TPMDC
Ed Schultz Slams White House As Afraid Of Fox News (VIDEO)
MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz.
Share
Send to a friend!
Las Vegas -- MSNBC's Ed Schultz tonight slammed President Obama's White House for its handling of the Shirley Sherrod debacle, suggesting that Obama and his team are afraid of Fox News and don't use progressive media enough.
Speaking to a roaring opening night crowd at Netroots Nation at the Rio casino here, Schultz cursed through a spirited critique of Obama. Schultz pointed to the camera and said he was glad the speech was being recorded and wanted the White House to hear his message. Schultz also leveled insults at conservative Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE) and Mary Landrieu (LA), along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who the netroots helped boot from the party in 2006. Schultz said he didn't care if Democratic Senators boycott his show because he doesn't need them for ratings. He also said that MSNBC "did a hell of a job fighting for health care."
But Schultz's specific criticism was that the Obama administration reacts to controversies sparked in and furthered by conservative media.
"They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too," Schultz said. "I didn't vote for that."
Schultz said Democrats have failed to live up to their own platform passed at the Democratic Convention in 2008 and he challenged the activists and bloggers in the crowd: "If I've got the balls to say it, you better have the balls to write it."
He said he supports primaries as needed to keep the party's moral compass. "We have to do our vetting process. You're either with us, or you're against us in the progressive movement in America," he said.
He also complained that Obama hasn't gone on his show or sat recently for interviews with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, adding that during the campaign, "I busted my ass for Obama." Schultz said that instead of going on The Ed Show, Obama went on Bret Baier's show on Fox, "in my time slot. What's that all about?"
Schultz said he's "not anti-Obama" but wants to "change some plays" to help the Democrats win in November. Schultz said when former President George W. Bush was in trouble, he talked to the base. "You know what this outfit does? They react to Fox," he said.
He said progressives should realize they are warring against a win-at-all-costs conservative media, saying that Fox News is out to "destroy the progressive movement."
TPM is on the ground at Netroots through Sunday morning. Follow our coverage here.
The full speech is likely to be posted online later, but I shot a bit of the speech from the press riser. Watch:
Comments (248) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
calchala
July 23, 2010 2:41 AM
So Ed acts like a pissy child because he couldn't get an interview. Sigh. Will someone remind them there are Republicans? Or are we just going to maintain this circular firing squad forever? I just want to know that I'm not down with the latter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 7:17 AM in reply to calchala
Ed Schultz has been a stronger, more dependable advocate for Barack Obama's agenda than Barack Obama has. Day in, day out, he's been out there slugging away for the very things this president campaigned on.
Keep that in mind when you trash the guy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 7:29 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Of course he's out there more. Ed has time to do that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 8:22 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Well, Barack Obama damn well better make time for it. Otherwise, how's it workin' for you, Mr. President?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 8:34 AM in reply to Apphouse50
pretty good actually. what he's done has had a pretty good impact on my life in the past 18 months. And the lives of four other people that I know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 8:59 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Well Viva, we're all happy he (Obumbler) "has had a pretty good impact on my life in the past 18 months." And your neighbors? Oh, that's right, they don't count.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
July 23, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
you know how well an anonymous person's neighbors are doing? We call that kind of speculation "unsupportable" in my work. If you want to bad mouth my President, whom I agree did a lousy job by not taking to Fox, get some facts. not specualtion about people you don't know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to Prefabfan
"you know how well an anonymous person's neighbors are doing? We call that kind of speculation "unsupportable" in my work."
Wow, you must be a journo or a reporter! This is a blog site pal, not the NYT. It was simply a response to a self-important "bitching about the good life" type, self-absorbed in her little world, blogging as if it meant anything. This is mostly a fucking social gathering of people who have time on their hands. BTW, get over yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
July 23, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
"You're either with us, or you're against us in the progressive movement in America,"
Cute, you're bashing the person trying to bail the sludge out of our Country, Obama, and supporting a talking head poaching lines from George W. Bush. Something for you to ponder.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to Jaycal
And who's quote is that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 23, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Yeah, he's doing real good reaching new lows in approval ratings with each passing month. Top notch that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
July 23, 2010 10:13 AM in reply to oleeb
Despite the the unemployment numbers, Obama is at a better place poll-wise than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their presidencies. So top that, and well, fuck yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Humanity_Critic
Dubious distinctions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
July 23, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Extremely relevant distinctions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 23, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to oleeb
oleeb,
and he's helping bring the Democratic Congress' numbers down too,
not that they needed help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 23, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to oleeb
You must have forgotten about Bush. Oh wait, you didn't, you just hope the rest of us who read your comment did. With a shitty economy and the right-wing echo chamber, his approval ratings are pretty good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 23, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to Hobbes83
It's true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
July 23, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to oleeb
wahhhh.
he's doing a good job. he's doing what he said he'd do. maybe you'd like him to just pander to polling? the majority ain't always right. in fact, that's a premise on which the country was founded.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
sorry that keeping promises doesn't appeal to you, but i find it kind of refreshing and admirable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 7:56 AM in reply to Apphouse50
is that he why he decided to run for the open Senate seat in North Dakota?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 8:23 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Would that be a bad thing?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 8:54 AM in reply to Apphouse50
No, but if he wants to change things he should have run.
But he's either too chickenshit or to attached to the money. It's easier and much more financially rewarding to stay on the sidelines and bitch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 9:12 AM in reply to FreeRider
He is right and this is what happens when a Democratic president sides with the R's more than the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 23, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to Libertine
Right. Because the R's were just totally all in favor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, HCR, financial reform, credit card reform. They love the stimulus bill. They can't say enough good things about it. They're totally digging the massive rejuvenation of the regulatory apparatus.
Oh, but, hey, he hasn't 100% delivered on the endless series of shiny object psuedo-issues that the left fixates on in lieu of any serious policy analysis, so he's just as bad as Cheney.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
July 23, 2010 10:14 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Than you Steve, Amen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Oh, you mean thing like, say, the public option?
Yeah, that was really a stupid idea.
And those high-risk pools? You'll love them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
July 23, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to Apphouse50
A great idea that didn't have the votes. Oh I forgot, foolish Obama refused to waive his magic wand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Humanity_Critic
Votes? Who needs votes?! Obama is the magic negro. He can waive his hand and decree "it is done!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 5:33 PM in reply to Humanity_Critic
didn't wave his magic wand? Rhetorical straw man. Didn't give single payer advocates a seat at the table. Downplayed the importance of the public option. Cut deals with insurers and the pharmaceutical industry before taking the issues to the public. Didn't make use of the bully pulpit. In short, didn't try for a progressive vision of health care reform, instead pushing for health insurance reform. Could any of those progressive initiatives passed Congress? Guess we'll never know. Obama usually begins negotiations at the center, then gets pulled to the right. I'd like to see him start his bidding really high for once.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 23, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to Apphouse50
Yeah, because the public option can NEVER be voted on after the elections. When you get legislation passed, it can NEVER be modified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
July 23, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"Serious policy issues" = what the conservatives want. "Shiny metal objects" = what liberals want. I just wanted to help clarify your position.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Really, so the conservatives really wanted HCR, Lily Ledbetter Act, Stimulus, Fin. Reg reform, etc.? You are howling at the moon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
July 23, 2010 10:39 AM in reply to Libertine
When progressivism becomes defined more and more by dogmatic dictates of "with us or against us," I begin to wonder about the meaning of the word and realize that we're probably beyond argument. Either the left figures out what we've accomplished these past 18 months and understands the stakes for 2010 or we sit on our hands. The awakening will be mush harsher than 2000.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to fbacon2
Thank you. Most of us here have been saying the same thing for 18 months, but the so called progressives aka firebaggers just aren't satisifed. It's not enough. They have conveniently forgotten just what a mess he inherited. They are pathetic, professional whiners. I suspect nothing would be good enough for them. Fuck em. All of em
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
July 23, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Libertine
Again, why would you support someone parroting George W. Bush?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MoCrash
July 23, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
I suspect Ed will run for Senate well before Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly et al run for dog catcher -- or President or anything else. After all, North Dakota is right next door to the home of Senator and former liberal talk show host Al Franken.
I wouldn't urge Ed to run, though, nor do I necessarily want him in the Senate, even if I agree with him on the issues. There's more to the job than just casting a vote, however important that may be. Further, I find the notion that someone who talks about issues for a living should somehow be required to run for office to be considered credible. That's akin to requiring that all who write about or broadcast baseball be former Major League players, which would rule out Vin Scully (and what a shame to the ear that would be).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to Apphouse50
No, would've been a great thing. Shows he's serious about what he says and he can show the Party that what he says can win them votes. He can take his personality directly to the source of the problem, the US Senate.
But Schultz didn't want to put his million-dollar pundit career on hold to get slaughtered by John Hoeven and lose credibility. If he loses an election, he can no longer say that he knows what Democrats should do to stay in power. He knew that, he's a coward
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
July 23, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Yawn.
Ed needs to check himself, and his own network. The White House didn't throw Sherrod under the bus because of FOX...they threw her under the bus because they knew that EVERY NETWORK would lap that sh*t up like crack and run with it.
And it's d*mn easy to play armchair QB on this. What if the WH hadn't have fired her? Well, then the news orgs would look even worse than they do now. What if they hadn't fired her, and the video turned out to be legit? How totally screwed would they have been then? Those are the potential consequences that the WH had to deal with.
It's the media's fault, for creating a culture in DC where no one fact checks, and where a "reaction" to a statement is more important than the statement being true in the first place.
If Ed would spend more time going after the mainstream media enablers -- not FOX, but rather the reporters and editors at CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. -- then maybe their influence, and in turn the culture, would change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
July 23, 2010 9:15 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Although I like Ed (and like Dylan Ratigan even more) you make some very good points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 9:30 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda.
This woman should have been defended by the DOA and WH, not fired. And the firing should never have been supported by ANYone at the WH once the truth came out.
Face it. They look ridiculous over this. They look scared, inept, weak. They might have looked strong, and we'd be proud of them. No one thinks they're villains -- we all know who the villains in this thing are. But they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and now have to rely on apologies.
Support them if you like as they throw good people under the bus as they cringe at the thought of Faux pointing fingers. I'm getting tired of it, myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike Drew
July 23, 2010 9:46 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Woulda coulda shoulda, thought that was your point. But you have shouldas of your own apparently. Yeah, they fucked up. That happens. You move on, or at least maybe you do. This can be moved on from, rather than obsessed over for 'what it means.' But apparently the Left wants to obsess, so obsess they shall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
July 23, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to Apphouse50
There's campaign Obama and there's President Obama.
There's Yes We Can and No We Can't
There's Fired Up Ready To Go and Throw Momma under the bus at the first sign of headwind from the right.
I won't forget, Campaign Obama moved us to trade single payer health care for Public Option. Then President Obama threw Public Option under the bus like it was a red headed step child with measles.
He hasn't been progressive about anything, nor has he fought for anything since November 2008.
He's paying for that now, because he took the half loaf stimulus instead of fighting for what was really needed. Now he's in big trouble because millions of people are in really bad straights and really big trouble. Half loaf stimulus is like half loaf antibiotics - it doesn't cure the infection but only makes it harder to cure the infection.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 7:59 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Yes, and I'm tired of it too. And the missed opportunity - a home run pitch for sure! How competent and 'in charge' they could have looked! Makes me tired all over again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 23, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
BBQ,
excellent post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vickj
July 23, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
The point you're missing here is that they fired her *without* checking the accuracy of Breitbart's post. And your point about how media never does any fact checking anymore only emphasizes that they should have been more proactive about checking it on their own. It's not like the unedited version of this tape was locked in a secret Taliban vault somewhere.
They messed this one up big, and it reinforces the point, if not proving it entirely, that they are too concerned with the RWEM [right-wing echo machine (c)1980]. They won by appealing directly to people and ignoring what the RWEM was saying during the election, if not knocking down their talking points almost immediately. Why are they running from those talking points now? Ed may not be entirely correct, but he can see entirely correct on the immediate horizon...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crystalstair
July 23, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
I don't get all this push back on legitimate criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the Sherrod affair. It was horrendously handled, and took major news cycles away from the financial reform legislation that was passed this week.
The administration grossly over-reacted. How many times does the far right have to pull the "okey doke" before the admin will learn the adage "consider the source"? This is one of several examples of the administration reacting to a flame thrown by some rabid "outraged" right wing commentator.
There was an alternative to firing Sherrod. The Ag secretary should have put her on administrative leave while he got the facts. I'm tired of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al. driving the agenda. Their side lost for goodness sake. You'd never know that by the power the admin gives them.
You don't fight bullies by cowering to them. You fight them by standing up to them. Instead of blaming the media for what happened (as Obama did in an interview yesterday), he should have focused the media on Andrew Brietbart (and others of his ilk) and his unethical, vile tactics. That's the real story here. This same vapid, gutless, stenographic media existed during his presidential campaign. This is not a new phenomenon!
As an Obama supporter, I don't think he's above criticism. And because I support him, I want him to do better and be better. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 8:52 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Bullshit! Schultz spent months trashing HCR and screaming "kill the bill." If that's what you call slugging away for this administration's agenda, you should be doing stand-up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to FreeRider
Yes, but at the end of the day he supported HCR, even accusing his viewers that by not supporting it they were denying HC for people with terminal illnesses, implying of course that non-supporters were 'murderers'. He even had 3 terminally ill women on his show when he implied this. Really shameless.
So now he calls the President a 'sissy'. BFD. Move on girls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 23, 2010 9:44 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
That "sissy" shit is just profoundly unhelpful and plays right into the hands of the people Ed would call his enemies, the Right Wing noise machine, TEA party, Birthers, etc., etc....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to Dorn76
"That "sissy" shit is just profoundly unhelpful".
It's not profound and it's not unhelpful. It's just a guy on cable TV voicing his opinion. What's "profound" is that most everyone is reminded again and again that the Pres is weak, pushed around by the banksters, who show him NO respect, Lieberman, Nelson, Joe Wilson, etc. NO ONE is afraid of your President. Lots of Hope, no Audacity. and you know it's true, no matter how much you love him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 9:24 AM in reply to FreeRider
He pushed for what was right and hammered the dealmaking and footdragging that led to greatly emasculated health care "reform" that's a mere step in the right direction but far short of what should have been. Unless of course, you love you some Insurers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:31 AM in reply to Apphouse50
CRAP! The constant lying and bitching about the HCR, falsely calling it a bailout for the insurance companies and a sell-out helped drive support for it down and made it harder to pass.
The administration got HCR done,IN SPITE of Schultz, not because of him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 23, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to Apphouse50
I watched all of this last night.
He's dead on on all his points.
More voices like Ed's are needed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to toddincabo
Yes, it would be nice to have people like Ed in our government, too bad Ed is a feckless coward and doesn't ant to risk losing an election
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spiffarino
July 23, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Not everybody who doesn't run is a "coward." That's ridiculous on its face. Few people could actually survive for long in politics because they're not cut out for the job.
I'm all for saving lives and putting out fires, but I would make a lousy fireman. I can, however, be a good proponent of funding the fire department.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to Spiffarino
Schultz isn't funding the fire department, he's criticizing them for not putting out the fire fast enough
If he's not cut out for politics, then he shouldn't be commenting on it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Huh? So all journalists have an obligation to run for public office? Kooky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 23, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to Spiffarino
Your just talking to the hand.
I like your analogy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
July 23, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Free Country....right
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
July 23, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to Apphouse50
I don't agree. I find it hard to watch Ed because he's so black and white and appears to operate from the principle that Republicans don't count. During the health care debate, he pushed for the public option, blaming Obama for its demise, even after it became obvious that we couldn't get to 60.
Ed's heart is in the right place, but pragmatic he ain't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to George C
Pragmatic? What does that mean? Trying to endlessly compromise with the right, getting nothing passed without the R's approval and pissing off a whole lot of voters who voted for the D's because they didn't want the R's running things anymore? That is the only "pragmatism" I have seen so far from this administration...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
July 23, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to Libertine
Obama aside, Ed's not pragmatic. Pragmatic involves building a group of supporters with common ground. All Ed does is preach to his progressive minority choir, while pissing off the rest of the Democrats.
You can't bully someone into being more progressive. You have to convince them with reasonable arguments. Ed sucks at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Libertine
Nelson and Lieberman would not vote for for a PO, period. WOuld you rather have an end to recessions, and end to denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions, not have the ability to keep kids on their policies up until they are 25, would you not have liked the pell grants, and the myriad other provisions of this law delivers on or not?
Get real.
Look, I would rather have single-payer with optional gold-level bolt-on private insurance, but that isn't going to happen. I was (and am) fully supportive of a robust PO, but the votes were not there when the bill was passed. But this was a big fucking deal to pass, and it is a big fucking deal that it is now law.
But you, and everyone else on the left bitching about the Obama administration's "failures" need to rejoin the reality based world once again, because unless you want to undue the major changes that we did get so far in moving the country forward, and want to see Speaker Boehner and even a Senate President McConnell, then please keep living in your fantasy-world while the nation is destroyed. I'm sure Nero would be more than willing to hand you his fiddle while the GOP suit up to set fire to the government and country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 23, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
+1, especially about the 'i would rather have the PO' part. I would, too. But you're exactly right that getting *some* of what we want passed is better than getting *none* of it passed. I sincerely hope that we go back to the well in 2011 and fight for even more with the new Congress.
I would like for the President to get us everything he promised during the election and then some. However, I recognize that that's just not realistic. So I'm satisfied -- more or less -- with what we *can* get, not just with what we *wanted* to get.
Little by little, we will get where we want to be. Patience is a virtue, and time is on our side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:33 AM in reply to George C
You're so right. These folks don't know the meaning of the word "pragmatic." They think they can get things done simply by pounding their fists and screaming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to FreeRider
The bully pulpit is a real advantage for the President. This one, despite his obvious rhetorical gifts, isn't using it to fight for a home run. He's always started negotiations at the center. That's not how you get the maximum out of your opponent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
July 23, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to George C
Look, George, it's not Ed Schultz's role, or yours or mine, to compromise when the votes aren't there in the Senate for what he thinks is right. We dont,t vote in the Senate, we don't represent anyone but ourselves, and if we want a public option or EFCA or anything else, our job is to let people know that and to tell them why. Compromise is for politicians -- that's their job, if the circumstances demand it -- not for citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
July 23, 2010 3:42 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
That's fair comment, Squeak, but it's one thing for Shultz to rally the forces as he did when HRC went back to the House and on to the Senate at the end game, and it's quite another for him to rail against Obama and the administration earlier in the process because the O-man wasn't out there pounding his fist for the PO. In the Spring, there were a number of us who kept noting that the magic number is 60, and unless you could count to 60 there's no point talking. I remember all those "we got 60" ads using previous quotes from Blanche and others saying they favored a PO, until (of course) their votes were necessary for the PO.
Point being, it's true that only the elected officials vote, and need to compromise to reach a result, but there should also be lots of people who recognize this and cut those officials some slack when it's clear as day that without the compromise there's no result.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to George C
Obama should have started further to the left. Held out for the public option and compromised on other details.
Could never figure out why he wouldn't go to the wall for drug reimportation, either, with support on both sides of the aisle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
July 28, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
I think he thought it made more sense to make a deal with Pharma: he would not go to the mat on reimportation and they would not spend billions lobbying against HCR. Reasonable people can discuss the merits of this thinking, but logically the admin probably thinks the bargaining power of the medicare people will lower the prices of drugs anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 23, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to Apphouse50
You're absolutely right about that. But the Obama M.O. is to ignore people who support dear leader if they actually expect him to do what he promised in the campaign or if they ever point out how unbelievably stupid and self-defeating their kowtowing to Fox and the Republicans is. According to the kool aid drinking Obama disciples the only good supporter is one who keeps their mouth shut and demonstrates blind loyalty. Anyone who criticizes dear leaders idiotic strategy is a whiner and a hater like that disloyal Ed Schultz who has stuck his neck out for Obama more than almost anyone else in the national media.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
July 23, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to oleeb
absolutely
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to oleeb
Schultz has never stuck his head out for the President, that's bullshit. When the President asked him to run for the Senate, he ran and hid like a coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to oleeb
Cram your kool aide, dear leader disciple bullshit right up your ass, sideways while you are at it. Sorry if reality intrudes on your fantasy world where there is no Congress where legislation has to actually have enough votes to get through to the President to sign. Yep, it is all the President's fault that he can't simply wave a wand and make your personal agenda the law of the land.
Grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
The President did cut deals with Pharma and insurers at the outset of the HIR debacle. And it looks like he pulled a bait and switch on single payer, holding out a public option initiative to soothe progressives, then gradually making it clear a po wasn't all that important to him once it looked like he might have to expend some political capital to get it passed.
Which is all just another way of saying he's not the President I want him to be or that he could be. He's a disappointment.
Tactically, primaries haven't as yet proven successful, but that isn't to say they don't have potential. "Reasonable men conform to their circumstances. Unreasonable men expect circumstances to conform to their will. Therefore, all progress is due to unreasonable men." (with apologies to G.B.Shaw)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
July 23, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to Apphouse50
" "
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Realist
July 23, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to Apphouse50
gpleigh, you are absolutely correct. If President Obama were anything like the candidate that we thought we were electing, we would be a much more prosperous country, a much safer country, a much saner country, a much better place to raise our children.
But in fact we are living (if you can call it that) through George W. Bush's third term.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 23, 2010 9:16 AM in reply to calchala
calchala,
Shultz said:
He also complained that Obama hasn't gone on his show or sat recently for interviews with Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, adding that during the campaign, "I busted my ass for Obama." Schultz said that instead of going on The Ed Show, Obama went on Bret Baier's show on Fox, "in my time slot. What's that all about?"
He made more than one point, that Obama didn't go on MSNBC, OLbermann or Maddow, he went on FOX. And two, he went on FOX during Schultz's time slot.
Schultz has a right to be pissed off at Obama and he's not the only one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
July 23, 2010 9:31 AM in reply to calchala
While it's true that we don't really need one more person ripping on the President ... the core of his argument is correct. The administration just can't keep ignoring FAUX News as if it were some sort of benign but annoying sore that is going to "heal up".
The are an incredibly well funded and well organized, 24 hour propaganda machine. They have proven time and again that they will stoop to any level to push their message and they have NEVER let pesky things like "facts" or "Truth" get in the way of THEIR propaganda.
Schultz is correct when he says that the Administration (and the dems and anybody else who has a shred of human decency for that mater) needs to stand up to these thugs and in fact, go on the offensive against them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Realist
July 23, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to justaJ0e
Justajoe: While it's true that we don't really need one more person ripping on the President ..
Wrong. We need every true Democrat to rip into the President and keep ripping into him until he either does what we elected him to do, or he resigns.
How did "Yes, we can" become "I don't wanna"?
And why do we tolerate it from Obama or any of the other so-called Democrats who infest Washington?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to Realist
Wow, is your screen name a sick joke or what. He should do what YOU wants or resigns? Are you shitting me?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
July 23, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to calchala
Perhaps YOU and Obama need to be reminded that it was not REPUBLICANS who voted him into office, dear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to GayIthacan
No shit. Which is why we were even debating reforming healthcare instead of trying to stop the dismantling of Social Security. Get the President 60 votes in the Senate for what you want, and then we'll talk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to calchala
Not afraid of Fox News, the error they made was assuming they were being handed a legitimate line of BS instead of something coming from the other side, which in our times always means it's made-up and dumbed-down bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 23, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to calchala
Thank you. With all the media's hyperventilating about Obama's poll numbers, no one is paying attention to the fact that the Nut Roots are dragging him below 50 because they didn't get the exact brand and model of toy they asked for from Santa Obama. Well, vent, vent if you want buy goddamnit y'all are possibly all that stands between the nation and the Palinites in the next two cycles and years to come. The Fascists are tenacious. Take satisfaction in the change we got, keep up the pressure but dammit knock on some doors, show up on election day and contribute to the Cause. We may not get Nirvana but we sure as Christ don't want to get Palinized any further.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 23, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to calchala
Call me obtuse, call me stupid, but somehow, I fail to see any real difference between the Republicans lied repeatedly in their advocacy for the dissolution of ACORN, and those congressional Democrats who voted for that dissolution, by defunding that organization based upon those same Republican lies.
Now, I'll support congressional Democrats on the basis that today's crop of Republicans of completely fuckin' bonkers, and because I really like the job House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done in carrying the Democratic torch, with little or no help from either the president or her colleagues in Senate leadership.
But that doesn't blind me to the fact that the Democrats in Washington have squandered the tremendous opportunity given to them by the voters in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Because when push came to shove, a not-insignificant number of them - the Obama White House included - simply lacked the cojones or the moral fiber necessary to stand upon time-honored liberal principle, and chose instead to accede to the expediency of the immediate moment.
Oh, pardon me, I forgot that we're badly outnumbered in the Senate, 41-59. My bad. What could we have possibly done in the face of increasingly arcane Senate protocols?
So, if you're seeking to scare liberal Democrats like me with the dire prospect of GOP bogeymen controlling Congress, I congratulate you on your willingness to lower yourself to the same level of political discourse as those Republicans who gin up their side with visions of Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer forcing their children to give Barney Frank a blowjob.
Speaking for myself only, I'd like to believe that I'm a little more sophisticated than that, and I think it's a damned shame that you're not.
Nuf ced. Aloha.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
July 23, 2010 3:18 AM
I thought Ed died. Oh, I forgot, that was just his show on Air America. You gotta give the guy credit as he keeps trying to get somebody, anybody to listen to him!! What a loser!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 7:34 AM in reply to GSM
Ed's radio show didn't "die", it's still going strong. AND he wasn't on Air America; his show is independently syndicated and played on some stations that also played Air America content.
FAIL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 23, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Denis
Denis,
right wingers never tire of being wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 8:56 AM in reply to GSM
Since you got every single detail wrong, maybe it was your brain that died.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vamonticello
July 23, 2010 3:45 AM
Ed Schultz is a former conservative that switched sides once he realized he could make a career out of being a left wing talkshow host. People need to remember that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:00 AM in reply to vamonticello
What utter bullshit. In talk radio, right-wingers make a lot more money and have higher ratings than left-wingers. Air America is proof of that.
Nobody moves from the right wing to the left wing for the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
July 23, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to FreeRider
I thought that'd be a given to understand... But apparently not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Catchpenny
July 23, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to vamonticello
...Actually,Ed hasn't changed most of his political ideology very much over the years...The REPUBLICAN party has changed drasticaly and left independant thinkers on the outside...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 23, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to Catchpenny
As a former Republican, I can attest to the truth of your statement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ksker
July 23, 2010 5:30 AM
It is one thing for the repugs to treat this Democratic Administration and Party with their “uncle-tom-patronizing” mentality bullshit, but it is quite another for Democrats to fall for it.
It is time for Democrats to stop running scared and start facing the fact that you cannot compromise with idiots.
Way to go Ed!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 7:40 AM in reply to ksker
I don't know who you are but the term Uncle-Tom in reference to the 1st president of color is offensive to me as a (AA female). Check yourself my friend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 8:16 AM in reply to Carly
SECOND!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pol
July 23, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to chameleon
Third, and I'm Caucasian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goldspinner
July 25, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to Carly
The remark was offensive but those of us who are actually "sistas" don't refer to ourselves as "AA" either. Nice attempt at "passing".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 8:09 AM in reply to ksker
Ed should talk. When the Democratic Party gave him an open shot at running for the dysfunctional United States Senate so we can get himself in a position to take on Fox and conservatives, but ran and hid under a desk for a couple of weeks.
I mean why take on Fox yourself when you can just bitch everyone else isn't doing it for you.
Al Franken was brave enough to actually run for something. Schultz is a coward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 8:25 AM in reply to dtOZONE
There's nothing quite like the way Dems beat up on each other. Keep it up. It's working so well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:02 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Kinda like how Ed is beating up on fellow democrats and you're cheering?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to FreeRider
I don't mind debate. I'm just not into idolatry. Even when it comes to a leader I voted for, donated to many times when I could ill afford it, walked the streets handing out campaign literature for and getting screamed at -- by Massachusetts Dems, no less -- when doing phone canvassing.
If you think circling the wagons is a comfortable feeling, hats off to you, you're getting to do it a lot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 23, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Agreed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to Apphouse50
You bitch about Democrats attacking each other while cheering Democrats attacking each other. Either it's wrong or it's not.
On this, you have zero credibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to FreeRider
I bitch about Dems demonizing other Dems for having different opinions. I bitch about Dems who think pretending Barack Obama can't ever screw up is a workable strategy. I bitch about having to spend time defending him against stuff he's responsible for that shouldn't happen when I'd rather spend time excoriating the Breitbarts, Becks, Hannitys, O'Reallys, Limbaughs, Savages, Levins, Severins, and the rest of that pack of swine.
Yeah, and I think I have the right to do it if this is what CHANGE amounts to. I've said it many times and continues to be true: he's still my guy, I think he'll always be, but I've earned the right to say it when I think he's f**ked up. One thing I won't do is do it at sites like Free Republic -- I'll do it where progressives meet, discuss, debate, assuming that's still allowed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to Apphouse50
YOU demonize democrats for having a different opinion!!!
YOU demonize democrats who support the president, idiot!!!
How are you different from the very people you attack? You're not!
We don't act as if the president is perfect. We simply think he should be given the benefit of the doubt and given some credit for everything he has accomplished.
YOU, on the other hand, trash him and everything he does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to FreeRider
EVERYTHING? Really? Wow! That's one big honkin' statement, there, pal. And you're ready to back this up, of course.
Yes, you clearly lack the debate gene.
Home, James.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Debate? I don't debate with idiots who attack democrats while simultaneously attacking other democrats for attacking democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to Apphouse50
Excuse me? You're scolding ME about beating up another Dem?!?! Is this for real?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to dtOZONE
Sadly, he is for real. These firebaggers have zero self-awareness. They are every bit as bad and destructive to the democratic party and the democratic agenda as the teabaggers are to the republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
July 23, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to dtOZONE
What would Ed Schultz be able to do in the Senate to "take on Fox" that he can't do on his show? The Senate doesn't hold votes about Fox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
July 23, 2010 6:31 AM
Obama is now blaming the media instead of admitting that they didn't do their homework. They caved in because they wanted to make the story go away.
Give Ed credit. He's been trying to make the weak-kneed dems stand up for what the majority of people want. (ex: public option) If someone doesn't, the dems will keep moving further right and keep on passing watered-down legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 7:35 AM in reply to ws84
Excuse me!? the ONLY party in this whole fiasco that ADMITTED they made a mistake is the Obama administration. Gibbs admitted it, Vilsack admitted it and Obama talked to Ms. Sherrod personally and apologized for what happened to her.
The media who continues to legitimize people like breitbart? NOPE!! breitbart? hell no! but keep pushing those Huffington Post talking points - I heard he and arianna were quite close and that he helped start that website.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Squire T
July 23, 2010 10:24 AM in reply to Viva!America!
The NCAAP admitted they were 'snookered' by Braitbart and Fox, but I don't know if they actually apologized.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Squire T
The NAACP profusely apologized to Sherrod. Ben Jealous called her personally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Squire T
July 23, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to FreeRider
I hadn't heard that. Thanks for setting me straight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 7:37 AM
The progressive media doesn't break through to the average american. Its just one big giant bubble of people who already share the same views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Still, you'd think Obama could throw a bone to the people who got him elected. He USED Progressives to get in office, and now won't even give them the time of day. In fact, Obama does not just ignore Progressives, he undermines them. He goes on FOX and legitimizes them, and takes their word as gospel to fire one of his own. Then he won't give Ed, Rachael, or Oberman the enhanced credibility that comes with an appearance by the president. Finally, by making the Progressives vote for this-or-nothing health care reform that is not progressive, he forces them to undermine their relationship with their own constituents. I think Ed is correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 7:41 AM
In all fairness to progressives, ED, they do a lot of writing and talking, what they need to is start DOING.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 7:52 AM in reply to Viva!America!
ooops. submitted too soon.
Whoah! someone's channeling Bush! Did someone say Ed was a former Republican?
Ego alert. Obama has interviewed with Rachel before. As for Keith and you? I remember Obama being asked if he listens to cable news and he said generally, no because he never learns anything new. He said most of the hosts plays a certain role so he's never really surprised by what they say. Obama named two examples: Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann - I suspect Ed that you might be included in this group. That the administration sends cabinet members to the Rachel Maddow show says a lot about how much they value her.
No hard feelings though Ed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 8:18 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Ed's definitely on an ego trip and it's not the first time. I think the guy does some good on his show but he has a huge ego which sometimes gets in the way of his better judgment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 23, 2010 9:25 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Yeah, that’s a really smart move, politically. Refuse to appear on shows that your base watches and instead appear on shows that people who would rather cut off their right hand hand than vote for you watch exclusively.
Why would Obama want to appear on shows that allow him to speak to his base voters and supporters and people who might be persuaded to vote for him or support him? It’s so much more effective appearing on a show where the host thinks you are a muslim illegal immigrant and whose viewers call you racial epithets and think you are a racist, socialist, communist, anti-Christ.
Your logic escapes me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 23, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Goober Peas
Because there's no point in doing so in a situation like this. I thought you would understand a simple point like this, but I guess not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 23, 2010 3:44 PM in reply to Hobbes83
No point in reaching out to your base? While whining about lack of support from your progressive and liberal base and insulting them? Yeah, that’s GREAT political acumen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 8:55 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Viva honey, how is it the progressives fault when there up against both parties steepin' and fetchin' for their corporate bosses?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alaric
July 23, 2010 8:23 AM
Wow ......You're either with us, or you're against us in the progressive movement in America," he said...... And you folks call conservatives close minded. Give you guys the gov't and you marginalize yourselves every time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alaric
July 23, 2010 8:25 AM
Oh and this might make your heads explode. The rumour is that all the Bush tax cuts will be extended. Even the top bracket. hahahahaha
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to alaric
Well, in an actual statement from the WH, the cuts will expire in January. The cuts for those under 250,000 will be extended. but i'm sure the rumor will be taken more seriously since people don't seem to care for quotes with named sources.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alaric
July 23, 2010 8:52 AM in reply to Viva!America!
They will extend the over $250.000 bracket too. This bracket includes small business owners who hire. This nation and this administration desperately needs job creation. That is why cap n tax is now dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
July 23, 2010 9:23 AM in reply to alaric
I know this area is well-trod, but there's absolutely no evidence of a link between raising taxes on the wealthy (including the estate tax) and fewer jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 23, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to alaric
"This nation and this administration desperately needs job creation."
Except that tax cuts don't *cause* job creation. Case in point: the Bush tax cuts didn't.
Economists generally agree that in order to keep up with population growth, the economy needs to add 1.8 million jobs per year, or about 150,000 jobs per month. Just doing that will keep the unemployment rate constant, but it won't decrease the unemployment rate.
Despite the massive Bush tax cuts, most months during Bush's term either *lost* jobs or simply didn't create the 150,000 needed to keep pace with population growth, let alone create any *extra* jobs to replace the ones lost during the 2002-2003 recession.
Result: unemployment rate in most sectors of the economy was either flat or increased from Bush's 2001 inauguration through his departure from office.
Conclusion: Bush's tax cuts didn't help with employment.
Prediction: If Obama reinstates Bush's tax cuts, that won't help with employment either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richard L. Adlof
July 23, 2010 8:26 AM
Say what you about Schultz if you choose but the views he expressed are accurate . . . The Obama Aministration has been dancing to tunes by Winger bogey decriers and not talking to the President's base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 8:38 AM in reply to Richard L. Adlof
The base is not progressive bloggers and tv hosts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:06 AM in reply to Viva!America!
You'll never convince bloggers and a few posters on HP and FDL that they didn't get the president elected all by themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 23, 2010 9:28 AM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah, those crazy voters who think that their work and votes had some meaning. What are they thinking? How dare they think that they have a voice in the nation’s political conversation because they did GOTV and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and called representatives endlessly?
They need to get over themselves and realize only the people who agree with Obama and his administration count. Right? That’s your point, isn’t it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:38 AM in reply to Goober Peas
Oh, fuck you! The nutroots think they OWN this president when they did nothing more than tens of millions of others did to get him elected, including a lot of Democrats they think shouldn't be in the party.
They think they have all of this power when they are nothing but a bunch of Internet wackadoo whiners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to FreeRider
And thank you, too, yes definitely.
Charming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to FreeRider
Another day and the same old shit right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
No, they don't own him, but they deserve the courtesy of being heard and their concerns addressed. The active part of the base did not elect him alone, but they did work and contribute.
We're supposed to be happy that he's not quite as bad as the Republicans? What a low bar. Yeah, I'll vote for him; but he does not get to take my work and my money and then undermine my politics just because he isn't Republican.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to condew
More bullshit. Obviously, your definition of "being heard" means getting the administration to do everything you want! Anything short of "the perfect" bill is labeled "sell-out" and "catering to republicans."
You're unrealistic AND ungrateful. Instead of thanking your lucky stars that we got HCR and financial reform, you piss and moan about a public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
No, it means having my case made. AFTER the case is made, then it is up to the Democratic whips to look for the votes, and then, once an honest attempt was made, if there aren't the votes, so be it. Obama gives up without trying. In health care, single-payer people were frozen out, so the public OPTION was made to appear very left wing even though it was already a compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 23, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
To me it means not being insulted and called a “f***ing retard” by the president’s top advisor. And not being belittled and made fun of by numerous un-named “White House sources” while never actually being directly contacted. Except for money. I get 2 emails a day from Michelle, Barack, or David Plouffe asking me to make phone calls and send money.
I worked my tail off to get this administration and congress elected and they have thrown me under the bus over and over. Union? LGBT? Teacher? Pro choice? Feminist? Antiwar? Progressive? Liberal? This administration and supporters like you have no time for the likes of us except when it comes time to man the phones, walk the precincts, GOTV, and send campaign contributions. After the election it’s “shut up and quite asking for things!” No more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Goober Peas
So, does that mean you're quitting the democratic party? Please, please, please, please!!!
The sooner the better.
Because this president is not going to kow-tow to you fucking firebagging loons!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bwakfat
July 24, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to FreeRider
Say what?
You are full of crap Free Rider.
You don't speak for the President, so quit pretending you have any more legitimacy than his critics do. It's clear that you do NOT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to Goober Peas
Thank you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
July 23, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Right! The base is Republicans and Wall Street crooks! You can tell because those are the only people Obama pays any attention to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 8:28 AM
O-bots are out in force this morning. Ed Schultz backed Obumbler 100% on the pathetic HCR circus and now calls the President the pussy for which he is - works for me.
Gotta love this -
"They must have a war room at the White House. I think they've got a sissy room too," Schultz said. "I didn't vote for that."
Ouch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
July 23, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
that's pretty funny since liberals are stereotyped as weaklings themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 9:18 AM in reply to Viva!America!
Yeah we are seeing exactly what part of the liberal base is weaklings. It is the right wing part of the left, aka "the Center". The fighters on the far left have lost our patience and we've had enough of the Center's moral cowardice. We stand for something more than the Center's "getting elected and do nothing without the R's approval". Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to Libertine
Some of us have had it with bullying idealouges left and right. We have our own brains, our own moral sense and are capable of coming to our own conclusions. I simply don't agree with everything you think morally or otherwise. The whole point of a democratic governance is reaching compromises and playing nicely with others rather than being in a constant state of war.
Uncompromising bigots left and right are the problem. You have to tolerate and deal with other opinions. That's strength, being pigheaded is moral cowardice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to John
Bravo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to John
Second!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to John
Well what do you call people who say others need to STFU, and rain invectives down, when someone criticizes the president? Well you guys have some nerve, actually big hairy balls, calling us bullies for telling you we refuse to be bullied by the likes of Freerider, Marinus et al. We get pushed we will push back, no ifs, ands or buts about it...deal with it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Libertine
How typical. This is the same kind of line I'm getting from the right wing twit on Breibart. "They were mean first!" Please.
I said what I said to you because I don't think the health care on substance was "moral cowardice". I didn't like it a lot but I suspect I didn't like it for very different reasons than you. On balance with all applicable factors including the overall political situation considered I decided that it was worth supporting. If the health care bill had been exactly what Ed Schultz wanted I'm not sure that I would have supported it because I didn't think his ideas were good. But I would have had to consider all factors. That's the way responsible adults makes decisions. We don't shriek "do it my way or you are a cowardly traitor" unless we get exactly what we want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to John
And I just saw you called me a bigot in your original reply to me. Go F$^k yourself. You have become what you claim you loathe...
I have listened to what the other side, the right side of the political left, has to say. The whole thing is going into the toilet and I get lectured about needing to listen more? You are the ones who need to listen and stop labeling people racist just because they disagree with the president. You guys are in the middle of a BIBLICALFAIL. I refuse to be party to it and I am pissed that people think that the centrists running things are liberals. Obama is no more liberal than Lincoln Chafee is...deal with it. More war, more bailouts of the wealthy, GITMO still up and unemployment at 10% for as far as the eye can see with little being done to correct it. And improving things doesn't just mean stopping things from getting worse. But I don't think political partisans have a deep enough brain to grasp all of this. So bully on and I will swing right back atcha...How can I respect your crime when all you criminals whine. They bought and sold you, run on, run on...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to Libertine
I didn't accuse you of racism.
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
That's what I accused you of and you just showed it again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
July 23, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to John
And there are many ways other than using the word bigot(ed) to make the point you were trying to make. But your side always tries to paint people you disagree with you in the worst possible light and you are well aware of the connotations inherent in that word but you choosing to use it anyways speaks volumes about what you are about...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to John
And to clarify I'm using an example that may not be accurate for you. I'm guessing based on how upset you are about compromises and I apologize if I guessed wrong. My point was you are being to presumptive. It not just D's, R's and compromising cowards in between. May of use think outside of that box and happen to value compromise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 24, 2010 12:23 AM in reply to John
Bravo to every one of your posts. And to Libertine - hang it up. You have been pwnd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
July 23, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to Clarance Vine
"O-bots are out in force this morning."
You can always spot people who lack the debate gene. Either state your case or shut the fuck up, calling people "obots" is tipping your inbred hand.
While Shulltz backed Obama in general, when HC looked bleak he clumsily wrung his hands like a lot of chickenshit liberals. His coverage during that time period amounted to a bunch of hyperbolic hyperventilating. His words here don't shock me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 23, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to Humanity_Critic
I was going to respond to that post, but you've summed up everything that I was going to say. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 23, 2010 10:25 PM in reply to Humanity_Critic
"You can always spot people who lack the debate gene. Either state your case or shut the fuck up,.."
Now that's a real debate gene -"...shut the fuck up..."
What a moron. Admit it, it's OK - you're an O-Bot and you love everything about Obama. I see him as a failure, a hustler who talked his way into the WH. And once he got there realized he was in over his head and became intimidated by the 'pubs, FOX News, the banksters, Lieberman, etc. Schultz was right. As I stated earlier, NO ONE fears this President. Ain't got no Audacity. Hope ain't gonna do it. So no, you shut the fuck up O-Bot!
While Shulltz backed Obama in general, when HC looked bleak he clumsily wrung his hands like a lot of chickenshit liberals. His coverage during that time period amounted to a bunch of hyperbolic hyperventilating. His words here don't shock me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
July 23, 2010 8:39 AM
Meanwhile, none of the name-calling children around here want to deal with the obvious and pathetic fact that the Administration clearly IS afraid of Fox News. Which is both insane (given that there might be 10 people watching who would ever vote for Obama anyway) and destructive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
July 23, 2010 9:17 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The only people who'd vote for obama who watch fox... are... liberal bloggers.
That said. The administration overreacted, screwed up, apologized, recanted... and everyone's still bashing them. Yes, the cause of it was someone watching Fox News, early in the morning, and spitting their coffee out. Someone made a phone call, that triggered a pure clusterfuck that resulted in a mishap from playing telephone.
One. Ugly. Game. Of. Telephone.
That's all this was. To a much, much, much, much, much, much lesser degree than watching all the senators go to war over WMD's in iraq's cache... Misinformation causes you to do plenty of stupid things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
klip
July 23, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to aq
Let's not forget how Obama threw his green energy czar, Van Jones, under the bus last year because of Glenn Beck's rants against the guy. In that case, it was a comment about repubs being assholes that was taken out of context that got so much Fox coverage and was one of the main reasons-- along with signing a 9-11 truther doc some 5 yrs ago-- that Van Jones left rather than continue to be a "distraction" for the president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to klip
You mean the same Van Jones that just a little while ago at the same Netroots event Schultz went to the zoo, said he "can't stand it" and it's "baffling" when netroots bash Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
July 23, 2010 9:17 AM
Ed Schultz has been the president's strongest advocate, a stronger advocate than Obama has been for his own agenda. And it think it's important that Arianna Huffington informs her readers that she and Breibart of the founder and co-founder of the huffingtonpost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 9:39 AM in reply to ru4862
Schultz trashed HCR as a sell-out that should be killed at the exact same moment the president was struggling to get it across the finish line.
Some advocate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
July 23, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
The president was struggling to get health care reform passed? Get the fuck out of here, you kiss-assin', history-rewritin' sycophant! Who the fuck died and left you as final arbiter of who's a good Democrat and who isn't?
The only reason HCR passed is because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to let it die last winter, when the White House was willing to drop it and move onto the subject of immigration reform. You're so fuckin' dishonest that you probably fake your orgasms while masturbating.
The primary reason why the Democrats are floundering is because of Axelrod-fellating acolytes and unquestioning Rahmitrons like you, because deep down inside, you're really no better than the Cheney-lovin' Freepers in the GOP. You have no life of your own, so you live it vicariously through your canonized version of Barack Obama, and you're such a groupie that you probably have a hard time believing that he even goes to the bathroom.
And if you don't like hearing that, well, that's just too fuckin' bad, you wimpy little Obamapussy. You're a disgrace to Democratic principles.
Now get lost. You make me wanna fuckin' puke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
If I make your sorry, demented firebagging ass want to puke, then I'll stay right here!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 24, 2010 12:28 AM in reply to Donald from Hawaii
You've got the story all wrong bud. Do some homework. There was even a documentary about it. It was Obama who went to Nancy and said he wasn't going to let it die and there were some "words" between them but in the end she knew what had to be done. Sorry to disappoint you but the story is documented. Check it out for yourself if you are interested in the "truth"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
July 23, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to ru4862
Breibart is a scum of the earth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
July 23, 2010 9:34 AM
You know why FOX News is considered legitimate? BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE WATCH IT THAN ANY OTHER CABLE NEWS STATION!!!!
It doesn't matter what the substance of your "news" is. If you're winning the ratings battle, people will respect you because they want to get the ratings you're getting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
July 23, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to jdb316
Lots of people watch "America's Got Talent" but nobody claims its a news show.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 23, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to An Outhouse
Please, let's not conflate Fox and any sort of talent. They don't belong in the same sentence. Well, they are talented in making shit up. But that's all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 23, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to An Outhouse
FTW
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
July 23, 2010 9:41 AM
"Schultz said he's "not anti-Obama" but wants to "change some plays" to help the Democrats win in November."
Why do people assume Obama would prefer to govern with a Democratic congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
July 23, 2010 9:47 AM in reply to dick c
Because of two words: subpoena power.
A Republican congress will subpoena the HELL out of an Obama administration that NOTHING will get done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Maritza
It's so ironic. The President who has gone out of his way to govern in a bipartisan manner - that was at the center of his campaign - is going to lose his majority. If he'd swung for the fences he might not be in this position. But maybe since bipartisanship is so important to him, maybe he doesn't really care about keeping a Democratic majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 23, 2010 9:41 AM
"We have to do our vetting process. You're either with us, or you're against us in the progressive movement in America,"
OK, that sounds familiar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 23, 2010 9:48 AM in reply to Dorn76
I like Ed, I just think this noise will produce the exact opposite reaction he wants from the WH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
July 23, 2010 9:52 AM in reply to Dorn76
And they are afraid of Fox, which is silly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
July 23, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to Dorn76
Yes. I stopped reading there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
July 23, 2010 9:54 AM
I listen and watch Ed from time to time. He is tough on the President, but he's also tough on listeners and viewers who claim they won't vote for him. It's possible to be both. I think that some Obama supporters have developed a sensitivity to criticism. Ed Schultz can be over-the-top. You'll get no argument from me. However, he's right on this issue.
I think that Obama and Vilsack have been humbled by the incident and they deserve a lot of credit for acknowledging their mistakes. It's time to move on from that part of the Sherrod incident. However, President Obama needs to take a tougher stance against FOX because reacting to FOX does not benefit him. He will never win them over and they will always spin the news to make him look bad.
Obama has friends on the "far left." He really does. I think Progressives get frustrated with him because he doesn't always act like he knows that. While Obama has subscribed to Lincoln/Team of Rivals approach, Progressives have taken their lesson from FDR, trying to push the President in the right direction. My impression is that the administration/campaign thinks that it has created a new coalition and that listening to Progressives hurts their cause. I think that moving more to the left and getting tougher would help his approval numbers and re-energize his eal base.
Finally, I think that Democrats who are more focused on Obama the man instead of on the issues that will define his presidency do him a disservice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to whitesauce
I wish Obama would forget about his numbers for a second, forget about his base, Fox News, his new coalition, progressives, campaign contributions, Blue Dogs, his team of rivals, FDR and waiting for us to make him do it...and focus on good policy. Then go about selling it. Crazy, I know, but it might just work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
July 23, 2010 9:58 AM
I thought Obama did take on Fox last year. He basically said they weren't a legitimate news source. If I remember correctly CNN, MSNBC jumped on Fox's side. How dare the president speak that way about cable news. Obama can't win when it comes to cable news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 23, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to loria
Nobody "wins" when it comes to cable "news." That's the point. Cable "news" always needs something to complain and rant about, or some controversy to obsess about.
The enterprise is a perpetual controversy machine. Without "controversy" they have no ratings. So, if push comes to shove, they gin it up by revising history, leaving out details, saying incendiary nonsense -- whatever gets them greater visibility, more viewers and/or more clicks for their sites.
And we all play right into their hands when we obsess about ridiculous comments like Schultz's, or think we can argue against their nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chigger
July 23, 2010 10:00 AM
I love you, Ed, which is more than I can say about the way I feel for Obama. I want to change my satellite package, but I won't do it until I can find one with your show on it. Keep up the good work!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ritetime
July 23, 2010 10:02 AM
I think we often lose track of the fact that all this on-air people have to fill hours and hours of air time. Unfortunately, most of that time fill is filled with hot air.
Schultz yells pretty damn loud and his ego far out weights his talent. How can you say your for the best policies of the American people and then get pissed because the certain candidate (Hillary Clinton) or the President doesn't come on your show.
Give me a break. Like most of the on-airbags it's not about journalism, it's about them and that's the problem!
Schultz is no different the Limbaugh in playing the "shock jock" role that would hopefully garner a larger viewership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Catchpenny
July 23, 2010 10:15 AM
...Kudos to "Big Ed"...He has the platform and said what I have been thinking and discussing for some time now...Hell,I can agree with what Mr.Obama has tried to do by being inclusive but it has not worked out. The Republicans are still in lockstep and not allowing any free thinking amongst their ranks,too bad. They continue to insert "poison pills" or rip out meaningful language in committee then vote against the legislation anyway...Sadly,what we now have to do is follow the "Darth Vader" Cheney method and just tell them to "Fuck off"...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to Catchpenny
Yes, Obama did a great speech last week supporting an extenstion of unemployment benefits and calling Republicans out on repeatedly blocking it. Did not change one Republican vote; the extention passed when the new Senator from WV showed up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
July 23, 2010 10:20 AM
Like Ed,
I can't believe they fired somebody based on something posted by Brietbart, or anyone from the right wing noise machine. That is not pragmatism!
Let's hope they never do something that stupid again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Let's hope they never do something that stupid again.
I think I recall hearing something like that when they got rid of Van Jones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
politus
July 23, 2010 10:24 AM
LOL. Schultz and the Netrooters prove my claim that they are nothing more than a younger, less effective version of the Tea Party. Thery're all about ME ME ME WAH WAH WAH I WANT WHAT I WANT AND F*CK THE REST OF YOU!
I guess each side needs it cadre of whining infants...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to politus
They are firebaggers--the left's equivalent to the teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to politus
And YOU talk about whiners? You're pretty childish yourself. Don't have a posittion, just mad because others push theirs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Got Kids
July 23, 2010 10:26 AM
Ed Schultz has it right. The Obama politico's have been co-opted by the DNC and OFA. This IS NOT what got him elected, NOT what will maintain a Democratic majority, and NOT what will help Obama get re-elected in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 23, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Got Kids
OFA is not what got him elected? WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Got Kids
OFA = Obama for America, the Obama campaign operation. If OFA didn't get Obama elected, please, please tell us who did. The tooth fairy? Or maybe the 25 people at FDL or the 15 people at OpenLeft.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Goober Peas
July 23, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
Yeah because it’s totally like impossible like for one to be a member of more than one group at a time and all? Right? Like totally! Your posts are so well-thought out and logical. I’m amazed everyone in America isn’t following you like the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Once word gets out that YOU support everything this administration and congress do, well then, the election in November will be a cinch!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LiberalRedneck
July 23, 2010 10:32 AM
Fat wealthy pundit complains on cable news.
What else is new.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
July 23, 2010 10:32 AM
lol
Nobody hates Obama more than the left. Not even republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gpleigh
July 23, 2010 11:23 AM
Schultz said he's "not anti-Obama" but wants to "change some plays" to help the Democrats win in November.
Oh, really? He TRASHES President Obama on a routine basis. How does this cheap macho criticism help anybody but Republicans win in November? How does this help get out the Democratic vote?
Ed Schultz is a blowhard who did everything he could to kill HCR and anybody who thinks he's helping Democrats needs to pay attention to the effects of this daily macho knee-jerk nonsense that has nothing to do with the facts. People who have serious criticisms voice them in a way that is analytical and not about puffing up their own sad viewership with nasty sound bites coming out of his puffy face. This guy is just another cable circus barker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LadyBlahBlah
July 23, 2010 11:52 AM
No one really cares was screaming Ed has to say. He should calm down before he bursts an artery. I doubt anyone at the White House cares. Ed is just looking for attention.
Ed can bite me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
July 23, 2010 11:55 AM
I've pretty much concluded that Obama has been emasculated by and is working for his ex-Wall Street, ex-Clinton staffers, e.g., Geithner, Emanuel, Bernanke, Axelrod, et al. It appears to me that since day one of his presidency he's been promoting their agendas rather than his own, in some cases I presume because he's getting huge backing from the financial community. Regardless, the Sherrod incident smacks of Emanuel telling Obama how it would be handled. And I agree with Schultz that Obama appears to be doing a lot that threatens to undermine his own presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Blueline99
July 23, 2010 11:55 AM
What liberal minded people need to realize is that President Obama is not a liberal. He's a centrist.
He's President Clint in his second term.
We (liberals) built President Obama as one of us, but he's not and that's what Ed Schulz is so upset about.
Personally, I've resigned myself to the fact that we will never have a truly liberal/progressive President. Corporate interests will never allow that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 7:07 PM in reply to Blueline99
I agree about Obama. He never really billed himself as a liberal or a progressive anyway.
As for 'never'...well, we had one, FDR. And things may have to get that bad again before we get another. I don't see 10% unemployment going anywhere, partly because of inaction. And if there's a double dip, it could get even uglier. It's too bad things have to reach crisis stage for politicians to start thinking of bold, creative and populist measures, but that seems to be our record.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Teaparty American
July 23, 2010 12:25 PM
Maybe ed should stop Cramming donuts and pizza in his mouth and do What The American people want him to do which is quit his job! The White house should be Afraid of Fox news because they tell The truth!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 23, 2010 12:30 PM
The Netroots need to inhale deeply, take a moment and realize that for better or worse, Obama is the best thing they have standing between them and a complete Palinization of their nation. Liberals need to realize that being the big tent party, their desires and not first, last and everything in between. It's a democracy dammit, not your private machine to take back what the Fascists took away. Jesus, even Lincoln and FDR would fail your tests. Some conservatives make sense although the numbers are dwindling. Act like you are part of a nation not just in the interest of your own little inner circle. You might as well become a Repuklicker. Blueline is correct, we will never have a truly Liberal President, no such candidate has existed since Eugene McCarthy. Sounds great on the stump, but then the reality of office and how a democracy works forces the candidate to become a functioning President and not the mindless drone that we had in the painfully vacuous Bush. But that won't stop Liberals from whining, yes yer whining. Who is that next Eugene McCarthy? Paul Wellstone? Fer Crissakes, if a 60 seat majority didn't wake the nutty netties into reality, nothing will. So what, should there be Purity tests and purges, you'll never get back to 60 and will lose the House fer sher. C'mon people, think the problem, don't just knee jerk like some Palinite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to glblank
So we should just be happy that Democrats are selling us out slowly, because otherwise, Republicans would be selling us out quickly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
July 23, 2010 3:40 PM in reply to condew
Thats a pretty oversimplistic bit of hyperbole. Who's this us being sold out and what is it that you did you not get from Santa. Fer Crissakes grow up! Democracy is not about you getting what you want with the exact ribbon on it that you picked out. Neither Lincoln, nor FDR got exactly what they wanted for Progressives who sided with the people. But you didn't hear Howard Zinn slamming either man. Historically the Radical Republicans of the late Nineteenth Century were the Liberals of their time. They faulted Lincoln all the way to his death. Nothing was good enough and they turned Reconstruction into one of the biggest fiascos in American history after Lincoln's death. No charge for the lesson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to glblank
Comparing the present occupant of the White House to FDR and Lincoln is pretty flattering to the him. I'm sure he'd approve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
July 23, 2010 12:47 PM
I like Ed but, he can be over the top at times. By the way, Obama has sat down for an interview with Rachel. He must have forgotten. As for Obama while it does drive me crazy that he hasn't been able to get some of his adgenda passed, he doesn't get a vote. He's no longer a legislator so it's up to Reid. He screwed up by not changeing the filibuster rule back in January when the session began. The Senate makes it's own rules and after the GOP put up No's all of last year, he didn't do a damn thing to change it. It wouldn't require vote from the GOP. He should have changed it and used Tom Harkin's idea of decreasing the number of votes needed to pass a bill each day by 2 until they're down to 50 plus Biden.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to roxsteady
Or, just paid attention to the Massachusetts Senate election. Nobody saw Scott Brown comming? That loss works so well for Obama and the conservadems; they no longer have to keep taking turns being the convenient villan. If you have a filibuster-proof majority, you're expected to get things done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 7:22 PM in reply to condew
You're expected to get things done...but not by your Obamabot apologists. For them, it doesn't matter how much you accomplish. You are sufficient by not being Palin. Obamabots have this cool Schoolhouse Rocks version of the legislative process, according to which the President is a Senator with veto power. At the same time, they maintain we should be 'grateful' to this Senator in the White House for what little progress can uncannily be ascribed to his Administration...Weird. But not ours to question, right? We are supposed to STFU and give him the benefit of the doubt every step of the way, otherwise we're responsible for a Palin Presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
politus
July 23, 2010 12:49 PM
These Firebaggers and Netrooters are the same idiots who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and sulked after Howie Dean imploded in 2004. They're not happy unless they are throwing an election the to Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 23, 2010 12:52 PM
Obama is no different from Clinton or the democratic establishment in the last 25-30 years. His campaign was so over the top, many of us believed he would be markedly different.
Among those who voted for him, one section still suffers with infatuation, while the other suffers with unreasonable and naive disappointed.
Political power in this country will never lean toward the left as long is it is manipulated and influenced by right wing corporate. So it doesn't matter if it is Obama or his messiah version, he will have to play by the rules, by and large.
Much of the altercations on the left have boiled down to being in love or falling out of love with a personality. Sadly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to kash79
You know that's a very good post. I guess I am one of the "infatuated". I disagree that he's no different from Clinton or the democratic establishment because at least he is trying to effectuate change, but you are absolutely correct that the politcial power in this country will never lean toward the left as long as it is manipulated by right wing corporates who really run this country. I may be infatuated but I am not naive and never expected miracles unlike the "other suffers with unreasonable and naive disappointment".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 23, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to chameleon
"effectuate change"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 23, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to again
That's what I said. How nice you know how to quote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 23, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to chameleon
Was there something wrong with 'effect change'?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 23, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to kash79
Having followed your posts for a while, I'd say you were once one of the infatuated.
But, critical as I am of Bubba, I'd suggest that there is no comparison since they inherited entirely different offices. BC won the presidency; Obama the post-Cheney Imperial Presidency which offers privileges Obama is loathe to relinquish.
Obama is far more in the grip of the MIC than Bubba, and curiously, given the collapse of faith in free market fundamentalism among even some conservatives, Obama remains a true believer in FMF - witness his Treasury appointment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
July 23, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to again
Yes I was so overwhelmed by the theater I was unwilling to concede "infatuation" to my convictions. Having said, I don't resent or hate "all things" Obama either. I'm frankly indifferent to the debate the centers around Obama persona.
The system the way it had coalesced toward the right wing corporate since Reagan, doesn't allow progressive agenda to infiltrate into the political mainstream. And Obama or Clinton cannot or the democratic establishment cannot significantly challenge it and still remain in the system.
It is a long term generational struggle and it is better to vote on convictions than convenience even if it means loosing year after year after year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
July 23, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to kash79
"It is a long term generational struggle and it is better to vote on convictions than convenience even if it means loosing year after year after year."
Is it? I'm not so sure...
Each year lost is potentially an opportunity for those with opposing views to further their agenda and further embed their philosophies in the public consciousness and fabric of the nation.
As that happens, doesn't that make it even more difficult for you to advance your agenda from a minority position? Or, assuming you ever gain enough power to sway the agenda in your preferred direction, wouldn't you -- after opposing philosophies have become ingrained -- have to essentially "reprogram" people to understand why your approach is the right one?
But, even worse, what if you don't ever gain power?
Is it best to be pleased with being true to your principles, but powerless (or at least not optimally positioned in places of power) to implement them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to kash79
"it is better to vote on convictions than convenience even if it means loosing year after year after year."
That's what the Nader voters said in 2000. I guess they think it was all worth it to get two wars, tax cuts for the rich, deregulating of all industries, and 8 years of blow jobs to big business.
Oh, well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 7:34 PM in reply to kash79
The rules might change if things get much worse. Europeans have gotten used to 10% unemployment, but they have a generous welfare state to cushion them from the effects of this loss of purchasing power. And they don't have to pay for a military to police the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 23, 2010 12:57 PM
These threads of comments are definitely demarcating the line between Progressives and Obama voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
July 23, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Ironcomments
No, it is demarcating the line between reality based progressives and magic-pony "progressives" who haven't a clue about getting things actually done with Congress like Schultz did.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 23, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Then how do you reconcile the two? Without the dreamers, the pragmatist may still be arguing how to get women the right to vote without offending men or wether Social Security really is a "good idea".
Everyone knows that legislation is a tricky, complex, organic process, however, when your starting point or more accurately your endpoint is not clearly defined and you afford almost everly single possible compromise to the other side and on top of that get derided by them after the fact then you are just being played the fool and not a negotiator. Professorial lawyer versus a Trial lawer maybe attributed to this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
July 27, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Good post. A good negotiator trying to sell something starts high, slowly lowers his price as necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 23, 2010 1:02 PM
So it doesn't matter if it is Obama or his messiah version, he will have to play by the rules, by and large
So that's what CHANGE was about?
Bummer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
July 23, 2010 1:21 PM
Makes me wonder what is the importance of political avatars if the movement the avatar represents turns against said avatar. I think where Progressives have made a mistake is by tying the movement to closely to the most recent avatar and allowing the media to do the same. Thus if "Obama fails" *(whatever that means) progressivism has failed. Shultz is basically saying the same thing, he is a champion for progressive causes not a person. The Progressive movement is bigger than one person evidence by the countless assissinations of its leaders, (Ghandi, MlK, etc.) but yet still lives on.
What the Obama administration doesn't realize is that what they are getting are 21st century version of the dogs and firehoses and instead of trying to reform the line and continue the march of progress they are seen as just being broken up and intead of following the intended route of the march roght throught the middle of main street they have decided to take these side roads and alleys at the slightest hint of a firehose.
If Obama were to "fail" it will not be because the dogs and firehose defeated him it is because they didn't have the resolve to keep the march together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
July 23, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Ironcomments
"intead of following the intended route of the march roght throught the middle of main street they have decided to take these side roads and alleys at the slightest hint of a firehose.... If Obama were to "fail" it will not be because the dogs and firehose defeated him it is because they didn't have the resolve to keep the march together."
well stated.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RosieM
July 23, 2010 1:53 PM
I wish Ed would " bust his ass " for progressives by doing a little research once in awhile. I would love to see more on air personalities do the work that Rachel does. There should be more opposition research. There should be more fact checking. People should actually check a freaking story before running with it, and if it turns out to be false they should correct the record on air. Rachel does all of those things. THAT'S how you help us win in November, Ed. Not by over sensationalizing every issue. Not by suggesting that the President do unconstitutional things. Just by doing research. Fox does opp "research " ( and I use that word research loosely here ) all time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
July 23, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to RosieM
Between the lines his real interest is to become the 'left' version of Limbaugh or Beck. "Schultz said he didn't care if Democratic Senators boycott his show because he doesn't need them for ratings."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ps2os2
July 23, 2010 2:35 PM
I am not a fan of Obama. There are issues with Obama and the press and its gone so far that Fox is holding the president hostage in his own administration. Fox is the darling of the lunatic fringe aka tea baggers and Sara Palin. The president needs to handle the press a lot better. Yes I know they are not giving him a fair shake but because of his handling the press so poorly he is open to valid criticism, by the lunatic fringe.
Obama needs to grow a pair and quit wavering on this minor issue. I would suggest that President Obama needs to cut *ALL* funding to AZ (that means social security and all federal funds) until AZ complies with federal statues on the immigration issues. No more wavering cut the state off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to ps2os2
So you think Obama has the authority to cut all federal funding to one state? LMAO!
You do know that his title is "president Obama" not "king Obama", don't you?
Gosh, talk about stupidity and unrealistic expectations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
I suspect the executive branch has a lot of power to slow-roll things; not stop the funding, but be very, very, very careful that all the procedures are fully followed. For a state that is on the verge of bankrutcy, it would get their attention if the check did not show up on time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 23, 2010 2:53 PM
It is very easy to solve the world problems behind a television camera, radio mike or a keyboard. But is harder to put your beliefs on the line. Keith, Rachel and Ed are great when they know that there are no consequences for their actions. But I don't see anyone of them giving up the money to run for public office. So if President Obama goes out and does a Howard Dean, he would give Fox exactly what they want, the angry Black Man. I'm all for criticizing this administration when it's warranted, but lately this President can't go to the bathroom without so Progressive taking issue with it and don't come on this sites and defend the Obama administration, because if you do you will be called a sellout to the Progressive cause. The Conservatives don't have to defeat us in November, because we have been working on that ourselves since Jan. 21, 2009 - The day President Obama took office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 23, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to Michael
I think you're being disingenuous; you just want to neutralize voices you don't like by sending them on a fools erand; like telling Ed to run for a seat in a red state. This is a lot like the argument some veterins try, that if you havn't served you don't have a right to an opinion on the war.
If we are defeated in November, it will be because Obama has provided lousy and divisive leadership.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ritetime
July 23, 2010 4:27 PM in reply to condew
Wasn't President Obama the man everyone jumped on for trying to work in a bipartisan fashion.
"If we are defeated in November, it will be because Obama has provided lousy and divisive leadership."
YOU LIE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MoCrash
July 23, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to Michael
I don't know what you mean by "no consequences for their actions." If they take positions which are outside the mainstream enough to lose significant ratings and revenues for their programs, their careers -- which all have carefully cultivated -- hit a dead end. Which is as much a threat to their family's well-being as losing an election (unless we have begun excecuting or rendering abroad losing candidates without my knowledge). Okay, so they probably aren't going to the poor house, no I wouldn't shed any tears, but for them personally there exist significant consequences.
And, of course, the same standard should be applied to their counterparts on the right. Still, I've never called for Limbaugh, who wants to rule the world from an audio altar, to put up or shut up by seeking office. I despise the sniveling, lying SOB, but he has the same right to pipe up as the liberals I support -- the hope being that eventually he will be marginalized by his own vileness -- or a pseudonymed commenter on a political blog without being decried for not seeking an office for which he is in no way qualified.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Senorita Bonita
July 23, 2010 5:55 PM
I admire the rethugs for one thing; 99.99% of the time they unify, even with their ridiculous platform of 'no'
NO I DIDN'T VOTE FOR PBHO, however he is the leader of the party. What I perceive as the left overs, whether lgbts progressives HRC-ites whatever...would you truly have desired MCCAIN(SAME) and (FAILIN)PALIN?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
July 23, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to Senorita Bonita
The leader of the party whom you could not support/vote for. Fuck you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
July 24, 2010 7:45 AM in reply to FreeRider
Hey FreeRider, was listening to your fav Perriello 5th district VA on the radio late Wed nite. Still impressive but noticed he's down by a bunch in polls. What's up with that? I think he even voted against HCR and Stimulus. Tough crowd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Emmann
July 24, 2010 10:25 AM
OK - so WHERE is the audio/visual of Ed Schultz 'cursing through a spirited critique of Obama...???
And when do we get to see for OURSELVES that he 'pointed to the camera and said he was glad the speech was being recorded and wanted the White House to hear his message'??
You see, a lot of people got riled up by your text, and just assumed TPM was telling the truth - but so where is it??
Because 'the full speech is likely to be posted online later' is nowhere NEAR good enough.
So SHOW US the full speech or retract what you have written about Schultz...?
Thanks in advance!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NEM
July 25, 2010 12:58 AM
If more of the progressive media, and of course the White House itself, had the cajones of Ed Schultz, they wouldn't be in the deep crapola they are in, acting like wimps since day one of this administration.
That being said, IMO, the big problem in the WH is Rahm Emanuel and the advice that the president is taking from him.
Emanuel has to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?