Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
When MSNBC gave Ed Schultz his own show, I blasted them for it. Schultz is the liberal version of Limbaugh and other radio clowns on the right. Here's another perfect example why I say that:
"I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times," said Schultz on his Friday radio show. "I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are."
Exactly the kind of extremist nonsense -- advocating breaking the law and undermining the integrity of our elections -- to make sure your side wins. If a conservative said that, we would all be up in arms over it. We should be no less up in arms when a liberal does it. MSNBC should fire Schultz immediately, as should the radio stations he's on. Here's audio of the whole thing:
Politics
Comments
I'm a raving liberal and I despise Shultz. He's a serious jerk.
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | January 18, 2010 9:39 AM
From a strategic perspective over the long-haul; Democrats, liberals, and non-conservatives should all do marginally better by not mimicing the worst attributes of conservatives while also aggresively revealing such behavior and criticizing it.
To maintain the moral highground non-conservatives need to be far more ruthless in cutting out their own infections, even to the point of being arguably unfair to their own. In fact starting a debate in the public square about whether non-conservatives over-react by punishing one of their own is the very type of debate that reinforces stereotypes to the non-conservatives' advantage and motivates people regarding how to act and whom to support.
So bravo to Ed on what liberals and Democrats should advocate in regards to Mr. Schultz. I concur.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 9:46 AM
I don't listen to Ed Shultz or watch his TV program but I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Michael Heath and Mr. Brayton. Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire. For too long, the left has behaved like Casper Milquetoast in response to fascist goat fuckers like Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, et. al. Sometimes a knee to the groin approach is appropriate.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 9:55 AM
But it has been shown that Limbaugh type hosts make money for the media companies. That is all that matters, just like the continuous tease about what is coming next to keep you from using the remote. All that matters is getting the eyeballs to the advertisers. The rest is irrelevant.
Posted by: Lyle | January 18, 2010 9:56 AM
SLC, #3
Election fraud isn't a knee to the Republican groin. It's a knee to the Republic's groin.
Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2010 9:58 AM
SLC, It may feel good, but advocating election fraud plays directly into the hands of the GOP, which makes hay with even a whiff of election irregularities. Think ACORN. Think US Attorneys being fired for not aggressively pursuing hints of election fraud.
Oh, and it's just wrong, too.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | January 18, 2010 10:03 AM
You might have a point if this was about Mr Schultz insulting his opponents but do you really want to say the opposite of milquetoast is advocating fraud?
Plus, how do you know the goats they fuck are fascist? they may be liberal goats who happen to want a consensual relationship with a fascist.
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 10:03 AM
SLC - Right on! Sometimes you've got destroy a village to save it, and torturing 'enemy non-combatants' could never, ever come back to bite you on the ass, right?
[Nausea-inducing eyeroll] - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 18, 2010 10:05 AM
SLC-
That is an absolutely appalling argument. And ironically, it's pretty much identical to the right's thinking when they demand a strong leader who does something -- anything -- to protect us, all morality and principle be damned. The rule of law doesn't matter, we can only trust those who will do whatever it takes to destroy The Enemy at all costs, including the cost of our own principles.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 10:11 AM
Great - a ten second sound bite of Schultz going hyperbolic, posted here with grim and breathless assertions that the guy actually proposes vote fraud, by Ed Brayton, evidently to bolster Ed's own credentials of a lack of bias.
A crock of bullshit served up for a much more grievously self-serving purpose than whatever the fuck Ed Schultz was talking about.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 18, 2010 10:12 AM
Ah Gingerbaker, a thirty-two second sound-bite - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 18, 2010 10:18 AM
The quote as given *does* propose vote fraud but you have a valid point this could be out of context.
My breathing is fine by the way, how about you?
Posted by: Matty | January 18, 2010 10:21 AM
Gingerbaker-
There is no need for a "breathless assertion" that he is advocating vote fraud - he bluntly says that he is advocating vote fraud. In case you doubted it, he even restates it twice by saying "Yeah, that's right" and "I would." If this was a 10 second Rush Limbaugh soundbite, I doubt we'd be hearing a peep of protest from you. And no claims of it being out of context would ever convince you otherwise.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 10:24 AM
I am afraid that my philosophy differs from most of the other commentors here. Yeshua of Nazareth was reputed to have said that when ones' cheek is slapped, present the slapper with the other cheek. My philosophy is that when ones' cheep is slapped, knock the slappers block off. H/T to Nikita Khrushchev.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 10:29 AM
By the way, here's a longer clip from the show that has everything until he went to the next commercial. The only thing the context shows is him saying how much he hates teabaggers. There is nothing there to change the meaning of what is quoted at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwH-oQ1m9GQ
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 10:29 AM
Ed Schultz is a complete idiot. At this point the only value I've seen from him having a show is that I can use him to balance out a description of media idiots on both the right and the left. Prior to the last few years you didn't have many liberal demagogues to balance out the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly, etc., on the right. For a time there I really only had Michael Moore as a name the kids would recognize. I would tentatively add Olbermann to Moore, Schultz, and Huffington. Unfortunately he has stopped being a journalist and has shifted over to the dark side (just because you agree with some of their basic principles doesn't mean they aren't wrong).
Posted by: dogmeatib | January 18, 2010 10:32 AM
SLC-
Yes, we clearly differ. You think the rule of law should be abandoned in the name of defeating your opponents because they're just so gosh darn evil that the ends justify the means. Just like Bush and Cheney do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 10:33 AM
Shultz is trying to be the left's answer to Limbaugh, assuming that by "answer" you mean stooping to disgustingly low levels of integrity and high levels of partisan hypocrisy.
It is no surprise that leftist loons like SLC rally to his defense spewing terms like "goat fucker" to emphasize their overwrought irrationality.
Posted by: Lance | January 18, 2010 10:34 AM
SLC @ 14:
I think you are defectively creating a false restriction of alternatives. A primary reason I'm not a Democrat is that they don't play hardball and play to win so I appreciate your sentiment. However, there are ways to be tough that don't require breaking the law or ignoring one's principles.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 11:06 AM
i agree with the overall sentiment of this post, but seriously... why should some blowhard on the radio or tv lose his job for saying something ridiculous and stupid? limbaugh has been at it for decades, but he is an entertainer even by his own admission, and i don't imagine that ed schultz is any different. they rant and rave on their soapboxes, spitting and frothing at the mouth for effect (or crying if you're glenn beck), then they take their paychecks and go home.
Posted by: codemenkey | January 18, 2010 11:13 AM
Re Michael Heath
A perfect example of the Casper Milquetoast attitude of all too many Democrats is the reaction to what's going on in Massachusetts. Whatever one thinks of Martha Coakley, she is finally playing hardball and the liberal pantywaists in the media are criticizing her for it. I say more power to her and hopefully it is not too late in the day.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 11:21 AM
I am heartened by the fact that people like Ed Schultz and Randy Rhodes don't get the same traction amongst liberals as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck do amongst conservatives. I know right-wingers love to gloat about the failure of Air America, but if its success would have looked like that of right-wing talk radio today, then it's success that America can well do without.
There just seems to be a fundamental difference in psychological make up between most left and right wingers. Right-wingers tend to see the world in black-and-white terms, with a certainty that their cause is just and that the other side is just wrong. Left-wingers tend to see the world in shades of gray, and are often more willing to be swayed by the opinions of others. (No doubt people can come up with plenty of perfectly good examples where left-wingers are strident and unwilling to listen to reason, but overall, I don't believe such people are anywhere near as prevalent in left-wing circles.)
Thus while Rush Limbaugh's right-wing diatribes are cheered on by the millions of listeners, Ed Shultz's left-wing diatribes just makes liberals like me uncomfortable. I believe that's what drives the difference in the viewing figures. It's not that Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are better at it than Shultz, it's that there just isn't the same size of audience for that type of bombastic talk radio on the left.
Posted by: tacitus | January 18, 2010 11:22 AM
SLC,
So you're for voter fraud and keeping innocent people in jail if it gets more Democrats in the Senate. Pretty Khrushchevesque, although you seem to resemble his predecessor quite a bit as well.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 11:35 AM
Re MattXIV
Ah gee, considering the fact that her opponent supports the torture regime of Dubya and Cheney, I would say that Mr. MattXIVs' sentiments consist of the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 11:39 AM
Actually, that seems a bit more "up in arms" than I've seen you be towards the conservative mouthpieces when they spout their "extremist nonsense", unless it's taken as a given that Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et al. should also be fired, but there's no point in discussing it because their Wingnut Welfare positions make them invulnerable.
Even if that's the case, I think you may be drawing a false equivalency here, and the difference is this: does Ed Schultz have any expectation that his rant will, in fact, be carried out? Beck and Limbaugh are the de facto leaders of the Republican party. Michele Bachmann managed to summon up a sizable mob of Teabaggers to invade fellow congresspeople's offices. Do we have any reason to believe that Ed Schultz's advocacy will actually get Massachusetts residents to commit voter fraud in any greater numbers than they otherwise would have?
Posted by: Seraph | January 18, 2010 11:47 AM
@ Seraph: I had the same thought initially, but then it occurred to me that the reason might be that Schultz' sentiment has become widespread among right-wingers, and that's not the case on the liberal side of the aisle. Let's face it, we'd be shocked if scores of social conservatives stood up and said, "Hey, we can't go around advocating breaking the law just to score our side points." But we are shocked (or disappointed, in any event) when we see liberals advocating just that. The non-conservatives in this country have higher standards for morality and ethical behavior than social conservatives do, so it's especially disappointing to see liberals like Schultz make statements like the one under examination here.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2010 11:55 AM
SLC,
I wouldn't vote for Brown either - you're the one comfortable backing someone who seems to have knowingly lobbied extensively to keep innocent people in jail. I'm firmly in the a pox on both houses camp and you're doing an excellent job of proving why Democrats can't be trusted to protect the rights of the accused either.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 12:03 PM
"...why Democrats can't be trusted to protect the rights of the accused either."
This was not framed as a question, but it could be. And the answer: "This is what happens when Democrats think like Republicans."
Posted by: jws | January 18, 2010 12:10 PM
That it is, but I can't help but sympathize with the rage. Keeping to the moral high ground has left us with little defense against those who will use every tool, tell every lie, even use physical intimidation to win.
Posted by: Seraph | January 18, 2010 12:16 PM
Re MattXIV
I'm not a resident of Massachusetts so I'm not in a position to vote for either candidate. However, given the thuggery of the Rethuglican Party in general, were I a voter in Massachusetts, I would vote for Ms. Moakley as the lesser of the two evils. I am not familiar with the case in point; however, I am somewhat suspicious as to whether we are getting the full story as the article describing this issue was published in the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdock. Nothing published or broadcast by a media outlet owned by scumbag Murdock is to be accepted without corroboration by other outlets.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 12:21 PM
Seraph @ 25:
It's my assumption that most people in this forum including Ed would like to see media outlet's fire those who depend pundits who are serially dishonest or advocate breaking good laws.
Seraph @ 25:
First you need to establish a false equivalency prior to insinuating one exists. I'd expect some Schultz fans to attempt to at least participate in mischief in a manner that causes defects to the electoral process every bit as much as I expect some people to refuse to participate in the census given Rep. Michelle Bachmann's initial advice (until she realized her district's existence is possibly at risk if MN's population doesn't stack up well with some other states).
The more interesting question in response to your comment is whether you consistently provide the same leniency to conservatives that we see you attempting to provide to liberals.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 18, 2010 12:24 PM
"A perfect example of the Casper Milquetoast attitude of all too many Democrats is the reaction to what's going on in Massachusetts. Whatever one thinks of Martha Coakley, she is finally playing hardball and the liberal pantywaists in the media are criticizing her for it. I say more power to her and hopefully it is not too late in the day."
I can't say I watch much of the liberal newsmedia, but Ed, at least, criticized her for her horrific stances on crime and criminal justice. That neither is playing hardball with the right, nor is it an effective stopper against crime.
Posted by: Rutee | January 18, 2010 12:27 PM
Wow, people like this will ensure that the republicans take back Washington, and keep it for the next generation. Even though I do tend to lean right on somethings, I do not believe that it is a good thing for either party to control the entire government.
When either party has all the power, they become drunk with it, and allow the fringe of their party to come to the forefront.
I see that now, and don't kid yourselves, it will swing 180 degrees the other way in the next couple of years, because of people like this.
Posted by: Terry | January 18, 2010 12:29 PM
Terry, I can't help but notice that you aren't applying Republicans to the same standard to which you're applying Ed Schultz. Are voter fraud and illegal behavior okay when Republicans, whom you feel confident are going to sweep the nation, advocate them rather routinely?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2010 12:38 PM
SLC,
Then I highly suggest that your read up on the case as it is quite appalling. Also, Rabinowitz's articles predate the News Corp purchase by 7 or so years, so you're going to have to come up with a different excuse for putting your fingers in your ears on this one.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 12:41 PM
I'm not sure if SLC is advocating actual electoral fraud, or if he/she is advocating the kind of loudmouth demagoguery associated with those like Limbaugh and Schultz. If the former, you're full of shit dude. If the latter, I see an argument here. I'm not sure if I agree with it... but a little bit of "stooping to their level" might be the only way to keep the other side from bulldozing us. Sometimes. I'm just not sure...
In any case, advocating electoral fraud is not cool, and committing electoral fraud is even less cool.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 18, 2010 12:42 PM
I don't see how people like Ed Schultz will have anything to do with the country swinging to the right again. He doesn't have that kind of following? Does he?
The swing to the right will be due to the really poor performance of the Democrats in Congress and the White House. You cannot campaign on change and reform then do the same stuff those who you campaigned against are doing.
The Democrats might get it together and make some real changes that would differentiate themselves from the Republicans but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Owen | January 18, 2010 1:30 PM
"Gingerbaker-
There is no need for a "breathless assertion" that he is advocating vote fraud - he bluntly says that he is advocating vote fraud. In case you doubted it, he even restates it twice by saying "Yeah, that's right" and "I would." If this was a 10 second Rush Limbaugh soundbite, I doubt we'd be hearing a peep of protest from you. And no claims of it being out of context would ever convince you otherwise. "
The question is whether Schultz was indulging in hyperbole or making a genuine plea for voting fraud. You have decided to make a public and assertive charge that his statement was the latter. Your "evidence", so far, consists of a short soundbite. Color me underwhelmed.
Perhaps you have documentation of a consistent pattern of such statements from Schultz; a manifesto, or a voting fraud handbook published under his name? How about an earnest plea from Schultz for others to actually commit voter fraud? No? I thought not.
But don't let that stop you from following through on your serious and well-meaning accusations. File an official report with the relevant Federal agency, as a man of such self-asserted dedication to the protection of our Constitutional liberties as yourself would be honor-bound to discharge.
Otherwise, you might come across as an opportunist willing to trump up false allegations of wrong-doing merely to enhance your on-line notoriety as an even-handed and non partisan critic of contemporary politics. You know, the sort of person who would glibly accuse his critics of being incapable of being as unbiased as himself. Or did I take you out of context?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 18, 2010 1:58 PM
"I am heartened by the fact that people like Ed Schultz and Randy Rhodes don't get the same traction amongst liberals as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck do amongst conservatives."
I couldn't agree with you more. We need more sober commentators like Rachel Maddow. And while I usually agree with him Olbermann is a little over the top too.
Posted by: Brian | January 18, 2010 2:10 PM
I'm not interested in your assumptions. Calling pundits out on their foolishness is what Ed does. Calling for their firing seems to be something new. If I'm wrong, please link to the post(s) where Ed calls for Limbaugh or Beck or someone of that cohort to be fired. If I'm right, I'm curious as to why.
I'm not interested in your expectations, either. Please give examples of things liberals have actually done in response to commands by our pundits. Something comparable to politicians voting exactly as Rush says (i.e. "No on everything") or attempting to physically intimidate congresspersons would be good.
Actually, that's not interesting at all. Pretty tedious, really. We liberals hear it all the time - sure our opponent is geared up for a street fight, but that doesn't mean we're allowed to stray from the Marquis de Queensbury rules.
Tell you what. On the day that:
1) Liberal pundits develop anything like the kind of influence that Conservative pundits wield;
2) Liberals become as willing to actually use any means (including violence and the threat thereof) to win as Conservatives currently do;
3) Liberal and Conservative pundits are held equally accountable for what they say (i.e., Ed Schultz becomes as invulnerable as Rush - or, preferably, Rush becomes just as vulnerable to public outcry as Dan Rather); and
4) Conservatives are held to the same standards of truth, fairness and courtesy as liberals;
...on that day, I'll worry about being fair. Until that day, I'll be as harsh on conservatives as I like, and let them worry about making their hypocritical condemnation noises about things like this, all the while cheering inwardly that not all of our public figures have had the spirit crushed out of them by relentless conservative bullying.
Posted by: Seraph | January 18, 2010 2:20 PM
Seraph, check the blog archives and search through Ed's "Dumbass Quotes of the Day," "Robert O'Brien Awards," and "Idiot of the Month" awards. There about a 90-plus percent chance that he'll be skewering conservatives and right-wingers for their moronic comments in these entries. Many of these take-downs have been in response to conservatives advocating secession, voter fraud, threats to liberals/Democrats/gays, etc. Now Ed is rightfully criticizing the same thuggish bluster uttered by one who happens to be a liberal. You seem to be upset with Ed for doing so in the context of widespread cultural acceptance of the same behavior coming from right-wingers; you're 100% right on the need to come forward as a nation and condemn right-wing hypocrisy and thuggery once and for all, but you're completely wrong that Ed is misguided in his quest to condemn the same behavior in liberals. Wrong is wrong, no matter whose behavior it is or who started it.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2010 2:34 PM
heddle,
Eloquently put. My hat's off to you.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 18, 2010 3:10 PM
Sadie @41
Please re-read my post @40:
Calling for someone's firing is in a completely different category than calling them an idiot, at least if that person is a liberal. Conservatives protect their own, but liberals can lose it all. It's a favorite conservative method of collecting liberal scalps. Look at Dan Rather, whose career ended early because he didn't fact-check well enough. Look at Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, stalked and hounded out of the Edwards campaign because they offended Bill Donohue.
Compare that to Limbaugh's immortality, or better yet, Imus. He was back on the radio in what, four months?
So you - and everyone else - please spare me the lecture about criticizing liberals for the same behavior as conservatives. This is the next level up from criticism, and I want to know - honestly - if any conservative pundit has ever received it, or if it's just another case of the liberal being held to a higher standard.
Posted by: Seraph | January 18, 2010 3:14 PM
...and if someone wants to argue "Well, what difference does it make if Ed calls for Schultz's dismissal? What are the chances that someone is actually going to act on what Ed says?"
My answer is: exactly.
Posted by: Seraph | January 18, 2010 3:20 PM
Re James Sweet
I am advocating giving the Rethuglican shitheads the same treatment that fuckface Limbaugh et al give to the Democrats. I will say that I don't agree with Mr. Shultz that voters should attempt to vote more then once, although, as they say in Chicago, vote early and often!
Re MattXIV
Then I highly suggest that your read up on the case as it is quite appalling. Also, Rabinowitz's articles predate the News Corp purchase by 7 or so years, so you're going to have to come up with a different excuse for putting your fingers in your ears on this one.
I don't know where Mr. MattXIV is getting his information from but attached is a link to Ms. Rabinowitzs' article which is dated Jan 14, 2010. In case Mr. MattXIV missed it, fuckface Murdock owned that paper on that date.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 3:35 PM
SLC,
I got my information from the Pulitzer Prize website and I'm done with your disingenuous ass. It's a waste of time to debate the willfully ignorant.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 3:43 PM
Gingerbaker wrote:
You seem to be having a difficult time grasping the subtlety of "Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would." He reiterates it several times in that little soundbite. And then he spends the rest of the segment justifying it. If this is hyperbole it is profoundly irresponsible hyperbole. Leaving aside the moral problems with it, he is handing the right a stick with which to beat the left. For crying out loud, the right loves to accuse the left of not caring about voter fraud and then you have the loudest and most popular left-wing voice on the radio declaring that he would engage in voter fraud. He might as well load the gun for them before handing it to them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 4:33 PM
Gingerbaker-
One more thing. At some point in the future when I blister Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck for saying something equally vile, should you choose then to fire up all this righteous indignation over such a scurrilous accusation on my part and defend them on the grounds that they might merely be engaging in hyperbole - at that point, I might actually take you seriously on this one. Until then, you're just another partisan hack applying entirely different standards to those you agree with than those you disagree with.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 4:36 PM
Seraph, I can only speak for myself, but I would love to see Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Savage, Malkin, Hannity, Severin, O'Reilly, Kilmeade, etc. fired for statements advocating/celebrating voter fraud, violence against political adversaries, egregious discrimination, etc. Several of them have been fired from various positions in the past for such behavior. Political discourse in this country has devolved into schoolyard bullying--and the blame for this can be laid primarily, though not exclusively, at the feet of the right wing--and it's time for the pundits to grow the fuck up and transform from shouting heads to reasoned political commentators.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2010 4:44 PM
SLC, I agree that the political spinelessness displayed by the democrats over the last few decades is as vomit-inducing as the vicious, lying, hate-spewing rhetoric of the brain-addled GOP (including both the fascist goat-fucking members and especially those that choose to fuck us rather than goats). I part ways with the "fight fire with fire" approach when it stoops to advocating fraud and other clearly illegal and harmful practices.
Rather, I would like to see the Dems and Indies step up their rhetoric and start attacking GOP members openly with legitimate but merciless campaign tactics. For example, I would dearly have loved during the Bush-Gore debate when Bush uttered the phrase "fuzzy math" for Gore to have replied "I have seen your record and frankly, all math must be fuzzy for you." followed by a list of Bush's business failings and shady connections. Kerry should have gone for the throat the day the swift-boat ads appeared and pulled no punches. Instead, both candidates sat there and fizzled. They didn't need to lie, cheat or steal to win. They just needed to be awake and take their opponents and their opponents' campaign staffs seriously.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | January 18, 2010 4:50 PM
Seraph, you might want to check out (Ed's) Take on Imus. Note: I only checked for Imus.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | January 18, 2010 4:54 PM
Posted by: llewelly | January 18, 2010 5:09 PM
In a sane and rational world, Limbaugh and Beck and all of their ilk would be fired (or not hired in the first place). In a sane and rational world, they wouldn't have a job because no one would listen to them or take them seriously. I would be more than happy to see all of them fired. But frankly, I expect more from liberals than I do from conservatives. And when I see this kind of repulsive behavior coming from my side of the fence, I get even angrier at it than when I see it coming from the other side. I'm used to it from them, I guess. I expect it from them. I don't expect it from liberals.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 5:10 PM
Ed is no where near like Limbaugh. The comparison smacks of the usual false equivalence crap we see from .... Limbaugh.
Yes, there is an overlap in the approach. But Ed is more like an old fashioned union organizer, and Limberger is more like a screaming maniac with an evil heart.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 5:13 PM
Re MattXIV
I read the links to the 2 articles about Mr. Amirault and I failed to see Ms. Coakleys' name mentioned. A search using the Firefox search function fails to find her name mentioned. Thus, I fail to see the point of Mr. MattXIVs' claims. I would appreciate it if, perhaps, Mr. MattXIV could stop acting like a big baby and enlighten us.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 5:22 PM
Greg-
I think you're missing the point. If Rush Limbaugh advocated voter fraud to make sure his side wins because the liberals are just so evil that they must be stopped, would you condemn him for it? I certainly would. So how about joining me in condemning Schultz for doing it?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 18, 2010 6:05 PM
I agree with the basic point (shame on you Ed Shultz) but I don't agree with the parallel overall. Ed had his heart in the right place, Limbaugh has no heart. Generally, liberals are right and far right wingers are not, and so on.
I assume Ed was being ironic. Maybe.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 6:08 PM
Greg, I disagree. Anyone who is advocating voter fraud doesn't have their heart in the right place. That they may agree on some policy goals with people who have their hearts in the right place is more coincidence than anything else.
Honestly, the only time I ever hear about Schultz is when he says something stupid or despicable. Does this guy have any redeeming features at all?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 18, 2010 6:29 PM
heddle | January 18, 2010 9:58 AM:
Brilliant.
(I know, I know - but I felt it needed to be said a fifth time.)
Posted by: llewelly | January 18, 2010 6:29 PM
Honestly, the only time I ever hear about Schultz is when he says something stupid or despicable. Does this guy have any redeeming features at all?
Josh, this is an interesting statement. Think about it. Honestly. No offense, but really, think about it.
I'll tell you what. I'll go back and look at the tape. If I think Ed SHultz advocates voter fraud I'll tear him a new one. In the mean time, rethink that statement and get back to us.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 6:33 PM
Translation: No, because if he had any Greg would have just named them.
Posted by: Rutee | January 18, 2010 6:35 PM
OK, I looked at the source. An uncontextualized quote from World Nut Daily.
Are we drifting away from reality here?
I've see The Ed Show on MSNBC a number of times. I am of the opinion that Ed is very unlikely to believe in voter fraud, but is very frustrated and his comments on the radio show were OT. I would bet (a small sum) that down stream in the same radio show he says something like "Oh, well, I don't really advocate voter fraud but I sure do feel that way some time bla bla bla" or words to that effect.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 6:37 PM
Rutee, not really. Responding to your imaginary orders certainly is not my job. I'll ask you not to provide further translations.
It turns out getting the radio show transcripts is a pain so I'm not going to do it. However, this is to be found on Ed's site:
"Righties attack Ed Schultz over comments made on Friday's show. Big Eddie will give commentary."
So I imagine that there will be a response.
In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh is still using Obama's efforts to help in Haiti as political fodder. What a shame. Learn about it here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/01/ed_on_limbaugh_inre_haiti.php
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 6:49 PM
Ed Schult's comments are not surprising to me. He, quite simply, has no hesitation to demonstrate an attitude, typical of liberals, that justifies lying and cheating to achieve “the cause”. I’ve witnessed this since attending college in the 60's and it’s about time conservatives, moderates, independents, etc. get fed up with their stupidity and lack of ethics and stop giving them a pass.
Posted by: Stan B. | January 18, 2010 7:00 PM
Stan, I am an ardent, left-liberal, and I wholeheartedly condemn Schultz' comments. Do you harbor the same sentiments toward the many right-wingers who make similar statements for "the cause?"
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 18, 2010 7:02 PM
He, quite simply, has no hesitation to demonstrate an attitude, typical of liberals, that justifies lying and cheating to achieve “the cause”.
You say this based on what evidence? Certainly not the cited quote in world nut daily? That would make your comment mere sock puppetry. Do you have any other instances of Ed Shultz making a remark like this?
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 18, 2010 7:10 PM
SLC,
Coakley opposed the parole in late 2001 (she held a press conference at the time and stood by it in recent interviews so it's not exactly a secret), so it's not in the earlier articles on the case - I assumed you knew that much, since it's in every single recent article about Coakley's behavior and has never been contested by anybody (except apparently you) and were alleging that Rabinowitz and the WSJ started looking into the case recently for partisan reasons. The little credit I gave you was apparently too much.
You could have found that info easily by googling "Coakley Amirault parole". Or via the wikipedia article on Gerald Amirault. Or by searching the WSJ or Boston Herald archives. But you don't want the facts, you want excuses to ignore them.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 7:12 PM
"Ed Schult's comments are not surprising to me. He, quite simply, has no hesitation to demonstrate an attitude, typical of liberals, that justifies lying and cheating to achieve “the cause”. I’ve witnessed this since attending college in the 60's and it’s about time conservatives, moderates, independents, etc. get fed up with their stupidity and lack of ethics and stop giving them a pass."
On what planet have you spent most of your time since the 60s?
Posted by: Rutee | January 18, 2010 7:21 PM
The problem with many of the defenses of Shultz on this thread is that ditto-heads make exactly the same excuses for Limbaugh whenever he says something that crosses the line:
"He was only joking."
"He was being ironic."
"He was being outrageous to make a point."
"He didn't mean what you think he means."
And so forth.
Posted by: tacitust | January 18, 2010 7:48 PM
I'm going to call it hyperbole, but I do agree -- Schultz has from the very beginning seemed to me like he was intentionally modeling himself after Limbaugh. The voice is similar as is the general approach, and I don't think that's an accident.
That said, it does go a long way towards explaining why liberal talk hasn't been a terribly profitable radio format -- liberals tend to not respond well to having opinions fed to them, which is precisely how right-wing talk works.
Posted by: BrianX | January 18, 2010 8:05 PM
Stan: No conservatives/libertarians would EVER ever advocate for or actually participate in immoral and illegal behavior for rightist "causes" (Timothy McVeigh, G. Gordon Liddy, Scott Roeder, Paul Hill, Richard Nixon, the Rev. Mark Spitz,, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc.).
As for Schultz, yeah, his show should be taken off the air for advocating voter fraud... just as the 700 Club should have been taken off the air when Pat Robertson advocated putting a nuclear bomb in the State Department, or Bill O'Reilly's FOx show should have been axed for a. advocating Al Qaeda bom Coit Towers in San Francisco and b. saying that "we ought to hang" George Soros (Funny how lots of rightists posting comments on this blog peg Mr. Brayton as a "liberal," and yet he didn't call for either O'Reilly or Robertson to be canned for the aforementioned comments).
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 18, 2010 9:42 PM
Re MarkXIV
Keith Olbermann had a segment on Ms. Coakleys' opponent, Mr. Brown on his show tonight. Mr. Brown is a racist, homophobic piece of filth who thinks that Ms. Coakley should have a rod shoved up her ass and who hobnobs with the fucking tea- partiers. As I have previously stated, Coakley is the lesser of the two evils. By the way, I consider that her declining to prosecute Cardinal Law as an accessory after the fact for his part in the priest pedophile scandals is at least as serous as her part in the Amirault affair.
Posted by: SLC | January 18, 2010 9:45 PM
daniel rotter said:
Ed said:
Posted by: Gretchen | January 18, 2010 10:02 PM
SLC,
That doesn't change a damn thing about her lobbying to keep an innocent man in jail.
And seriously, an Keith Olbermann segment after you gave me so much grief over the sourcing of the Amirault story? You've gone from infuriating, straight through pathetic, and came out at unintentionally hilarious.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 18, 2010 10:35 PM
No conservatives/libertarians would EVER ever advocate for or actually participate in immoral and illegal behavior for rightist "causes" (Timothy McVeigh, G. Gordon Liddy, Scott Roeder, Paul Hill, Richard Nixon, the Rev. Mark Spitz,, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc.).
Just want to point out that while all of those terrible people are conservative, none are libertarians. I disagree with several libertarian ideas, but on most issues, libertarians are more liberal than Democrats.
Posted by: LJM | January 19, 2010 12:19 AM
Ed, I also condemn Schultz in suggesting electoral fraud. We have to be intellectually consistent on this no matter what and I do agree that he should be fired immediately from MSNBC and advertisers should pull ads from his show.
I, too, have found Schultz to be too much like Rush Limbaugh. I can recall his sneering dismissal of investigative journalists Greg Palast and Amy Goodman and thought it was rather appalling.
Posted by: Brian W | January 19, 2010 1:30 AM
I want the facts. I want analysis. Time permitting, I like a little humour mixed in, preferably satirical, as it's more effective than a simple attempt at yuk-yuks.
What I don't want is unnecessary hyperbole or irresponsible rhetoric. For the former, the nuts on the Right are nutty enough that their words, actions and beliefs don't need to be amplified (they skewer themselves quite handily already) and for the latter, irresponsible rhetoric is, not surprisingly, irresponsible.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 19, 2010 4:29 AM
Re MattXIV
Attached are two links to commentary by Mr. Braytons' Scienceblogs colleague, Mike the mad biologist explaining why he is voting for Ms. Moakley. Dr. Mike, unlike me, is a voting resident of Massachusetts and therefore has a dog in this controversy.
As for the Amirault case, from what I can gather, Ms. Moakleys' "crime" here is that she opposed parole for him. As I understand it, she was not involved in the original prosecution and was not even in the prosecutors' office at the time.
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/01/republican_ma_senate_candidate.php
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2010/01/why_i_am_voting_for_martha_coa.php
Posted by: SLC | January 19, 2010 7:16 AM
SLC,
If keeping innocent people in prison is an acceptable tradeoff for advancing the Democratic political agenda in your mind, that's your opinion. It's also my opinion that you're despicable for it.
Posted by: MattXIV | January 19, 2010 11:08 AM
Greg, the fact that I happen to agree with the man on certain policy issues isn't a point in his favor in any substantial way. Some people will happen to get the same results as careful thinking simply by a random walk and cultural/social influence.
And I really do have trouble seeing how saying he would cheat if he could should be interpreted any other way.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | January 19, 2010 11:23 AM
As for the Amirault case, from what I can gather, Ms. Moakleys' (sic) "crime" here is that she opposed parole for him.
She worked to keep an demonstrably innocent man in prison. You excuse her the way Republicans excuse Bush's death penalty record in Texas. Democrats who excuse people like Coakley are no different than Republicans who excuse people like Cheney.
Posted by: LJM | January 19, 2010 2:05 PM
I don't listen to Ed Shultz or watch his TV program but I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Michael Heath and Mr. Brayton. Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire. For too long, the left has behaved like Casper Milquetoast in response to fascist goat fuckers like Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, et. al. Sometimes a knee to the groin approach is appropriate.
When I first started reading this, I was surprised that somebody here would advocate breaking the law to win an election. When I saw that it was SLC that wrote it, I wasn't too surprised anymore. SLC, you have proven yourself to be of the same crazy left fringe that Ed Schultz apparently is.
Posted by: mroberts | January 20, 2010 12:11 AM
Mrroberts - Does that mean if you and SLC met in person, you'd annihilate, creating a flash of gamma radiation? - Dingo :)
Posted by: DingoJack | January 20, 2010 2:49 AM
Re Mroberts
Re MikeXIV
Well, Mr. Brown won so I suppose that Mr. MikeXIV is happy. He won't have Ms. Coakley to kick around any more.
Re Mroberts
I consider it a great honor to be labeled crazy by a pederast like Mr. Mroberts.
Posted by: SLC | January 20, 2010 6:56 AM
Ed said:
As we see today, Schultz has left no doubt that it WAS hyperbole and that he (of course) was NOT advocating vote fraud. You owe him, and your readers, an apology for your hyper-aggressive aspersions, IMO.
As far as whether it was a stupid thing to say in light of how Republicans might use it against him - Schultz probably doesn't give a shit. And since it WAS hyperbole, I don't give a shit either. The Republicans don't need a valid or truthful reason to shout aspersions about election fraud - look at the whole ACORN mess.
Americans should not be afraid to crack wise because it might provide political fodder for charlatans. But they SHOULD be ready to defend the rights of others to do so, and not be timid about calling out onto the carpet those willing to exploit a hyperbolic comment for their own personal gain.
Which, as I see it, is what I did to you on this one.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 20, 2010 2:34 PM
Ed said:
In the future, if you accuse Limbaugh of actually advocating voting fraud when he clearly was using humorous hyperbole, I'll just chalk it up you trying to generate income for your blog. And I'll once again challenge you to follow up on your breathless and unfounded assertions: file a report to the proper authorities. If you are truly going to argue that someone is advocating mass voting fraud, then put your money where your mouth is, Ed.
Until I see THAT, why I guess I'll have to consider you "just another partisan hack" whose partisanship is directed more for his bottom line than for careful journalism.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 20, 2010 2:47 PM
When Ed said that he'd cheat to keep these bastards out cause that's exactly what they are- it's called political humor. But he's right. They are bastards and if one could cheat to keep out the "wacko" fringe of the Tea Party/Republican Party- as a voter (not just a devoted Ed Schultz listener)- I would do it to.
As a former politcal columnist for STNG and other Northern Illinois newspapers- I find Ed, unlike Fox, to be fair and balanced. Even if he wasn't a progressive Democrat but a Republican- I know Ed would still try to be fair, balanced, and educate the politically ignorant. Many of whom call his show. The idiots, the ignorant, trying to get a rise out of Ed.
Most times he's considerate and let them rant but when an ignorant moron from South Carolina calls up claiming to know that "Americans don't care about recent Supreme Court decisions"- sometimes even Ed doesn't have the patience to argue with these idiots.
Not to Ed Schultz haters and political nitwits- before you call a talk-show to voice your opinion, try to educate yourself on the issues of the day. Ed actually would like informed Republicans to call up and engage him in an intelligent discussion. This doesn't happen because the media is so partisan. But know what you're talkiung about before you "have an opinion." And don't claim you know what all Americans care about.
KIlburn Hall
[[American Author]]
Posted by: Kilburn Hall | October 15, 2010 9:10 PM