorn super-reform megabill the GOP will offer in 2011. Screw Obama's unicorn magic – Zombie Reagan's pixie dust will really help America's ailing system!
You couldn't pay me to live in the US with it's political discourse and decision-making looking like this. It's like watching dozens of people fall down a gigantic set of stairs or something while laughing at the other sides' bruises.
I think America is proof that a democracy cannot become large and diverse beyond a certain point. You're almost being sadistic in your treatment of one another.
“his giddy [sic] push [sic] to claim that the current reform bill is too left-wing and that the public disapproves because of that [sic]“
As I've said (more than once; try looking and reading, a better use of your time), the current bill has been whittled down to where probably no one likes it. That the Dems rushed too fast to go too far left this past year is incontrovertible. If you're denying that, you're arguing about the same as that water flows uphill.
“That the Dems rushed too fast to go too far left this past year is incontrovertible.”
Explain. I find your claim egregious and if you want to dismiss me now for arguing about gravity's effect on water then do so to your heart's content.
When people want the public option and disenthusiasm among the left is pretty wide-spread, the bill is not too left-wing for the American public – especially not since your current system is the most “right-wing” in the comparable set of countries (by the standards of the discussion, at least). The lies about the reform can't help either.
Blue dogs and other sectarian interests made this bill worse and unpopular, not the voluntary lack of any input from the GOP or any far-left tendencies of the bill. It might be left-wing by your standards, such as they are. Incontrovertible [sic ololololol]? Get that weak stuff outta here – you don't call the metaphysical shots of this debate.
“I find your claim egregious”
Even though it isn't? I'm not surprised. You're probably too touchy about anything anti-far-left (like you).
The antics of the Dems last year, including the climate-politics silliness, were there for all but the blind to see. (Though your problem is probably that touchiness over “far left”…)
“comparable set of countries (by the standards of the discussion, at least)”
Shows what you (don't) know. The standards are US and related political philosphical-based, not the typical “industrialized democracies” or other synonym for the group from which you will cherry-pick.
Axel, welcome to TMV and also welcome to DLS world. Don't forget to don your hipwaders.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Gittees: Ed Schultz Says He’d Cheat To Beat Brown: Left-wing talk radio actually is surviving and even is growing, beyond t… http://bit.ly/5PCdZk...
“You're probably too touchy about anything anti-far-left”
You probably fancy yourself quite the vivisectionist, easily ransacking and analyzing my simple and predictable leftist brain. Whatever, I'm not bothered by this haughty superiority show of yours.
This whole “You can't handle my gutsy dissent” olololoolololol spiel is actually something out of a troll's playbook. Master yourself.
“including the climate-politics silliness”
If the people think they deserve to emit greenhouse gases at this rate without paying for it, they are not only dead wrong but willing to reject the teachings of Locke, Friedman and a whole slew of very right-wing and fair-minded right-wing economists.
The idea that you can emit as much CO2 as you like at a subsidized price is as immensely idiotic as anything from the Soviet union.
What I know of economics is enough to say that paying for externalities is by definition neither left nor right. Anyway, that's for another thread.
“The standards are US and related political philosphical-based, not the typical “industrialized democracies” or other synonym for the group from which you will cherry-pick.”
Do rewrite that sentence and I might be able to figure out what the flip you are on about.
What's MSNBC ?
Ed Schultz is a progressive, that is far left liberal. He himself considers himself a progressive independent.
He is neither moderate or centrist, although I am positive he is pro-union (not necessarily pro-worker) given he is a progressive.
The Democratic party was much better before progressives took it over, as it is now it is to far to the left and pushing their agenda on the both moderates and the right. Which is why progressive are pushing for the end of the fillibuster and other such ways to tighten their control of the government.
There is the universal voting, the inmate voting, and other initiatives galore touted as “good” on the progressive web sites, not necessarily good for the nation, but good for them.
Ed Schultz is a progressive, that is far left liberal. He himself considers himself a progressive independent.
He is neither moderate or centrist, although I am positive he is pro-union (not necessarily pro-worker) given he is a progressive.
The Democratic party was much better before progressives took it over, as it is now it is to far to the left and pushing their agenda on the both moderates and the right. Which is why progressive are pushing for the end of the fillibuster and other such ways to tighten their control of the government.
There is the universal voting, the inmate voting, and other initiatives galore touted as “good” on the progressive web sites, not necessarily good for the nation, but good for them.
LOL
LOL
The DNC felt it would do more damage then good to the party if they pushed the “war crimes” call. The only poll I could find said that only 25% of likely voters a year ago thought Bush did commit war crimes. Most did not think it was important for Congress to investigate, and only 19% thought it would be good for them to be brought to trial on war crimes.
“pseudo-centrist scum” is your term for those Democrats that were against the so called public option I take it? The polls seemed to show support for a public option, but not the public option that was on the table, nor does the public have confidence in the ability of Congress to legislate a health care system in that will benefit the country. Most Democrats know the voters are not happy with the plans being considered, but hope to gain support through “marketing” later. An affront to Americans in my view, that Congress would push a bill that will affect everyone of us through without concerning themselves about our view, beyond they will “market” it to us.
“The polls seemed to show support for a public option, but not the public option that was on the table, nor does the public have confidence in the ability of Congress to legislate a health care system in that will benefit the country.”
And the public apparently thinks that such issues will improve with more republicans in congress. Should I tell you what that tells me about the judgment of the average voter?
Democracy is water, food and air. But I don't drink water to the point where my kidneys fail. I really think that on some issues I would be grateful if some politicians stepped in and rammed some legislation down my throat. Some good-ol' meritocracy instead of the total relativism and populism that inflames our democracies now and then. For example, I think that no person whatsoever should ever have any say on whether gay people can join the army or adopt. That should be legislated through with as little democracy involved as possible!
This reform issue isn't as clear-cut or self-evident of course, so naturally voter unhappiness carries more weight. However, considering that the GOP has been lying about the bill to an incredible magnitude, it might be fair to consider the probability that some voter animosity might not actually reflect their rational self-interest, but rather their sensitive guts. Well, our guts might house most of our immune system, but they also produce a whole bunch of waste.
The average person is embarrassingly obsessed with semiotics and is in sway of big media (which is a pathetic remnant of its former self), and perhaps the average American voter even more so. Not every utterance from Vox Populi is holy writ of perfect clarity and rationality. If a person is capable of labeling homosexuality as “immoral” then they are capable of any kind of insanity, so I weigh the opposition against the health care bill with a hearty dollop of salt.
I can not defend the bill or its makers entirely. But I respect them far more than their critics, and I think the public should do the same.
“Most Democrats know the voters are not happy with the plans being considered, but hope to gain support through “marketing” later. An affront to Americans in my view, that Congress would push a bill that will affect everyone of us through without concerning themselves about our view, beyond they will “market” it to us.”
Yes, there are far too many democrats in congress who work against the people (and therefore their party) because of the influence of special interests (Big Pharma, those union idiots), but frankly I think *most* of the opposition to the bill comes either from average anti-left bigotry (Democrats are always socialists and weak on foreign policy in the minds of some – their opinions are therefore moot) or from a less-than-skeptical perspective on right-wing talking points. If you believed everything Palin or the right-wing blogosphere was saying about the bill you would either be homicidal or suicidal by now.
In short, I think so much opposition to the bill comes from anti-marketing that actually pushing through the bill and then doing marketing for it could be justified. Sooner or later the DNC will have to stop spiting its base to appease people who are impossible to please.
“You probably fancy yourself quite the vivisectionist”
Wrong again, though this and other things you said that were wrong (while behaving poorly) are not surprising in the least, coming from a far-left Internet barking dog. Speak! (Better — shush.)
[waving aside]
* * *
“The DNC felt it would do more damage then good to the party if they pushed the 'war crimes' call.”
That was the position given by Obama during his speech (depicted as “dueling speeches” with Dick Cheney over how to treat the terrorists as well as what to do with them, as part of security policy). In addition to his speech being better than Cheney's for a number of reasons, Obama got credit (from intelligent, decent people, at least) specifically for muzzling Pelosi and the extremist, lunatic revanchist Bush-Cheney impeachment-or-war-crimes-trials Code Pink crowd. (I.e., a reassurance that he is a “safe and sane” Democrat to normal people, even if that displeases the rabid.)
It's a shame Obama has at times aligned himself with the lib Dems and with extremism. (This hurt him prior to the health care malfunctioning. Note that the malfunctioning is due to having gone too extreme this past year.)
“Ed Schultz is a progressive, that is far left liberal. He himself considers himself a progressive independent.
He is neither moderate or centrist, although I am positive he is pro-union (not necessarily pro-worker) given he is a progressive.”
The name of this Web site is incorrect, as are statements that Schultz (or any of most users on this site, who would make such statements about him, or about themselves) is “moderate” or “centrist.”
It's assumed that normally these incorrect statements are mistaken (from bias or other sources of distortion) rather than (deliberately) misleading.
* * *
“An affront to Americans in my view, that Congress would push a bill that will affect everyone of us through without concerning themselves about our view, beyond they will “market” it to us.”
The question (that merits concern) is to what it extent it reflects people who are out of touch with reality, which includes being out of touch with the public (the mainstream, as I've noted before), and to what extent it reflects people who know but don't care. (Extremists and dishonest people would call this “courage” as well as other words, in its and their defense.)
What's also of interest is which people are correct about this and who are correct and informed not only about where they stand but are (best, or the only ones truly) informed about Schultz and others with other points of view.
If the people want “enhanced interrogation” and “waterboarding” to be forgotten and brushed aside they are weak, dangerous, stupid and evil, unworthy of living in a nation conceptualized as nobly as the US. Enough on that – I merely want to remind relativists like you that I will never stop hating the people who would waterboard and would gladly fight with mortal force against politicians and officials who would take up such practices again.
“The question (that merits concern) is to what it extent it reflects people who are out of touch with reality, which includes being out of touch with the public (the mainstream, as I've noted before), and to what extent it reflects people who know but don't care.”
If you posit that “the mainstream” are automatically more “in touch with reality” then yes you have an easy time of it. I posit that the competence and judgment of the populace is compromised to a dangerous degree.
“Silly GOP…tricks are for kids..”
Now THAT'S funny!
I do like listening to Shultz. I listen to as many outlets as I have time for – left, right, and otherwise. Ed makes a few good points. Even Limbaugh and Beck make a few good points. However, I realize that the truth lies between somewhere, and I eventually find it.
That's where sites like TMV are supposed to reenforce that “in between” area.
A talk-show host for MSNBC, Ed Schultz calls for election fraud in order to defeat the anti-establishment candidate in Massachusetts. Here is the transcript:
“I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.”
I personally believe that this man must be investigated – it's very likely he has already broken the election laws in the past.
But what is even more obvious is that the man who is ready (and proud of it) to break the law and disenfranchise the voters to get his favourite politician win, will most likely lie for exact same reason. It's a fair question – can anyone trust his reporting from now on? Is there any doubt that the man has no integrity and, therefore, he cannot be a trustworthy journalist?
Lastly, anyone who doubts that liberals will try to rig the elections, should listen to this liberal openly calling for fraud. It must be our priority to make sure that elections are conducted in accordance with the law, and anyone who does not agree that Ed Schultz should be fired and blacklisted – does not believe in democracy and media honesty.
P.S. Isn't it ironic the a self-proclaimed “Democrat” is openly calling to abolish democracy?
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/
Edgren, I love your style. You make parodies unnecessary…
“Democracy is water, food and air.”
So said Gaia… You are one funny guy.
” But I don't drink water to the point where my kidneys fail.”
But you are taking some medication that altered your brains…
” I really think that on some issues I would be grateful if some politicians stepped in and rammed some legislation down my throat.”
I am sure of that – a lot of liberals are masohistic, but what do you propose to do with people who don't share your sexual fantasies? I mean, I don't want nothing rammed down my throat.
” Some good-ol' meritocracy instead of the total relativism and populism that inflames our democracies now and then.”
Meritocracy? You mean, like, when the politicians who cannot count the number of fingers on their hands are ramming down our throats one legislation after legislation? You call THAT “meritocracy”? Wow.
“For example, I think that no person whatsoever should ever have any say on whether gay people can join the army or adopt.”
And what you think is so important, that everybody else should just lay down and surrender. Hm. Well, sound like in this meritocracy down our throats, you decided that it is you, whose views will be upheld. Here is a quiz, kid – what makes you think your sexual fantasies will take over, and not, say, mine?
“That should be legislated through with as little democracy involved as possible!”
Because you like it, that's why. And this argument makes sense simply because you are correct, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Sure deal, comrade. You win.
“And what you think is so important, that everybody else should just lay down and surrender.”
You are the one who showed your teeth at gay people by wanting to deny them their birthrights. We live in a jungle – you can't both use violence against people and then be surprised when they fight like beasts to stop you.
“Because you like it, that's why. And this argument makes sense simply because you are correct, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Sure deal, comrade. You win.”
If you want gay people to be treated differently in any way, positively or negatively, you are unfit for civilization and a danger to us all. I reject your status as a decent and rational fellow man in all aspects of life and we are mortal enemies as surely as we would be if you had tried to kill me or you were a plunderer come to loot my belongings. No one impinges the birthrights of my fellow gay humans without forsaking his own birthrights.
America's polity? And it's better elsewhere!!?
I'll have you know that my mother carried me to term 9 months after my father was home from WWll, and they'd been married for 3 years. You're one of the three kinds of people I deplore; those who can add and those who can't.
Yes.
Guess you don't travel much.
A paid NBC journalist openly inciting the electorate to commit widespread voter fraud?
Where is the FCC? Where is the call for censorship?
Who is getting fired? Is no one getting fined?
This is a clear violation of the law here!