Christie's Criticism of Obama as Weak Leader is 'Hate Speech,' Fumes Ed Schultz
Laura Ingraham comes closest to nailing Ed Schultz's persona -- Ingraham sees him as the hothead "Heat Miser" of the mid-'70s animated Christmas special, "The Year Without a Santa Claus."
But Schultz isn't miserly when it comes to what he considers hate speech. Just about any criticism of President Obama qualifies. (audio clips after page break)
On his radio show Wednesday, Schultz vented about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie appearing on "Morning Joe" the day before and describing Obama as a weak leader (audio) --
SCHULTZ: There is a developing narrative that President Obama doesn't lead and it, and it just bothers me. You know, look, I'm not happy with everything. But he's definitely my guy compared to anybody else. And I don't mean that to be a backhanded compliment. The fact of the matter is is that I think he's the best available person to be president of the United States, OK? I think his heart's in the right place, I think his intentions are good, I'm a fan and I believe in what the guy's trying to do, although I question his methods from time to time. Whatever! But that he doesn't lead? No. No, President Obama has been a leader on many, many fronts. But this is Chris Christie. He's on "Morning Joe" yesterday and he had a couple of sound bites that caught my attention. Let's play 'em, here we are --
CHRISTIE: My quarrel with the president is, is that he has not stepped up and led. He has not stepped up and led. He hasn't done the things that you need to do, the difficult things you need to do to lead. And that's my problem with the president. I mean, of course I have philosophical differences with him. But in the end, he hasn't stepped up and led.
SCHULTZ: What does he consider leadership? Well, he didn't get to that point. He didn't have A, B, C, D, this, this, this and this. It's just this generic pablum that is thrown out by these right wingers. Here he is again --CHRISTY: Your definition, recently, of compromise is, everybody agree with what the president wants, so we can compromise. And that's not what compromise is.
SCHULTZ: Is it compromise when 89 people in the Senate say let's go ahead and extend these benefits, and this payroll tax holiday for two months, until we work out a deal? You mean to tell me that President Obama's influence and his leadership is so strong that he could get 39 people in the Republican Party in the Senate to be a turncoat and go along with him? Is that not leadership? I mean, look, your definition of, what, see, and that's the prob-, my problem with the governor from New Jersey is that he doesn't give any examples of where President Obama has failed when it comes to leadership. But I can give plenty of examples of where he has been very triumphant in leadership. What does he consider leadership? He hasn't led -- that's his quarrel? He has a quarrel with the president? That's what he said. When has he ever argued with the president on anything? Obama doesn't pay any attention to Christie. Except he did show up when there was some disastrous flooding that was taking place in New Jersey. He didn't seem to bother him there. Did he lead there or was that all Christie grabbing the president of the United States by the hand and walking around with him in New Jersey?
I mean, I just, I hate this generic talk and it really is a form of hate speech is what it is. Christie is trying to develop the narrative that this president is incompetent and hasn't gotten anything done.
Another form of hate speech comes to mind, this one much closer to the actual thing -- deceitfully claiming a political opponent hasn't said something that he has. Which is exactly what Schultz does here in alleging that Christie criticized Obama's leadership without offering specifics. That would be true if all one heard were the two brief clips provided by Schultz lasting less than 30 seconds. But the segment with Christie ran 21 minutes (linked here in its entirety). And during that time, Christie cited three examples of why he considers Obama weak and ineffective.
Here was Christie's first specific criticism of Obama as leader, following a plug for Romney (audio) --
Let me tell you something, Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president. And when he is, he's proven before in his career that he can reach across the aisle. He was the governor in Massachusetts with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and he got things done in Massachusetts when he was there. That's something that Barack Obama has never in his life proven he can do. Voting present in the Illinois state legislature doesn't count. Not voting and not showing up in the United States Senate doesn't count. If he wanted to continue to be somebody who was a bystander, he could have stayed in Congress for his whole career and not be held accountable for anything. But you know what? It's time to be held accountable. And he has not stood up the test of leadership.
The second example will ring a bell because it includes the first of Schultz's clips of Christie -- excluding Christie's criticism of Obama's leadership right after what Schultz aired. You stay classy, Ed (audio) --
And my quarrel with the president is, is that he has not stepped up and led. He has not stepped up and led. He hasn't done the things that you need to do, the difficult things you need to do to lead. And that's my problem with the president. I mean, of course I have philosophical differences with him. But in the end, he hasn't stepped up and led. (Schultz's clip ends here). And Simpson-Bowles is the perfect example. Now, we have a contrast between me and the president, New Jersey and in the country. Simpson-Bowles came out, difficult tough medicine, I don't agree with every part of it but I think it was a common-sense plan to try to deal with this debt over the long term. He asked for it and he took the, politically put it on the shelf. In New Jersey, we put forward a pension and benefit plan that hurt, hurt everybody. But we fought for it, we passed it, we're now, we're going to have a solvent pension system and we're going to have a health benefit system where everybody pays their fair share.
Third example, Christie citing Obama's unwillingness to expedite permitting for the Keystone XL pipeline in exchange for extending the payroll tax cut a full year, Christie seeing this as Obama's unwillingness to compromise to pass legislation (audio) --
And so my point though on this latest flap, the Republicans have offered a compromise. They're willing to swallow the one-year payroll tax cut if in fact in return they'd get the Keystone pipeline done, something they believe strongly and philosophically will create jobs. I know the president doesn't want that, but they don't want the payroll tax cut 'cause they don't think it works economically. That's the boulevard (previously cited metaphor for bipartisanship). You have to swallow that sometimes if you're the president of the United States in divided government to get done what you want to get done.
On the bright side, Schultz somehow got through his entire diatribe without accusing Christie of racism.
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I guess it's 'hate speech',
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 4:55pm.
I guess it's 'hate speech', because Boy Barry is 'black'............because it sure as hell wasn't 'hate speech' when George Bush,Ronald Reagan, or any other 'white' guy was being ripped to shreds. The Fargo FatAss is a total idiot............and not just because of this particular statement.
Next he'll be claiming
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 4:55pm.
Next he'll be claiming Christie is calling for Obama's assassination!
MSNBC has to be positively shameless to not be embarrassed by this guy.
Geez, Ed, calm down. If you keep this up...
Submitted by KyWriter on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 5:09pm.
...we'll all see the top of your head blow off and soon. I was kinda hoping to save that treat for election night.
Fan-dam-tastic
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:51pm.
Thanks, I know it's early, but you win!
And I guess his calling...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 5:18pm.
the Tea Party "sewer rats" was done with love. You know sometimes I think I will really miss Ed when he's finally taken off the air.
Ed Schultz should go after his own liberal friends, first.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 5:28pm.
OK Ed. But then why not go after Chris Matthews for his caricature of Obama:
But once having won the office he seemed to think that that was the end of it in terms of his connection to the American people.
Matthews: . . Don't you feel, I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he's been elected. And it's not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That's not his problem. It's connection. And Mrs. Obama, she's an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don't think she's, I don't think she's happy. I don't think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don't seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don't sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president. . .
Or how about going after Jon Meacham or Mike Barnicle for his view of Obama, on "Morning Joe:"
MIKE BARNICLE: I think he is stunned, given his gifts, at his inability to get anything really done in Congress. I think he's stunned by it.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But he doesn't look at it as his inability. Jon, he is stunned that those that are fortunate enough to work with him are not helping him pass legislation to make history.
JON MEACHAM: I think it's, if you think about it from a biographical point of view, it's his thinking the system, and really the country, is not commensurate with his gifts. That's a harsh thing to say, but I have a feeling that in the dark night of the soul, that's what he feels. I think he thinks that this is a 18th-century constitutional republic that needs significant updating. I think he sees the reflexive opposition—a culture that Gingrich helped build—as one huge stumbling block. He sees all of us [Ed.: presumably a reference to the media] as another huge stumbling block.
SCARBOROUGH: And let's just say, he sees elected leaders from across the country as a stumbling block. He sees democracy, he sees this version, as you say, this government as a stumbling block that's getting in the way of his greatness.
And Tina Brown, also on Morning Joe: on the same show:
TINA BROWN: Well it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't like his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power and he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing how to exercise power is absolutely crucial. He doesn't understand how to underpin his ideas with the political gritty, granular business of getting it done. And that kind of gap has just widened and widened and widened. And so that every time there is a moment, a window where he can jump in, like something like a Simpson-Bowles as well, he just doesn't do it. He hangs back at crucial moments when you have to dive through that window.
An while we all agree that Ed Schultz should go after his own liberal friends, first, more disturbing is the fact that our national media will not report what is being said about Obama, by their own, to their audience.
Censorship is alive and well.
(;~/ gary
Great selection of quotes, Gary
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 5:54pm.
There was also a quote this month from an old Democratic Congressman from California who blamed Obama for not working well with people. His description of the aloof President is similar to Tina Brown's.
This is a good reason for all hate speech and hate crime
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 5:36pm.
This is a good reason for all hate speech and hate crime legislation to disappear. If the left is going to bludgeon all speech that criticizes them, their favorite people, and causes, as hate speech, then the legislation was written so stupidly that it needs to disappear.
If the President cannot be criticized because he his black for his performance deficiencies, then he does not need to be President any longer. And liberals need to understand that free speech is free speech, and if they are such free speech proponents as they claim they need to tell their brethren like Ed Schultz to shut up and sit down when they try to restrict speech. Ed should voluntarily remove himself from the air the next time he tries to restrict free speech; same goes for Randi Rhodes and the rest of the vapid left. Limbaugh allows you guys to spew for a couple of minutes and show your ignorance before he cuts you off. Most of the rest of the right will at least try to have a conversation. Randi Rhodes I have heard hang up on conservatives, which shows you which group believes in free speech.
Dennis Prager
Let's play the numbers game, shall we?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 6:20pm.
"Is it compromise when 89 people in the Senate say let's go ahead and extend these benefits, and this payroll tax holiday for two months, until we work out a deal?"
I see your 89 Senators who voted for a 2 month extension and raise you 234 Representatives who voted for a one year extension FIRST. More than twice as many Representatives voted for a 1 year extension than Senators who voted for a 2 moth extension, yet who had to "compromise?" Since when does "comprise" mean that the House has to do what the Senate demands? The two branches of the legislature are supposed to be equal, something that the Senate seems to have forgotten. According to how Reid and the rest of the Senate acts, they think are the supreme power in America and everyone else must agree to their demands or government itself will shut down. And who will get the blame? The House, of course, for not bending to the will of the Gods of Government, the Senators.
It seems that the Senators, especially Reid, think that we're living in Old Rome, when the Senate had all the power. Well Senators, this isn't Rome, and you don't have exclusive control. This is a two-house legislature, with equal powers and control. WHEN will you figure that out? This is just like England before the American Revolution, when the House of Commons was routinely ignored. Don't forget what happen THEN, Senators! The English government fell apart until the House of Commons was restored to equal partnership in their legislature. They became so weak that they lost their Empire while MILLIONS of their own citizens got out their homeland, for good! Don't let something similar happen to us.
As for Obama, it's more than apparent where his loyalties lie, with the Senate where he got his start. He cares less about the House than Reid does! Obama doesn't want a two-house legislature because he believes it's "too hard" to get his "policies" enacted that way. It's "too hard" to get his way with the Legislature. That's obvious because he's doing everything he can to limit, and reverse, the power of the House, especially now that the Republicans have the majority. That makes Obama a TERRIBLE President, an incompetent leader!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I guess you missed the Civil War
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:37am.
After all, Lincoln targeted every single Confederate soldier for engaging in the sort of stuff that Anwar al-Awlaki did -- waging war on the United States.
Or are you one of those neo-Confederates who thinks that Lincoln was a tyrant who got what he deserved at the hands of John Wilkes Booth?
I wasn't there..
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 12:12pm.
I wasn't in the Civil War, but I do remember that the Confederates, you know, succeeded from the Union, created their own Constitution, built their own army, and directly attacked ours, all within the existing boarders of the United States. I didn't know that al-Awlaki did anything like that, anything at all. He wasn't even in America, nor was he armed and attacking our military or citizens, or anyone else for that matter, when he was executed by our government via the use of extrajudicial means. Do you have some information that I am unaware of, like a declaration of War by Congress like Lincoln had?
This man, an American citizen, by birth, was attacked and killed in a foreign country, an act of war by anyone's standards, by our government simply because the President said he was a threat. No court, no jury, tried and convicted him. The is no evidence that he attacked ANYONE, ether here or abroad. The most the President can say was that he TALKED about it. Is that reason enough to kill someone? Not according to the Constitution.
There was also no declaration of War by Congress or no Congressional authorization for the use of deadly force against this man, none at all. The President, and only the President, made the decision to kill him, a blatant violation of his Constitutional rights.
Or are you one of those "conservatives" who believes that Constitutional rights may be negate by Presidential decree?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I'll tell you what I am
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:54pm.
I'm one of those conservatives who believes that when you make war on the United States, all you are entitled to is being killed in the process. Or, if you are lucky enough to be captured, being held until the end of all hostilities -- as the laws of war dictate. All of them were killed or imprisoned by extra-judicial means. Hell -- Lincoln even exiled a member of Congress who opposed his war policies.
By the way -- the problem with your argument vis-a-vis the Confederacy is that the US never recognized secession (that is how you spell it, by the way), and therefore regarded those involved as traitors, rebels and insurrectionists instead of foreign enemies. So if you have a problem with how Anwar al-Awlaki and other Amererican Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban are being treated, you also have to reject the entire conduct and outcome of the Civil War.
Unless, of course, you are a jihadi-wannabe who supports the like of Anwar al-Awlaki and the work he and his fellow enemies of America have been engaged in since before 9/11.
So, he's was fighting a Cuiil War
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 1:03pm.
So, you're saying that Anwar al-Awlaki seceded from the Union and was fighting a civil war with us? No, that's not what he did. Your analogy is false.
He may have been a member of a terrorist group, but he he was never tried and convicted of anything, which is what every American citizen deserves no matter how despicable their actions and/or associations are.
NO AMERICAN should ever have their constitutional rights denied. But that's exactly what happened to this man. No, I'm not a supporter of this man or his actions (nice try at charter assassination, though) but I am a huge supporter of the Constitution, something that is applicable to every American anywhere in the world they may reside, period.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ed sez: "But I can give
Submitted by kareling on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 6:12pm.
Ed sez: "But I can give plenty of examples of where he has been very triumphant in leadership."
Well, Ed? Ed? I'm waiting, Ed.
That's all I need to hear.
Submitted by Bob K on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:13pm.
"I think his heart's in the right place, I think his intentions are good,....."
Oh, alright then. I take back everything I have ever thought or said about everythinghe has screwed up since taking office. After all, his intentions were good. LOL
Aren't good intentions the
Submitted by MikeB on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:30pm.
Aren't good intentions the paving stones of the road to hell? Intentions don't mean squat when the results are destructive. Hitler had good intentions, as did Lenin and Stalin and Mao. Their good intentions resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people world wide. But we can ignore that because their intentions were good.
So Ear Leader had good intentions when he FUBARed bankruptcy laws and delivered General Motors to his masters in the UAW? The Democrat Party had good intentions when they used the government to force home mortgage lenders to lend money to people who could not afford to pay their mortgage payments and prevented any audits and regulation of Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac, resulting in the economic debacle we now find ourselves in. The Democrat party had good intentions when they passed the minimum wage act and subsequent increased in minimum wage, resulting in astronomical unemployment rates for teens, especially black teens. The Democrats had good intentions when they started the welfare system which resulted in the near complete destruction of the black family and the black middle class, increases in the rates of illegitimacy for blacks and whites, but moreso for blacks, and the incredible numbers of infanticides in the name of "choice".
I have to agree with one point by Ed Schultz
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:40am.
I'll agree with that.
It is directly beneath his ribcage.
I wouldn't bet the farm on
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:30pm.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that...............I still think there's an outside chance that Boy Barry is an alien.
Obama's heart is in the right place?
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:45pm.
I refuse to believe that statement unless and until I am allowed to perform, or personally witness, exploratory cardiac surgery in order to ascertain for my myself the veracity of that assertion.
Personally I have ascribed to the belief that his is in fact a highly advanced automaton, set on an endless loop of equal parts verbal pablum and bullshiite, mixed with a healthy dose of arrogance and heavily spiced with both condescension and disdain.
But that's just my own little pet theory.
Where have I heard this before?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 12/24/2011 - 7:54pm.
1. "I think his heart's in the right place, I think his intentions are good..." Hmmm? Oh yeah, paving material for the road to Hell.
2. "But in the end, he hasn't stepped up and led. (Schultz's clip ends here)." Didn't Ed "I hope my face doesn't freeze this way" Schmutz also do that to a Perry clip about a "black cloud" over the country? Riiiight. That was so pathetic that even Jon Stewart got all over Big Ed.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-defends-rick-perry-from-ed-schult...
A rose by any other name
Submitted by MadRat on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:11am.
Anti-censorship people who say, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" will enthusiastically support censorship laws as soon as something is called "hate speech" and seem entirely oblivious to the hypocrisy of it all. If a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, then a pile of crap would smell as bad.
Just one more reason why
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 6:02am.
Just one more reason why special ed is one of the most irrelevant figures in America today. Note to ed: Leaders don't whine and snivel about their vaction time being infringed upon. Ed Schutlz, "America's favorite shithead".
Ed Schultz nails it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 7:50am.
"I think his heart's in the right place, I think his intentions are good"
Throw in "If we would just obey better, he wouldn't be forced to beat the crap out of us and momma"
Yep, Ed has figured out this President.
I beg to differ
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:27am.
But Schultz did implicitly accuse Christie of racism -- what else do you think was meant by the charge of "hate speech"?
Weak & Lazy
Submitted by jpalm32 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:28am.
Obama admits he's a step & fetch!
Eddie Baby and his Obama Liberals-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 11:43am.
are truly worried about the big Flush coming Nov 2012.
Non Leader Obama has never had to lead-never had to make serious decisions.
and it shows- the Border issues(fast & Furious)
the Middle East- and best of all the economy.
you can not vote 170+ times present and be a leader.
how many bills has he written at the State or Federal level.
lets see his written papers from Harvard or Columbia.
The cockroaches are getting nervous-
What's going to happen?
Submitted by pbthinker on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:11pm.
Does anyone understand what's going to happen when the political world comes back to earth in January 2013? Let's face it, where were all these "hate speech" people during the Bush Administration when you could say anything, in fact were encouraged to say some of the most vile things in the name of free speech, against President Bush. Where were people like Schultz, besides exercising their free speech rights?
I honestly believe we should close all the schools of journalism, in the United States, retire all the professors and start fresh because it's pretty obvious journalism, as a profession, is dead. It's not that Schultz is a journalist, it's that the journalist around him tolerate this sort of behavior and I have yet to see any of the supposed MSM offering any critique of the treatment Bush got, or the suck-up treatment Obama has gotten. It's quite possible the existing group will never be able to get any sense of credibility back, once Obama is defeated. As it is, they don't have enough credibility to re-elect him.
Just when you thought the bar couldn't get any lower....
Submitted by FearMonger on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 2:51pm.
If this is the standard then EVERY SINGLE SYLLABLE uttered by Special Ed qualifies as "hate speech".
As someone who lives in the Garden State, of course!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 12/25/2011 - 3:02pm.
I have to say, Christie is a STRONG AS HELL leader! Unfortunately, I wish hed get more conservative on a few items, like permitting fracking/off-shore drilling, getting tougher on illegal aliens, not kow-towing to hiring Muslims in key postions, etc. but hes still LIGHT YEARS ahead of O'Bozo!
Burgermister Misterburger
Submitted by AMR1960 on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 2:50am.
I always thought that "Special Ed Schultz " looked more like Burgermister Misterburger...
http://christmas-specials.wikia.com/wiki/Burgermeister_Meisterburger
_____________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
Hate speech?!!
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 12/26/2011 - 6:17pm.
SCHULTZ: "There is a developing narrative that President Obama doesn't lead and it, and it just bothers me. You know, look, I'm not happy with everything. But he's definitely my guy compared to anybody else. And I don't mean that to be a backhanded compliment. The fact of the matter is is that I think he's the best available person to be president of the United States, OK? I think his heart's in the right place, I think his intentions are good, I'm a fan and I believe in what the guy's trying to do, although I question his methods from time to time. . . "
Of course you do, Special Ed. Didn't he have you over to the WH for coffee last week to talk over his campaign and how you can help him out? He reminded you that you're special, and you think he's the best available person to be President of the United States.
SCHULTZ: ". . . Whatever! But that he doesn't lead? No. No, President Obama has been a leader on many, many fronts. . . . "
Name one.
SCHULTZ: ". . . What does he (Christie) consider leadership? Well, he didn't get to that point. He didn't have A, B, C, D, this, this, this and this. It's just this generic pablum that is thrown out by these right wingers. . . . . SCHULTZ: Is it compromise when 89 people in the Senate say let's go ahead and extend these benefits, and this payroll tax holiday for two months, until we work out a deal? You mean to tell me that President Obama's influence and his leadership is so strong that he could get 39 people in the Republican Party in the Senate to be a turncoat and go along with him? Is that not leadership? . . "
Leadership? Obama sat back and let the Congress hash it out (like he always does). In fact, the Republicans wanted a 12-month extension, as did Obama himself, and what they got was 2-months. Where did the leadership kick in?
SCHULTZ: ". . . I mean, look, your definition of, what, see, and that's the prob-, my problem with the governor from New Jersey is that he doesn't give any examples of where President Obama has failed when it comes to leadership. But I can give plenty of examples of where he has been very triumphant in leadership. . . ."
Go ahead. We're waiting.
SCHULTZ: ". . . What does he consider leadership? He hasn't led -- that's his quarrel? He has a quarrel with the president? That's what he said. When has he ever argued with the president on anything? Obama doesn't pay any attention to Christie. . . "
Actually, Obama did campaign for Corzine's re-election (which failed), so in a way, he did pay attention to Christie.
SCHULTZ: ". . . Except he did show up when there was some disastrous flooding that was taking place in New Jersey. He didn't seem to bother him there. Did he lead there or was that all Christie grabbing the president of the United States by the hand and walking around with him in New Jersey? . . ."
Presidents handing out money the Treasury doesn't have isn't leadership. It's politics.
SCHULTZ: ". . . I mean, I just, I hate this generic talk and it really is a form of hate speech is what it is. Christie is trying to develop the narrative that this president is incompetent and hasn't gotten anything done."
A form of HATE SPEECH!!
Oh, no!
Apparently, Christie is accused by Special Ed of using offensive or provocative speech against a member of an American minority group, namely Presidents of the United States.
Wasn't this the same Special Ed who called Laura Ingraham a slut?