Ed Schultz and David Sirota Clash in Regretfully Brief On-Air Argument

How sad indeed when liberals turn on one another, their nastiness quickly achieving critical mass.

Radio host and columnist David Sirota wasn't expecting a call from fellow liberal and MSNBC loose-cannon Ed Schultz on his radio show yesterday, broadcast out of AM 760 in Denver.

When word filtered back to Schultz that Sirota was badmouthing him for Schultz's criticism of "intellectual liberal hand-wringing" over the manner of bin Laden's death, Schultz decided to give Sirota a call.

The result, lasting barely more than two minutes, was decidedly unpretty (audio clip below page break) --

SIROTA: Do you want to explain yourself on that?


SCHULTZ: Uh, I want to explain myself that I don't listen to your program and I've been getting phone calls from people in Colorado saying you're ripping me. So I thought I'd call in and ask, what's your issue?

SIROTA: Well, I just played you my issue. You just had, you used the public airwaves to tell people, great journalists in my estimation like Michael Moore, that they shouldn't be asking questions of our government. You said that's "intellectual liberal hand-wringing." And I think we need more questions being asked and I agree with Keith Olbermann who said that we need more questions being asked and I think that somebody who's carrying the banner of liberalism, using the public airwaves, claiming that they're a liberal leader and telling other people that they shouldn't be asking critical questions of legality of their government, I just don't understand that. And if you'd like to explain yourself, I'm all ears.

SCHULTZ: David, the issue is settled. I don't know if you follow the news or not, but the attorney general of the United States made a comment the day after the operation went down in Afghan-, in Pakistan, saying that undoubtedly he was killed in a war setting, in a war zone, and it was done legally.

The two began arguing over one another, Sirota telling Schultz, the problem is that "you don't have any loyalty to the journalistic ethos," Schultz digging deep and telling Sirota, "go to hell." Sirota responded with what liberals consider one of the worst things they can say of one another, comparing Schultz to GOP prince of darkness Richard Nixon --

SIROTA: You just said, when the attorney general declares something legal, it is legal. We lived in a country where when the president of the United States,when Richard Nixon said when the president says something's legal, it means it's legal.

SCHULTZ (dumbfounded): You're equating ...

SIROTA: You just said that!

SCHULTZ: You're equating a criminal to the president of the United States?!

SIROTA: I am saying you just said that ....

SCHULTZ: You are, and you're asking me if I'm liberal?!

SIROTA: ... the attorney general, I'm going to put you on hold here ....

.... Putting Schultz "on hold here" being code for silencing Schultz, Sirota continuing his spiel and Schultz hanging up. "What's your response to that?" Sirota then asked a dead phone line. "All right, Ed Schultz is gone."

There you have it -- all of 90 seconds into an argument and one liberal tells another to "go to hell," followed by the other liberal censoring him. As if this comes as a shock to anyone who has argued with liberals.

Keep in mind, Mr. Sirota, anyone asking "more questions" about Obama's role in dispatching bin Laden is clearly racist.

Jack Coleman
Liberated ex-liberal from the People's Republic of Massachusetts