Ed Schultz Pines for Days When Paleo-Dems 'Would Not Even Have Allowed' Debate on Social Security

Free speech? Fuggedaboutit!

Liberal radio host and reined-in MSNBC flamethrower Ed Schultz has provided another example of his erratic reverence for the Constitution, specifically that pesky First Amendment.

On his radio show Wednesday, Schultz harkened back to halcyon days of yore involving "old Democrats" made singular by their intolerance for discussion of that most sacred cow, Social Security (audio here) --

It's easy to sit here and Monday-morning quarterback what they ought to be doing (referring to Democrats' response to union battle in Wisconsin), how they ought to be doing it and everything else, but can we agree on one thing? That there is an old Democratic Party out there that would have never allowed Social Security  to get even on the table for any kind of discussion, that would never have allowed these kinds of massive cuts to be even proposed without damn near a war inside the Capitol, going back and forth at each other. The old Democrats, they would not even have allowed this discussion to take place.

Schultz followed this the next day by complaining about GOP Senator Jim DeMint's criticism of public-sector unions. After playing a clip of DeMint saying collective bargaining doesn't have "any place in representative government," Schultz aired more of DeMint's critique and oddly claimed that getting elected does not give a person "power over people" (audio) --

SCHULTZ: DeMint goes onto say that union bosses are deciding how government should be run. Listen to this --

DEMINT: My beef is not with the workers themselves. They have every right to unionize in the private sector. My beef is with the union bosses and expectations that they have some right to decide what government employees should be paid and how our government should be run. That's the job of elected officials.

SCHULTZ: Not it's not! No it is not the job of elected officials! So because somebody gets elected to a position, you're going to give them power over people?! And take away the right of people to represent themselves in the workplace? I mean, c'mon! It is undoubtedly the job of an elected official to decide how many people you're going to employ, but it's not fair to take away an American's right of freedom of speech and also an American's right to negotiate their price! Collectively!

"It is undoubtedly the job of an elected official to decide how many people you're going to employ" -- thereby hewing closely to the Soviet model for economic growth.

Republicans going after public-sector unions is "bigger than Libya!", Schultz warned his radio listeners Thursday, while also defending ... wait for it ... freedom of speech (audio) --

This is an attack on our soil by conservative Republicans who want to depress wages of American workers. What in the hell could be more important than that?! Taking away your standard of living! Taking away your freedom to speak in the workplace!

Providing it's not about Social Security and you're conservative!

(h/t, Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer)





 

Jack Coleman
Jack Coleman
Ex-liberal from People's Republic of Massachusetts