As appeals to bi-partisanship go, this could down as recent history's most contemptible and hypocritical . . .
On this evening's Ed Show, bemoaning the lack of conservative support for Pres. Obama in reaction to the Times Square attempted bombing, Dem senator Patrick Leahy accused Pres. Bush of having "dropped the ball," on 9-11, claiming it "could have been avoided."
Schultz was predictably peep-less in response to the doddering Leahy's outrageous accusation.
For many far-left MSNBC fans, one conservative on the cable network is one too many. Combine a tired tirade against Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe" with the inanity of a Hollywood leftist's lame attempt at media commentary, and you have one entertaining Huffington Post column.
"Are the programmers at MSNBC nuts?" asked legendary actor Donald Sutherland (pictured right) on Sunday. "They give us refreshing afternoons with Chris and Ed, put us to bed with the clarifying sensibilities of Rachel and Keith and then, idiotically, wake us up with Mr. Small Mouth."
Yes, Sutherland did just use the terms "refreshing" and "clarifying sensibilities" in reference to Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, respectively. And no, apparently he was not being sarcastic. Then comes the Scarborough-bashing:
One of my favorite scenes from the eponymous Mary Tyler Moore sitcom of the '70s -- doofus anchorman Ted Baxter is on the air when producer Mary Richards rushs into the studio with breaking news.
Baxter sees Richards from the corner of his eye as she waves the bulletin to get his attention. Laughing nervously, Baxter says, Can't you see I'm on the air, Mary?
Richards hands the bulletin to Baxter and whispers, Read it. Whereupon Baxter does just that -- silently. Out loud!, Richards implores. Followed by Baxter reading the bulletin, skeptically, then crumbling it in a ball and saying, Now back to the real news.
MSNBC host Ed Schultz is still in prairie-populist mode on illegal immigration. Unlike many on the left, he says it's a serious problem.
But on Tuesday's edition of The Ed Show, he somehow blamed it on Arizona's Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl: “McCain and Kyl have left the border wide open. Once again, it's up to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to clean up another Republican mess.”
He repeatedly complained about the last presidential race: “During the 2008 campaign, McCain the warmonger said that he could take care of Iran. Hell, he can't even take care [of] and protect his own home state!”
On Monday's Joy Behar Show on HLN, as host Behar discussed controversial political commentators with guests Phil Donahue and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Donahue praised the success of far-left MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, and lamented not having included a "Worst Person" segment in his short-lived MSNBC show. Donahue: "Worse, worser, worsest, I wish I thought of that. Maybe I would still be on the air. But I`m watching this. I see, first of all, I`m crazy about Ed Schultz, although he`s come a long way without my support. Why he didn`t have a show earlier I don`t know."
Behar played an unusual part as she argued against Donahue from a conservative point-of-view, suggesting that Schultz and Olbermann are "radical," and defending FNC from charges by Donahue that liberal voices who praise President Obama are not included on the news network.
But she ended up agreeing with his claim that primetime shows on FNC -- which he referred to as "shout shows" presumably referring to The O'Reilly Factor and the Hannity show -- do not feature liberal voices, ignoring the regular inclusion of liberals like Juan Williams and Alan Colmes on The O'Reilly Factor, while even on the Hannity show at least one liberal commentator is usually present during the show's nightly "Great American Panel" segment:
Contrary to widespread belief among conservatives, Ed Schultz's radio show is not an irredeemable waste of your time.
Occasionally what Schultz says is actually funny. That Schultz remains oblivious to this only adds to the humor.
On April 20, for example, Schultz was talking about the new illegal immigration law in Arizona and claimed that after a similar measure was enacted several years ago in Prince William County in Virginia, "the angst of the community was not as friendly as it used to be." (click here for audio)
Yes, once a town loses its angst, it's all downhill from there. Just ask any existentialist.
Occasionally a lefty gets it right. Then a conservative says much the same thing. Followed by liberals denouncing him for it.
Latest example -- Bill O'Reilly's remarks on race at the Sharpton-organized National Action Network conference on April 14 in New York City. Speaking after O'Reilly was liberal action hero Ed Schultz, who spun what was said at the conference on MSNBC's "The Ed Show" that night --
SCHULTZ: You would think that at a serious event to promote equality and civil rights that Bill would rein in the psycho talk. Well, no such luck. He showed zero comprehension of the venue and came out swinging, defending the tea partiers.
O'REILLY: The tea party is a largely white phenomenon, there's no doubt about that, because African-Americans overwhelmingly support President Obama. But it is an overwhelmingly white movement. And now we are seeing that it's being demonized as a racist thing too and the best example was that Capitol display where the African-American congresspeople walked through this gauntlet of protest and there were charges the n-word was used and spitting happened and this, that and the other thing. ... Even if the n-word was used, and it absolutely could have been, you don't demonize a whole group by the actions of one or two people. ... It's a much more interesting country, America, if we stop with the race business, I think. I mean, I'm not black so I don't know your struggle, and you don't know my struggle, all right, because you're not white. ...
Liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz on Tuesday went absolutely berserk on a Democrat Tea Party member that didn't approve of how President Obama went back on his campaign promise to make healthcare reform hearings open and transparent.
"My reason for being with the Tea Party is is this whole healthcare stuff," said a caller named Jason who claimed to be a Democrat.
"I remember hearing President Obama talking about how it was going to be open and transparent, it was going to be on C-SPAN, we were going to know what's in the bill, and that's just not the way it worked."
This sent Schultz into a hissy fit of epic proportions concluding with him saying, "God, go pick up your gun and march if it makes you feel better because you're too stupid to read" (YouTube audio follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t Radio Equalizer):
April 15 was a hot day for Tea Party rallies, and also a hot day for liberal talk-radio denunciations of the Tea Party movement. Randi Rhodes claimed it was just a crowd of stupid people looking for a free lunch:
They have a lot of free time to travel about and around the country, don't they? These are the same people that just were in Boston; then they got on buses. They never ask who pays their freight. They think there's a free lunch somewhere on the bus, I don't know. And they just come town to town, and they stand there with their stupid signs screaming and yelling about corporations need to be protected. It's the sickest movement I've ever seen in my life!
Bill Press rolled out the typical line that "I think they want something for nothing. I pointed out before, if you look at this crowd, most of them are older, white, on Social Security and Medicare."
"Ninety percent of the electronic media in this country is owned, operated, programmed and controlled by conservatives," MSNBC's Ed Schultz told the audience of a recent National Action Network panel discussion.
And just how did this happen?
According to Schultz, conservatives, "made a concerted effort during and before the Reagan years that they were going to get the microphone."
The Fairness Doctrine-supporting liberal talker went on to argue that conservative talk radio and Fox News are successful not because they appeal to what a broad swath of America is already thinking, but because it programs the thinking of the right from the top-down:
Painting conservatives as racists is a favorite pastime of the mainstream media and a recent move by Republican Virginia governor Bob McDonnell gave them more ammunition to do just that.
McDonnell issued a proclamation on April 2 stating April would be Confederate History Month, but failed to note the role slavery played in the U.S. Civil War that lasted from 1861-1865. Commentators and journalists seized upon McDonnell's omission as proof that conservatives are inherent racists, despite an apology and later inclusion in the proclamation of a strong statement condemning slavery.
In his apology, McDonnell called slavery an "abomination" and explained that the proclamation was "solely intended to promote the study of our history, encourage tourism in our state in advance of the 150th Anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, and recognize Virginia's unique role in the story of America."
These allegations of racism against conservatives have percolated in the media since Barack Obama's election in 2008. "Confederate" or "Confederacy" has been used 60 times in news reports on ABC, CBS and NBC since November 4, 2008, but it's this proclamation, coupled with the anger over the recently passed health care reform, that had some in the media wondering if conservatives were ready to wage Civil War Redux.
If only Ted Kennedy were still alive, so might the 29 miners killed in a horrific explosion at Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, at least according to liberal radio host Ed Schultz.
Schultz wasted little time last week piling on Don Blankenship, CEO of the company that owns the mine where the disaster took place, as a corporate fatcat cozy with the GOP and indifferent to his workers' safety.
In the process, Schultz gave Democrats a pass for their alleged inability, despite control of Congress and the White House, to enact legislation that Schultz claimed would mean safer conditions for miners.
But Matthews wasn't alone. A search of Nexis for "Bush regime" found other former and current MSNBCers using the term both before and after Bush's tenure in office in addition to liberal acolytes like Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, Senator Arlen Specter's challenger from the Left, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), and quadrennial Green Party standard-bearer Ralph Nader.
So I asked EyeBlast.tv video editor Bob Parks to compile a video montage showing just how fond the Left was of using the term "Bush regime" on MSNBC programming. You can check that out by clicking the play button on the embed at the right.
Nary a broadcast of his radio show has aired in months without libtalker Ed Schultz pounding the drums for his listeners to "buy American."
Apparently Schultz's pleas have fallen on at least two deaf ears -- his own.
Schultz recently told his listeners that he is now an "international businessman" after buying a fishing lodge in Manitoba (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: Now, here's a good socialist story for you. My wife and I have purchased, I love to fish, I've fished all my life, I love it. And we have been going to Thunderbird Lodge in Manitoba since we been married and we love this place. I love it because I can fly my 210 into the airstrip right behind the lodge. It's got a 3,500-foot strip, gravel strip, right behind the lodge on Wrong Lake in Manitoba. And it was just easily accessible, I don't have to get in a float plane. It's exclusive on the lake, it's been a lodge for years, it was built by the natives back in 1975 for economic development and then it changed hands over the years, it's had a number of owners.
Picture this: a speaker at a crowded public forum referring to his audience as "Tim McVeigh wannabes" -- and receiving enthusiastic applause after saying it.
Two possibilities come to mind. First, the audience consists mainly of those aspiring to membership in militias and hence their approval for being described this way. Or, much more likely, the speaker is being facetious and describing audience members as disparaged by those not sharing their politics.
Naturally, radio host Ed Schultz -- he of the shoot-first, play-dumb-later school of rhetoric -- pounced on the first scenario as the only possible explanation.
In the wake of an alleged scandal that appears unlikely to destroy Sean Hannity's reputation, liberals like Schultz aren't wasting time trying to manufacture a second scandal based on Hannity's remarks last week at the Reagan Library.
Last Thursday, on his unwatched and unwatchable MSNBC television program, Equine Ed Schultz stepped into his Leftist Wayback Machine for a little retro-censorship. With the intent of bringing it back to the future.
Having first called for a reimposition of the alleged "Fairness" Doctrine the week prior on his unlistened to and unlistenable radio show, Schultz took his censorious intentions to his tens of viewers on the tube. (He is doing all of this after making fun of us in 2008 for concerning ourselves with the Doctrine's return.)
Schultz made his latest call for "fairness" by citing the patently absurd 2007 "report" The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio. Which was co-published by the George Soros-funded Leftist "think" tanks Center for American Progress and (the Marxist-founded) Free Press.
We have in fact dismantled this "report"for its deep-seated and inherent fraudulence. It asserts that talk radio is too conservative - and that we need oppressive government regulations aplenty to remedy the situation.
However, it cooked the books from the outset - excluding uber-liberal National Public Radio (NPR) from their analysis pool and then drawing their fraudulent conclusion.
Facts, apparently, will not interfere with the left's quest to slander Sean Hannity. What's worse, many of the mistruths are being peddled by Hannity's cable news competition, adding financial gain to the cheap political incentives for delegitimizing him. Even after facts debunked the bogus claim that Hannity had improperly used funds raised by the Freedom Alliance charity, MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz parroted the claims as fact. Now, apparently accepting that the claims are total nonsense, Schultz and fellow talk radio hitman Mike Malloy have found another absurd charge to level at Hannity: he praised Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh. What actually happened? Glad you asked: Hannity conveyed the utter absurdity of the liberal media's portrayal of conservatives by sarcastically calling an audience at the Reagan Library "Tim McVeigh wannabes." (Audio and transcript below the fold - h/t Radio Equalizer.)
Vituperative left-wing radio host Ed Schultz took to the air on Monday and insisted that he hasn't said anything hateful on his MSNBC program in the last year:
Look, we all get carried away in talk radio but I do not think that on 'The Ed Show' on MSNBC in the last year I've said anything *hateful.* Hateful?! ... Hateful stuff? No, no, no, we point out the hateful stuff and sometimes it lands in Psycho Talk.
Ed Schultz rehashed an already-discredited smear of conservative talk show host Sean Hannity on the liberal talker's March 30 "Ed Show" program on MSNBC.
Blustered Schultz as he introduced Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW):
Finally tonight on "The Ed Show," it's been 12 days since Sean Hannity hasn't answered the questions about possible fraud and misuse of funds from his charity. He may have to answer to the IRS and Federal Trade Commission.
Don't expect Ed Schultz to invite Ernest Istook back on his MSNBC show any time soon.
As was the case back in November, the former congressman and distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation deftly engaged a hapless Schultz, to the point that Schultz this past Wednesday actually apologized to his audience because "this was not the way this interview was supposed to go." And Schultz had it all mapped out!
Keeping tabs on left-wing media usually provides all the appeal of a re-education camp, but the slog does have its moments. This was one of them, from "The Ed Show" on March 24. A transcript of the exchange follows, interspersed with snarky commentary in italics, along with a video clip below the fold --
Reacting to Haley Barbour's quip that the liberal media has given President Obama "the longest wet kiss in political history" after last week's passage of ObamaCare, Ed Schultz made clear on MSNBC this morning that he feels President Obama deserves it for all the fierce criticism he and Democrats faced during the months of debate over the legislation.
The MSNBC host and liberal radio talker was interviewed by colleague David Shuster shortly after 10:30 a.m. EDT today.
Shuster introduced the segment with a clip of the Mississippi Republican governor's quip on the March 28 edition of ABC's "This Week" and went briefly over some polling data before asking for Schultz's thoughts [MP3 audio here]:
They Know Nuh-Think It was the 2008 Talkers magazine New Media Seminar - June 6 and 7 in New York City. I was there to hob nob with the elite of talk radio.
And Ed Schultz.
I was there also to curry support for our then latest effort to keep the radio airwaves free from tyrannical and censorious government regulation. At that time it was against a return of the ridiculously mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine. Given the talent pool in which I was swimming - those whose livelihoods would be destroyed by it's reinstatement - many were graciously willing to assist.
Not Ed Schultz.
Word of my efforts made its way to him. And he sought me out and approached me so as to ridicule us for fighting the good fight. He rigidly insisted that no Democrat - no one in fact - was seeking a return of the Censorship Doctrine.
"Who talks to Nancy Pelosi more - you or me?" he angrily asked. I replied "Have you talked to Nancy Pelosi - ever?" Because if he had, once, ever, he had done so more than me. (And more's the pity for him.)
He responded "Well I just spoke to her, and no one wants to see (the alleged "Fairness" Doctrine) brought back."
I tried to persuade him that there were plans in the works but he remained, as always, impervious to facts.
... aka, the "Fairness Doctrine." And since the sole purpose of reviving this deservedly moribund government policy would be to silence conservative voices on radio, I avoid its Orwellian title.
On the same day President Obama signed his budget-busting health bill into law, Ed Schultz seized on the next opportunity for government control, one without a remote connection to reforming health care.
Feeling emboldened by the Democratic Party's success in imposing ObamaCare on the American public, lefties are already looking for the next hot issue to shove down our throats. For MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz, it's the airwaves that should be subjected to a socialist government takeover.
Hard to believe but there's another radio host more woefully characteristic of left wingers in the media than liberal talker and MSNBC action hero Ed Schultz.
His name is Norman Goldman, an LA-based lawyer, Huffington Post blogger and frequent Schultz guest "legal analyst" who started his own radio show last year and still occasionally sits in for Schultz.
Such was the case this week with Goldman subbing for Schultz on Monday and Tuesday. And as Goldman never fails to remind Schultz's audience, he and Schultz disagreed on the health bill -- Schultz was willing to accept the Senate version without a public option, Goldman was not.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has some doubts about those who oppose abortion on moral, religious or ethical grounds. Apparently to him, it's just an anti-class issue in which the poor are locked out of abortion.
"I want to make a point they're wrong on two important counts," Klein said. "Number one, often times when you create more insurance coverage you reduce abortion. There is a study in The New England Journal of Medicine this month that after Massachusetts brought in their reforms that look a lot like our reforms abortion dropped 2 percent because people have more access to birth control."
March is Women's History Month, in which we acknowledge the accomplishments and contributions of women in history and in society today.
But for a select group of women - conservative women - their accomplishments and contributions are rarely celebrated but often demeaned and mocked in sexist - and crassly sexual - ways.
The Culture & Media Insitute looked back at what the media had to say over the past year about some of today's most prominent conservative women, including Michelle Malkin, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney, and compiled a list of the 10 worst attacks on these women who dare to speak out in favor of conservative values.
Much of the criticism was the worst sort of misogyny with a dose of violence and disgusting adolescent sex references thrown in for good measure. The media outlets in question ranged from Playboy magazine to MSNBC to Sirius XM radio and included comments from both men and women.
The message that rang through loud and clear was that perspectives from conservative women were not appreciated or welcomed, and if a woman stepped out of line, she deserved whatever treatment she received.
I've been leery of Luke Russert ever since the NBC reporter said, during the presidential campaign, that students at the U. of Virginia are "leaning a little bit towards Obama" because "the smartest kids in the state go there."
On this evening's Ed Show, the son of the late MTP moderator gave additional reason to think that he leans "a little bit towards Obama" himself. Speaking of the Dem congressman currently under ethics investigation in connection with an allegation that he sexually harassed a male staffer, Russert said that Eric Massa would change his vote and support ObamaCare "if he really was sincerely caring about health care."
For good measure, Schultz vouched for Massa's character, based largely on the liberal congressman's opposition to . . . Dick Cheney.