Wow.
Really? It’s so important to democracy that you’d kill democracy to save it, eh, Ed?
What’s interesting to me is the utterly neutral tone adopted by Huffington Post in reporting the comment. There’s not one hint of disapproval in this story, other than the natural disapproval a listener might be expected to feel at the words themselves.
I’d hope that no matter where on the political spectrum someone is, that they’d thing this was wrong or at least a dumb thing to say.
Schultz reveals his lack of ethics to the world.
Stunning.
Well, it’s clearly a dumb thing to say. If you’re going to cheat in an election, you shouldn’t say you’re planning on cheating in an election.
Yea, if there’s one thing I hate about modern reporting, it’s the lack of the reporters own moralizing condemnations.
I used to listen to Ed, way back when, but I swear, he’s just becoming the left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. (Okay, not that bad, but damn!)
I’d be pissed off if a Pubbie did this, so I guess I should be pissed off when a leftie does it.
And I am.
Can we please try to RAISE the level of discourse, or is it just too damned late for that?
Sheesh,
Mark
A talk radio host said something stupid and pointless, film at 11. Good thing we have rightie talk radio as a model of reasoned debate to fall back on.
Also, the show he said it on is not part of MSNBC, but rather his daily talk radio show.
I condemn election fraud!!!
Happy?
PS Why isn’t this in the Pit, where loud mouth bloviators like Rush’s most recent stupidity was placed by the OP?
Fair point.
Except that Huffington Post does not always shy away from moralizing condemnations. In fact, if I might be permitted an opinion, I’d say that moralizing condemnations are pretty much one-half of Huffington Post’s raison d’etre. So their lack of moralizing condemnations in this instance is, in fact, worthy of comment.
I’m not sure if you want a debate on Schultz’ comments or on HuffPo’s tone, but since you say that’s the interesting part to you, I’ll simply link without comment to the same publication’s first report on Pat Robertson’s Haiti remarks.
I will also register my disapproval at election fraud perpetrated by any party. Happy?
I first heard that it is worth cheating to get the proper politician elected when I told my conservative neighbors that Nixon campaign workers had been caught the night before breaking into a Democratic campaign office in the Watergate.
The idea of spending the next 3 to 7 years not having the 60 votes that, somehow, weirdly, the Constitution wound up requiring to pass most legislation in the Senate is very ugly, but not quite as ugly as realizing my side has started thwarting the People.
Who’s Ed Schultz?
Not the Constitution. Just Senate rules, voted on at the start of every session.
Don’t be coy. Everyone on the Straight Dope got the memo about the latest talking points. If you don’t immediately condemn them before they are raised by someone else you need to just commit seppuku right away.
Probably because we don’t have a long history of threads involving Ed Schultz ending up in the Pit. I must admit that my first reaction was “who the fuck is Ed Schultz?”, so I may not have my priorities straight vis-a-vis outrage.
Honestly, I can’t name anyone from MSNBC except Rachel Maddow (because of all the carpet munching jokes), Pat Buchanan (because he’s Maddow’s bitch or something) and Keith Olbermann. Oh, and Joe Scarborough. He’s still on there, right?
Meh. I always change the channel as soon as the Ed Show comes on, because he annoys the shit out of me, mostly because he has always struck me as a huge fucking moron. I think he was supposed to be MSNBC’s answer to the populism of Limbaugh or Beck–you know, angry, loud, and no pointy-headed intellectual–but he just comes across as an idiot to me.
Up until this thread I didn’t know that he had a show on MSNBC, having not heard from him in over a decade in any context. I guess I need to update my calls-himself-a-moderate-wink-wink mailing list membership.
There’s a certain amount of justifiable outrage in that comment, but it is not as if some highly objectionable tactics have never been employed by large numbers of Republican leaders.
Yeah, two wrongs do not make a right. But I find it rather difficult to work up any significant degree of outrage at the idea that a somewhat scruffy kettle has been termed black by a pot which few have even suggested needs cleaning since the day Ronald Reagan was elected.
If condemnation is only half of the Huffington Post’s reason for existence, then does it really surprise you that they don’t condemn the other half of the time?
Rush is angry and loud. Beck is terrified and loud.