And no, he wasn't talking about golf clubs.
A liberal says what Ed Schultz said on his radio show Wednesday, other liberals shrug it off as just an opinion, albeit one oozing the odor of the Second Amendment. (audio after page break)
Here's what Schultz opined after interviewing Democrat state senator David Schapira of Arizona about Republican state lawmakers pushing legislation that would end collective bargaining by public employee unions (audio) --
This is America being transformed right in front of our eyes. I don't, you know what? I did that promo, I need two shows, I need my own network! And that's not going to be enough! ... Am I wrong? Am I overreacting? I'm not angry about it. I mean, well, yeah, I am. But I mean, I'm almost speechless after what I just heard. (referring to interview with Schapira) It's in every back yard. This is why I went home to do my promos on MSNBC to illustrate, you don't have to go very far to find empty containers. You don't have to go very far to find your school district being gutted by the righties. You don't have to go very far before you better be packing iron 'cause we ain't got any cops left.
That should go over well at the Ministry of Truth otherwise known as MSNBC. Schultz's cable colleague Rachel Maddow, for example, might point out how Schultz's remark is reminiscent of GOP candidate Sharron Angle in the 2010 campaign saying citizens may find it necessary to resort to "Second Amendment remedies."
Seeing how Maddow harped on that incessantly heading into the midterms, perhaps Schultz should clarify what he meant. Who knows how it might be interpreted by the Jared Loughners of the world.
Allow me to render Schultz all the more speechless by pointing out that left-wing icon Franklin Roosevelt, the most reverent of liberal high priests ... opposed collective bargaining by public workers.
In an August 1937 letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Roosevelt wrote --
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be translated into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. ...
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of the Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
So sorry, Ed. Should have warned you that would sting.
