Gawd...why is Ed Schultz so damn clueless on today's vote

[zulchzulu]

I listen to him occasionally and understand that it's good to have a duck huntin', beer drinkin', sports yakkin' good ole boy on the "left" on the radio. He has his role. I generally agree with many topics he brings up and enjoy the fact that he doesn't swat chimp sheep off the air immediately and gives them a chance to dig their own graves, but...

He's talking about the vote today and seems to utterly forget that Democrats are not in the majority and can't steer the debate in the Senate where they want. He's dissing Kerry (not mentioning Feingold) and the amendment that was signed saying we need to set a date on leaving the occupation. He says there should have been "unity"...WTF! "Unity"? Like Lieberman-type "unity"? Like Harry "Roll Over In The End" Reid "unity"? Di-Fi "unity"?

He admires Murtha, yet can't get his head around the Kerry-Feingold amendment, which was OBVIOUSLY going to go down before the vote was cast....but it's called drawing a line in the sand and making a fucking stand...not putting your tail between your legs and going for Joementum "unity"...

Schultz is scared that the Repugs are now going to go home and do ads against the "cut and run" Democrats...

Here's a BIG ASS CLUE: They already were going to do that! And guess what, it's going to backfire!

[eleny]

1. If you can stream - Palast is on Randi right now

[endarkenment]

2. He trashed Murtha in the past.

I can't listen to him. I don't believe that he believes a word he says.

[Zhade]

27. No he didn't.

He LIED about Murtha. That's worse.

I stopped listening to that windbag semi-conservative a long time before that, though. Fuck Schultz. Anyone dumb enough to think he's on our side, and not just cashing in, is kidding themselves.

[Epiphany4z]

3. I think Ed needs to calm down

if the Dem's missed the fact that Gop is gona run cut and runs adds they deserve to loose. I think they know..I think it has already been thought out...or maybe I hope...Ed likes Clinton...so he I think he is a bit tilted on this one

[zulchzulu]

6. The only thing Repugs CAN run on in the fall is fear and "queers"

They are hoping we get hit again...they want people to get their homophobic asses out and vote against gay marriage and they think people will suddenly find the Iraq occupation as some kind of success.

If it's the 100,000 or so that watch Fox News, they hope all of them will vote.

People are sick of the war and many races will be ugly...the only thing Repugs CAN do is run negative ads.

[RDANGELO]

4. Inside the beltway thinking.

The troops are getting killed daily in a failed policy. Billions of dollars are being dropped into the bottomless pit. He and the Republicans think this one day of voting is going to change peoples minds on this.

[Dr Fate]

5. I like him sometimes- but he is very pro-DLC. He is not "clueless"...

....so much as he knows who pays him.

Hey- I like and agree with some of what he says & does, but not when he sides with Bush and the far right like today.

[kstewart33]

9. Geez, am I listening to the same show?

In no way, did he say he sided with Bush and the far right.

That is absolute nonsense.

All he is saying is that the Dems must make up their minds about Iraq and get unified on a plan.

What is so right wing about that?

[Dr Fate]

12. Did he say they should side with Kerry & the Loyal DEM base?

Or did he leave it open to mean we that perhaps they should have all voted with the Republicans?

Whenever DLC types talk about "unity"- they tend to mean we should unify behind conservative Democrats- they never mean we need to unify behind Boxer, Finegold or John Conyers or whatever.

[orleans]

31. i heard a piece of his show and to me it sounded like

he was pissed that dems proposed anything at all

i think he even said something to that effect

(yeah, how dare we propose one or two alternatives to the same old crap--we must be crazy to try and draw attention to this piece of shit war and the piece of shit leadership on it)

[ginnyinWI]

7. I hear ya!

I'm surprised at the venom coming from Big Eddie today (and yesterday too) on this subject. He doesn't get it. And like you, I usually like his take on things (ok I had a bit of a problem with some of his ideas on immigration too).

This is about differentiating the Democratic party--and not being accused of not having a plan. Seems to me THAT will also go a long way toward neutralizing attacks from the Right.

I'm with Kerry-Feingold-Boxer all the way on this. It's too bad more didn't get on board, but they aren't all brave enough, regrettably. It was still a very worthwhile thing to do!

[kstewart33]

8. Ed is right on.

The Dems should be unified on the Iraq war; because they are not, they look like weak, spineless, can't-make-up-their-minds people who are not capable of making tough decisions, certainly not about war.

That's the Repub meme and the Dems stepped right into it.

[zulchzulu]

10. OK...so what does "unified" mean?

Spell it out.

Does "unified" mean Repug-Lite?

Should we be:

1- For eventual withdrawal with no timeline
2- Withdrawal with a specific timeline
3- For "staying the course"
4- Kissing Bush

And...what's wrong with having a couple positions that were obviously not even going to get passed because the Repugs have control over the vote anyway...

[Dr Fate]

11. I agree- they should unify behind Kerry, Finegold & the loyal DEM base...

...as oppsosed to unifing behind Bush, the media and the far right.

Is that what you & Ed are saying?

[kstewart33]

14. He never said the party should unify behind Bush.

He said that the party should make up their dang mind about Iraq and be unified in their strategy.

If they are not unified, the Repubs will effectively paint them as indecisive and weak which is exactly what they are!

[zulchzulu]

15. So does "Unified" = Agreeing with Lieberman or Reid?

I find that people would rather see Democrats SERIOUSLY talking about deadlines, timelines, specific dates and other strategies (like the Kerry-Feingold amendment) than shiverring like wusses too scared to actually come out with a concrete solution.

Does Ed want all the Dems to all stand up and agree that the war is bad, but we can't leave....yet? Like Hillary? "We hate the war, but we don't think we should end it".

That gets a huge buzzer with me.

[Dr Fate]

16. But they DID unify with Bush- they voted with the Republicans.

If Ed wants them to unify, then why did he not say they should have voted with Kerry & the loyal DEM base instead voting with the Republicans?

I submit to you that when Ed suggests "unity"- he does not mean we unify behind Kerry's moderate positions on Iraq- but that we unify behind the conservative positions of Hillary & DLC types.

I ask the question again- are you & Ed suggesting that Senate DEMs unify behind Kerry & the loyal DEM base? If not, who should we unify behind?

[ribrepin]

21. It's a little hard to unite when Lieberman is part of the party

Nothing but total support of BUSH will satisfy Lieberman. It's gonna be impossible for the Democrats to unite. I doubt Kerry is running again, so he can say what he wants.

[politicasista]

22. It's too early to say who's running

I know Biden has already announced, but Kerry is focused on 06. (We all should be) We have to get the voting machines fixed first. Look at the media. If we don't get Congress back this fall and do the rest as posted above, then it's going to be a struggle regardless who gets the nomination.

[Zhade]

29. He's "right", alright.

NT!

[leftofthedial]

13. he's always clueless

it's part of his Limbaugh impersonation

[Penndems]

17. He did a great interview with Jim Webb today during the 5:00 ET

hour.

Big Ed did a good job with that.

[zulchzulu]

19. I agree...to a point...

Webb pretty much is pulling the Repug line on the Occupation, but like Ed, he wants the Raygun Democrats to "come home". Let's hope they do.

I'm not really sure there would be that much of a difference if Webb beats Allen...no talk about other issues, like abortion or flag amendment junk...Ed missed that opportunity.

[Penndems]

26. . . . but like Ed, he wants the Raygun Democrats to "come home".

Gosh, I sure hope so. Every candidate I've worked for in the past thirteen years has won by pulling together a coalition of voters - not by winning one specific bloc. As a former boss of mine once opined, "The Democratic Party is a big tent. All are welcome."

"Pulling the Repug line on the Occupation"? Here's what Jim has categorically stated regarding our involvement in Iraq:

"America is fighting the wrong war in Iraq. But while we entered this war recklessly, we must leave carefully. This can only be achieved when the administration clearly states that the United States has no long-term plan to occupy Iraq. The Middle East nations in the region must then be engaged, along with our global allies, in finding the solution for the future of Iraq."

Not exactly the Republican platform for getting us out of that living hell, is it? :shrug:

You can find more of Jim's platform here:
http://www.webbforsenate.com/issues/issues.php#iraq

The difference between Jim Webb and George "Fake Virginian" Allen is as different as night and day.

[zulchzulu]

28. Still though, Webb holds the Hillary view to "leave carefully", i.e. stay

I know it's easy to hold tht position. It takes cahunas to actually talk about a real timeline to redeploy...

[Zhade]

30. "All are welcome."

Your boss was wrong.

Racists - not welcome (see Dixiecrats).

Homophobes ("I don' want those fags ter get married!") - not welcome.

Anti-civil liberties, anti-choice, pro-Iraq War, etc - not. Fucking. Welcome.

There has to be a line SOMEWHERE.

[Penndems]

40. When he uttered that phrase, I took it as a given that those

undesirables you lised were not included. ;)

You're right, of course - there has (and is) a line somewhere.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Ed trashed both votes, not just the Kerry amendment, altho he was

particularly harsh regarding Kerry. Ed seems to have no faith in the American people. "Cut and run" rhetoric by chickenhawks should be met head on. Bash the sons of bitches for creating an atmosphere where to question the policy of the Bush administration on "staying the failed course" in Iraq is considered treasonous, unpatriotic and unamerican.

Big Eddie fell for Rove's strategy. He seems to have folded his cards and given up the fight. Guess he was too anxious to get home and eat his Cherry Cola ribs today to think this through. By not doing so, he makes Rove and the craven Republican party's day.

Thanks, Big Eddie!

[zulchzulu]

20. Spot on

Does Ed think that the Repugs were not going to run "cut and run" ads in the "red" states? Should the Dems have voted another way so that those ads would not be aired? That would mean that they would AGREE with the Repugs...

That Cherry Cola Rib recipe sounded awful, by the way.

[Dr Fate]

23. Repubs will put out the ads, or something similar no matter what.

It does not have to be true (See SBV)- Bush/media will make up waht-ever they want no matter how we vote.

Considering that, DEMS should vote like DEMS.

[flaminbats]

24. I love Ed Schultz..but am sick of cannibalism

our party continues to give endless votes for Republican legislation, but strange how Bill Clinton didn't get a single Republican vote in favor of his first budget.

Democrats can't unite against giving this Republican President more power over federal spending. Democrats can't make Republicans fight for every vote needed to pass a bill. Too many Democrats refuse to perform its role as the opposition party. Republicans sometimes compromise..but only if the Democrats give up on something important. Democrats sometimes show support for a Democratic President, but not as rarely as they oppose a Republican. Republicans took a filibuster against Clinton's healthcare bill, and used it to win control of Congress. Republicans weren't interested in compromise until they controlled the important committees. Republicans weren't interested in backing Clinton on the fight against terrorism..until they controlled the executive branch! Republicans weren't willing to let their position as the minority party weaken their public attacks on those in power.

When will our party leaders take the initiative, and force Republicans to defend this endless abuse of power? Only the Democrats can give us a reason for supporting them..but the lesser of two evils isn't a reason for voting!

at least the Democrats now speaking in the House know this, but we can't win a football game with a quarterback who works with the other team!

[zulchzulu]

25. So fricking true

One day, Ed is talking about how Dems tend to get in a circle and fire away and the next day, he's trying to blow up the Dem tent with confused, diffused nonsense.

He should have taken the day off. He was reading rib recipes on half of the show and talking sports.

Ed, let somebody fill in when it's so nice out in your neck of the woods. Those days are numbered. :->

[WA98296]

32. Ed's REAL agenda is to propel Hillary. Apparently he doesn't realize that

we're not the same bunch of dumbass GOP he's accustomed to broadcasting to.

[snowbear]

33. Used to be.. he's not really into her lately..

Personally, I like Eddie.

And everyone on here that vows that won't listen to him again, eventually shows up again on here slamming him again..



He's a good guy.

You'll see tons of DU'ers over at his forum! You don't know how many DU'ers particpate in his forum until you check it out...

Eddie Rocks!

[zulchzulu]

34. Still, what the heck does he mean by having Dems "unify" on the vote?

The only way to parse his logic on this is that the Democrats should say we hate the war, but don't think we should leave...just let the deaths and debt continue and whine like little scolded puppies in the corner...

There is no mention in Ed's dialogue about how the "elected" Iraqi leaders AND the Iraqi people want us out of their country...

Stick to reading fatty rib recipes and sports commentary, Ed...when you offer nothing worth listening to concerning complex issues.

[WA98296]

38. Stay tuned. Ed will continue attempting to herd us...

into Hillary's camp. Sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. It has nothing to do with what's best for the country, or Ed's personal preference, it ALL about money.

Follow Ed's money trail....it won't be far until you bump into a Hillary connection. Nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT to not be forthcoming about that is WRONG. It is a DECEPTION. I believe that he leads listeners along, hoping they assume his approval of Hillary has something to do with own opinion based on issues. Give me a break. A former 'conservative' mouthpiece LIKING Hillary. It's laughable. He knows where his bread is or has recently been buttered -- Hillary.

Keep listening to Ed. Let's see what happens over the long haul build up to '08. See if you can rule out my opinion!

[MorningGlow]

35. I'm no fan of Ed, but...

I'm afraid he made a point (just made it badly). I listened to his rant and what I got from it (and I think he's said this before, only more clearly) is that the only way Dems have a chance of fighting in Congress and being clearly understood by folks who don't pay as close attention to politics as we do is if they agree on their position for whatever issue is in question. Personally I don't see anything wrong with having several opinions/plans/what have you, but that won't work when fighting Repugs, who always have a single-minded trajectory--ONE position on an issue. No dissent is allowed. No independent thought is allowed. And they send out the talking points, and all the Repugs parrot them all over the place, hammering them home over and over and over and over...and unfortunately that works on sheeple.

Sickening, yes, but effective.

Actually, after listening to Ed the other day, I realized that that's the fundamental difference between the two parties. Look at how Repubs think--they LIKE all having the same ideas, the same views, the same positions, the same friggin' hairstyle. They LIKE being led. That's why the sheeple who blindly follow their pastors like being part of the Republican party--Big Daddy gives an order, and it's clear, and all the Repubs follow the order.

And then there are the Dems--man, do we love our independence and our individuality. We get hives just thinking about being forced to march in lockstep the way Repubs do. Our independence is admirable--more innovation, more ideas that way--but how do we subjugate that when we need to fight the phalanx of Repubs who ARE marching in lockstep? I don't know the answer.

[karynnj]

36. I thoroughly disagree - Why are we buying hook, sink and line,

the media unchallangable tautology that organization means everyone believing (or at least saying) the same thing and that you win only by keeping quiet. Also, the Republicans are NOT all marching lockstep with Bush. McCain is very very far from Bush wanting more troops. The Democrats are united at a basic level:

- Iraq is a mess and is getting worse with Bush's actions (I think only Leiberman disagrees)
- Iraq is diverting our ability to deal with many real problems
- Only a political/diplomatic solution will work
- We should be at a point to at least start withdrawing
- No permanent bases

These 5 agreements represent considerable common ground. In reality, it may represent more cohesion than the Republicans really have. The Democrats NEED to not stab each other in the back and emphasize what they have in common.

Here's a letter I sent:
Dear Ed or Wendy Schultz,

Over the last year, I have enjoyed listing to your informative and interesting radio show via the Internet. I have been amazed at how often I agreed with the positions that you have taken. It is refreshing to hear someone speak about each issue, based on its merits, rather than an ideological position. This was why I was so disheartened to hear your show yesterday.

Various pundits have pushed the idea that a party has to have only one position or they are disorganized and not united. They apply this idea only to the Democrats, implicitly implying that the Republicans are in complete accord. Both Senator McCain and Senator Hagel have positions on the war that are significantly at variance with the (unstated) Bush plan. The difference between McCain’s call to greatly increase the number of soldiers and to change their mission is a at least as great as the difference between Kerry/Feingold and Levin’s amendment. Yet not one talking head has called McCain to task for not supporting the CIC of his own party.

Both Democratic plans emphasize the need to change a policy that is not working. Without Kerry, Feingold, there would have been no Levin amendment. The Democratic position would have continued to be (in Nov 2006) that "2006 should be a year of significant transition." In Nov 2005, this was a consensus position, weaker than some would have liked, that then had value as it did move the discussion. To talk about transition in 2006 in the second to last month of 2006 is nuanced beyond belief.

Kerry, Feingold and Harkin each submitted amendments that had substantive ideas on what was needed to succeed. Ideas from these amendments were combined as the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At minimum, these Senators initiated a real discussion of what can and should be done in Iraq. This plan is also consistent with Kerry plans from 2004 onward. The media has said for the last 3 years that the Democrats don’t have a plan – then mocked Kerry for having put up at least 4 plans as circumstances have changed.

Like his earlier plans, Kerry includes a call for a diplomatic summit between all the factions in Iraq, all the neighbors (all of whom are better off without an unstable country on their border) and international organizations developed to foster peace and stability. Unlike Biden, who is pushing a plan for the US to redefine the Iraqi government, this plan facilitates Iraqis making these critical decisions that they will have to live with. Notice that the media is not criticizing Biden for his plan, which he has actively promoted while distorting Kerry/Feingold .

In the Kerry/Feingold amendment, the Senators have a real alternative plan that will not be implemented - because Bush is President, not because it is either impractical or not thought out. It is a plan to succeed as much as McCain's is. It includes long term anti-terrorist forces, intensive diplomacy and it respects the sovereignty of Iraq - which Bush and McCain (permanent bases, wanting control of who's elected and ignoring their desire that we leave) don't.

Both John Kerry and Russ Feingold are speaking from their hearts and are using their collective intelligence to find a path out of the mess we are in. This is clearly not politics for either of them. They have put together a plan that can be thought of as an alternative path.

Senator Warner, in his debate with Kerry in the Senate on Wednesday, said it was well thought out, though he did not agree with it. That debate, which for me suggested what the Senate could be, showed there could be civil discussions of policy recommendations. The great thing about many, intelligent, well meaning people discussing alternatives is that it can lead to solutions none of them came in with. To me this is more productive than the Levin amendment or the earlier Democratic consensus position – both hide disagreement behind vague language. It does lead to consensus, but at the cost of saying almost nothing and offering no real ideas. In contrast, Kerry and Feingold deserve credit for outlining a real substantive plan and putting their ideas out in public.

I hope that you will re-examine what was in the Kerry/Feingold amendment. At any rate, I will continue to listen to your show.



Sincerely,

[zulchzulu]

37. Well said and well done...

..and like you, I'll continue to stop by Ed's rib and politics picnic on the radio...

On his opinions on the vote yesterday, I'm jus' sayin... :->

[truedelphi]

43. Very well put, MorningGlow

[skeeters2525]

39. Bravo

You read my mind. And it is not just Ed, many Dems are saying the same. They bitch when the Dems do nothing, they bitch when they do something. I enjoy Ed's show, but he had his head up his Cheney, Big Time.

LEAVING NOW IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO

[zulchzulu]

41. Wow..so true...gee, they do nothing (even when they are doing something)

I get real tired of that meme. "The Democrats haven't been doing anything...." If it's someone I know, I ask them where they get their news. Usually, it's Fox or CNN. I tell them to either watch C-Span or surf the net a bit. Or better yet, instead of whining, go down to their local Democratic HQ and sign up and DO SOMETHING....

[truedelphi]

42. Better to Cut and Run Rather Than Stay And Be Dumb

I repeat, better to cut and run rather than stay and be dumb

Baghdad has just declared a state of emergency.

We can't stay in a war in which we have no competence in the Commander is Chief
no competence in the Secretary of Defence, and no, I repeat, no strategy

(Or as Seymour Hersh says, the only strategy we exhibit is having our troops
drive up and down the roadsides until somebody lobs something at them.

[zulchzulu]

44. Ed continued the same diatribe today...I tried calling the show

Ed is not for timelines. Or dates.

Yet today, he was quoting the London Times article about how Iraq WANTS TIMELINES...yes, the ones we let get elected...and they want us out.

It's like one hand doesn't know what the other one is doing.

He went on bashing Kerry for the amendment that was oddly called the Kerry-Feingold Amendment. Again, someone needs to put down the Rib BBQ Cookbook and do some frickin' homework.

So I tried calling the show. After a bazillion attempts, I get through. I talk to some guy and say I want to defend Kerry and take Ed to the wood shed about timelines. I mentioned it would be like the NFL not having game days, figuring maybe Ed might finally see the light. I stay on hold for about 15 seconds and get disconnected... I was even going to tell Ed I started this thread on DU and that he could see what others think... I'll give him the benefit of a doubt that I was on a cell phone and my service conked out...

[wisteria]

45. Well, you tried any way. n/t