what did Ed Schultz just say about JK?

[ginnyinWI]

I turned it on and only heard the last half sentence--something about, "here's a guy who was afraid of his own shadow the last 30 days of the campaign...Kerry's got some explaining to do" ??

needless to say, :grr: :grr: :grr: :banghead: :banghead::nuke:

[JohnKleeb]

1. I love our armchair stragietists

Shit the man gets the highest percentage against a wartime president since I believe Charles Evans Hughes and damnit I wanted him to be president too but it's really immature just to nag on about it. We have to move on and get a Democratic majority in 2006.

[ginnyinWI]

2. all I can figure is he's a Hillary fan.

He's also been kind of easy on Joementum. I wish he wouldn't broadcast GOP talking points, because he has the largest audience of all liberal talk show hosts.

[JohnKleeb]

3. I really don't care who he favors however

I am sick of the blatant revisionism by people who act like Kerry got killed. I was reading an article about the College Democrats and they quoted one guy, a Hiliary supporter as basically saying that she would do better than Kerry did. People act like he lost by ten states and I frankly think Hiliary would be slaughtered if she ran as the nominee.

[ginnyinWI]

4. to hear some people tell it,

Kerry lost as bad as Mondale did, who won only a single state. It's so ridiculous.

Exit polls had him winning by 6 million votes.

[JohnKleeb]

5. It's typical bs politics

If we don't nominate Kerry in 08, we better nominate someone who isn't a typical politican.

[ray of light]

6. I thought he said,

"Kerry said in Detroit that if he were president this Israel event wouldn't have happened. This coming from a guy who was so afraid of his own shadow that it took 30 days of his campaign to respond to the Swift Boaters.... That guy owes us an explanation..." (something to that effect.)

[ginnyinWI]

13. thanks

that's enough to get the "drift", isn't it.

Sigh!

[ray of light]

7. Ed Schutlz has been ragging on Kerry lately.

Before the last two months he seemed nicer. Now it's like he nails kerry every chance he can.

I don't think it's solely Kerry though. And I do not believe he supports Hillary. He ragged on her for her Iraq votes, the Murdock breakfast, and a few other things.

[TayTay]

8. Kerry should go on the show and take him on

They had a good relationship. Big Ed was all for Kerry's plan on withdrawal, before he turned against it in June. Hmmmm, wonder who got to him?

[ray of light]

9. I wonder what happened as well. But...

the tone is definitely different! Ed sounds downright P.O'd everytime he utters Kerry's name.

[politicasista]

10. I agree

The negative press since the election and hindsight posts "__________ would have won or been nominated" aren't helping much either. :(

[globalvillage]

11. IIRC, Sen Kerry was scheduled to be on Ed's show on 6/20

The day of Kerry/Feingold, and that never happened. Schultz slammed the Dems big time the next couple days for having two Iraq withdrawl proposals. Seems Ed hasn't had a kind word since.
Wonder what was said between Kerry's people and Schultz? It must have been pretty heavy to have caused this kind of rift, Schultz was pretty keen on the Senator for a while before that.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.

[karynnj]

12. Possibly he was mad because Kerry backed out

that was a long day in the Senate - may be Kerry was too busy. (That would have been enough for Imus.)

[globalvillage]

16. I think it must have been more than that,

because the interview wasn't rescheduled.
If Ed's beef is just about the Senator canceling an interview on his silly little radio show, then Schultz is a bigger twit than I thought.
I've been out of town, so I didn't hear Ed's last couple shows (I usually listen on my way home from work). If he trashes the Senator tomorrow, he'll feel my e-wrath, and no one wants THAT!
I'm really beginning to think that Ed's real problem is that he's just not too bright. And he has absolutely no loyalty to anyone or anything. AND he tells too many goofy fishing stories.
I miss AAR. I was going to cancel Sirius a while back, then Ed and Bill Press got more Kerry-friendly and I changed my mind. Time to reconsider.

[ginnyinWI]

22. I'm drifting back to NPR or Randi Rhodes in the afternoons.

Cancelling satellite isn't an option because in the Milwaukee area it's the only way to get Air America at all, apart from a computer. (there are hints that it may be coming before long to our local airwaves though)

I was a longtime NPR junkie before AAR started, and find myself going back to "Talk of the Nation" and "All Things Considered" more and more. My brief fling with Ed seems to be over--rather abruptly, I might add! (People who have scorn for my favorite politician don't stay on my "good" list!) I don't think anybody on AAR bashes JK--but sometimes I want more variety, and NPR has that. And there's always C-span.

[ginnyinWI]

14. well if that's all it is--how petty can Ed be?

He should know how it is sometimes.

I agree, somebody must have gotten to him. Generally he's better informed that this.

[ProSense]

15. Really if that's the case:

What is it about petty pissy whiners that makes them believe they have a right to imply that anyone is cowardly?

[karynnj]

17. Who's been on?

The 2 plan thing makes no sense as there are of course far more than 2. At minimum, there were Kerry, Feingold, Harkin, Biden, Korb, the fuzzy Levin plan, and the fuzzy Clark plan. Kerry/Feingold I guess replaces both Kerry and Feingold.

If that's his problem, I wonder if it was Reid, Clinton, Reed or Biden. He may have been convinced that Kerry hurts the party in the red states.

I agree with you that Kerry should either call him or go on his show. (I quess this is another instanse that shows Kerry to be the opposite of those who pander to the press.)

[ray of light]

18. Ed needs to be sent info from this:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24290

UPDATE II (11.15 a.m.): The Detroit News and Valerie Olander have still not clarified the quote on John Kerry. If you don't think this matters just check on all the wingnut blogs (also see here, here, here and here...) trumpeting this sloppy misquote. This matters to all of us. EMAIL Ms. Olander and let her know how you feel.

UPDATE (9:15 a.m.): I just got off the phone with Valerie Olander of the Detroit News. Nice enough lady. She's been bombarded by emails on Kerry's quote. I asked her what came between Iraq and going after Hezbollah. I explained that obviously this disjointed quote makes no sense and requested a clarification. How did Kerry get from Iraq to Hezbollah? Olander said there was quite a bit in between. Olander continued, saying Kerry talked about how "we should have went (sic) after al Qaeda; we should have went (sic) after all terrorists, especially Hezbollah." Olander agreed that they should offer some sort of clarification on Kerry's quote because he said a lot more than was shown. She also stated that there were editors involved and she'd talk to them, adding that this story didn't even make the paper, which seemed to surprise her, due to the reaction she received on it. I asked if she could get me something within the next hour and she said she would. I'll let you know what happens. Olander seems to want to do the right thing, so I still think she deserves the benefit of the doubt at this point. I made the point that the conservative blogs are making quite a bit about this leap of topic and substance in the quote, so that the Detroit News needs to do the right thing and clarify the situation or they're going to get even more emails than they have already. I also mentioned that Kerry's people have been notified. We went through this once and we're not going through it again.



Wait until you hear this one. I had to stop and re-read it, frankly. It's going to set the wingnuts to wailing; some already started. But at least part of their whining seems due to the Detroit News screwing up at least part of what Kerry said.

[TayTay]

19. Taylor Marsh recommended e-mails to the reporter

Sounds like what Anne Kornblut did to Hillary Clinton in the NYTimes last week when she deliberately misquted her.

I guess we should w-mail the reporter and ask for the whole quote. The wingnuts will ignore the correction, but it should be put out there as a failure of the news media, not Kerry.

[globalvillage]

21. Done.

Ms. Olander,
The John Kerry quote in your recent article seems to have a significant omission, as it skips, inexplicbly, from Bush's failures in Iraq to Hezbollah with no apparent transition.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/UPDATE/607230360

I am curious to know what it is that Senator Kerry actually said, and am looking forward to a clarification.

Please pass this on to your editors, as they seem not to be aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

Thank you for your attention to this.

[ginnyinWI]

23. if you want more evidence that it was a mis-quote--

The grammar is wrong. It should be, "If I were president"--although even good speakers like JK will sometimes say "was" when speaking (the language is ever-evolving, especially when spoken rather than written). Not conclusive proof, I'm trying to say. The stuff quoted in that article where they put in (sic) does not sound like him at all--that's more bad grammar.

[karynnj]

24. Really good point

We should have "went" after??? Kerry has said similar things and has always used the standard English "have gone after". You're right this sounds absolutely not like him, she's recontructing what he said from memory - and likely making mistakes.

[ProSense]

27. It appears those were not Kerry's errors, but

errors made by the writer during the phone conversation with Taylor:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24290

[kerrygoddess]

28. The article

elipsed from one statement to another, jumping from his discussionon Iraq, to Hezbollah. It's my understanding that the journalist was contacted by staff...

[ProSense]

29. I got that part, but the references to "went" in TM's post

was the writer speaking to her by phone:

UPDATE (9:15 a.m.): I just got off the phone with Valerie Olander of the Detroit News. Nice enough lady. She's been bombarded by emails on Kerry's quote. I asked her what came between Iraq and going after Hezbollah. I explained that obviously this disjointed quote makes no sense and requested a clarification. How did Kerry get from Iraq to Hezbollah? Olander said there was quite a bit in between. Olander continued, saying Kerry talked about how "we should have went (sic) after al Qaeda...

[kerrygoddess]

36. I quoted TM

soon after she posted it because I had written about the news story as well. The gist of the discussion, so I am told by sources was that Jk was arguing that Bush is bogged down in Iraq… and that “we” as in “the community of nation,” "have to destroy Hezbollah."

As the reporter told Taylor there was quite a bit in between -- and the reporter was not quoting verbatim but from memory.

[ProSense]

37. Got it! Thanks! n/t

[karynnj]

39. Thanks KG

[whometense]

26. I noticed that too -

I've never heard him speak that way either.

[nolies32fouettes]

20. Posted on a different thread, but...

doesn't this foreign policy speech explain why Kerry's approach may have prevented what is currently happening in the mid-east?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_marapr_2003/JKessay.html

. It is up to Democrats to understand and prepare for Fourth Generation warfare (fighting unconventional forces in unconventional ways) so our nation can be better prepared to wage and win the new war.

We must also change the way we interact with the world. For people who have suggested that unilateralism is “just the American way,” it’s time to acknowledge that, more and more, our allies are our eyes and ears around the globe and will play a critical role in intelligence operations. We need partners. We should work on our public and private diplomacy more thoughtfully, sensitively, and intensely to develop both.

I support the Bush administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991. But the administration’s rhetoric has far exceeded its plans or groundwork. In fact, its single-mindedness, secrecy, and high-blown phrases have alienated our allies and threatened to undermine the stability of the region.

As both a soldier and a senator, I learned that when it comes to war, our goal must not be just regime change but a lasting peace. The United States has won the war in Afghanistan without securing the peace. This administration has failed to make its case on the international stage or to the American people for the rationale of starting the war or for the means of ending it. We cannot afford to put the security of our allies, the region, and ultimately ourselves at risk for the vague promises we have heard to date. We must do better.

[whometense]

25. I was just listening to the beginning of the show.

He didn't mention Kerry, but he does sound really angry about Lieberman. He seems to have bought into the "angry blogger" meme that the DLC types are citing as the cause for Holy Joe's troubles.

Of course, that doesn't explain exactly why he'd be angry with Kerry, but he sure does sound furious.

For a great description of this phenomenon, check out today's Joe Conason article in the New York Observer: http://www.observer.com/20060731/20060731_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp

Lieberman’s Allies Blame the Bloggers

[karynnj]

30. I am not one of the "McGovernites with modems"

I (like most others have cable!)

This is a great article - it also ignores that it doesn't suffice if Lamont has the majority of liberal bloggers - he needs the majority of Ct Democrats, which polls show he may have. The shrillness of the people who are acting as though challanging a sitting Senator in a primary is unethical, immoral or in any way an evil thing to do is amazing. I have never seen it before - and I have seen good challanges before.

The other thing is not only is Lieberman the most pro-war of the Democrats, he is more culpable in getting into the war than others. He was on the intelligence committee so he had more information than typical and he was a sponsor of the IWR. Per Kerry's speech, the original language - that Lieberman presumably signed off on - did not limit the authority to Iraq and the reason to WMD. Per Kerry, the changes to limit it to that were added. Do VP candidates, like Presidents, get special briefing? I also remember that Lieberman saying he would vote for it as it was ended the ability of other Democrats to insist on the Levin amendment. So, he is pretty quilty.

When you throw in that he routinely criticizes the rest of the Democratic party on various Fox shows, I can't imagine why some Democrats don't run and support him.

As to Ed, he may buy the concept that you need a lock step message and you need to stay in the middle. Even among people here who liked Kerry's plan, there were some who thought he and Feingold were wrong to talk about it before the election and that there was a DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL SECURITY PLAN written by Clark. The problem is that war supercedes elections - Kerry was very clear that he could not stay quiet behind a policy that was wrong. That was the most emotional gut level thing I ever heard Kerry say.

It may be that Ed, in a red state, is afraid that the plan, especially when there was an alternative plan, could hurt Democratic chances. (Maybe he should notice that the other plan is a non-plan)

[ginnyinWI]

32. Ed has that old idea of being cautious and staying in the middle,

which makes the Dems look like they don't stand for anything. It's the old Clinton idea of winning elections, and I just don't think it works when a country is "at war" and our "leadership" is so far to the right.

Kerry's got the right idea. To say nothing is to be complicit in the wrong-doing, and it makes the Dems seem to be approving of radical RW/PNAC policies and ideology.

If Dems say nothing or are incoherent, the GOP says, "Dems don't have a plan!"
If the Dems stand up and say what they believe, the GOP will still attack and use slogans like "cut and run", but the difference is that people will have the opportunity to choose who has more credibility and makes more sense.
I don't think people are as dumb as the GOP thinks they are (25% of them excepted--the Koolaid drinkers). Give them a clear choice and make sure they know what we stand for! If only more Dem leaders would be as clear and sure in their speech as JK.

[whometense]

34. Conason is one of my favorites.

He's so calm and thoughtful. He and Tom Oliphant would be my choices for new AAR hosts.

I think Ed does go out of his way to present himself as a red state guy - right down to the (unfortunately) closed mind. I don't understand how the DLC dems could be so utterly clueless about the anger towards Lieberman - it's so obvious. How can they n ot see it???? Or is this "angry blogger" meme just a page from the repug playbook - repeat a lie often enough and people (including those - like Ed - who ought to know better) will believe it.

Did you see the Salon article about the DLC meetings? I posted it somewhere this morning. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/25/dlc/ It's hard not read that and not agree with a lot of the anti-DLC sentiment. This line really stuck with me:

The DLC, explained Kilgore, "has always seen itself as outsiders. We're a very diverse group, too, ethnically and ideologically."

Huh?

[ginnyinWI]

31. pathetic

When they have to resort to blaming everybody else, you know they're really in trouble. The repubs do this all the time too--and it makes them look weak.

I didn't hear Ed today, but they always post his opening monologue on his website so I can catch it later after the show is over. www.wegoted.com

So he's feeling angry and threatened by attacks on the DLC element, hm?
I guess we can see where he is politically.

[whometense]

33. It's a theme I've heard him return to again and again.

He gets a lot of mail from AAR listeners who complain about him supporting Lieberman, and about him having centrists like Byron Dorgan on the show. He gets really PO'd about it, and in one sense I don't blame him. I happen to think Dorgan is a good guy, even though he's more moderate than I am, and why shouldn't Ed have anyone he wants on his show? It's his show.

On the other hand, he doesn't strike me as a deep thinker, and he doesn't look into things he hears, but just buys into them. I've heard him say he "doesn't have time to do research" - to me that means that a lot of the time he's talking out of his - well, not his brain. He probably heard some twisted news story about Kerry and just swallowed the whole thing. I really hate that aspect of Ed. If you get airtime like that I think you have an obligation to check out what you say before you say it. He has a HUGE megaphone.

Kerry ought to go on the show ASAP. A little stroking will bring Ed around pronto. Maybe he's angry about JK's non-support of Lieberman. In which case nothing Kerry says will mollify Ed.

[ginnyinWI]

35. I agree--it would be good for JK to go back on the show

Of course if it comes to a debate on the issues, Eddie won't stand an ice cube's chance in hell against JK. ;)

I think maybe Ed is only now realizing that JK is not a DLCer.

[ray of light]

38. I don't think it's lieberman. I think it began with

the Iraq Resolution and the fact that the Dems were split instead of united. He lamblasted Kerry but ignored Lieberman's treachery of opening for the Republicans!

I think it has to do with the fact that there wasn't one plan. And remember the NYT's article that a 'mole' said that the party was P.O.'d at kerry for splitting it? I'm sure the same 'mole' got to Ed.

[whometense]

40. I'm sure you're right.

I haven't been listening to Ed much for the past few weeks - he's way too angry for me. And that makes sense as a reason - for him, anyway. He does prefer the middle-of-the-road guys.

[ray of light]

41. He's not strictly 'middle of the road'

he's pro-2nd amendment
Pro-labor unions
pro-democrat
pro-Israel
pro-choice
Pro-peace
anti-Iraq war
anti-leaking spies names
anti-hillary going to Murdock


I think right now he thinks Kerry is posturing for 08. Frankly, so do many other people. So it's up to Kerry to figure out how he wants to convince people that the most important thing on his agenda right now is today through November 2, 2006. And the next important thing on his agenda is ending the occupation and saving lives. (Included with saving lives is the Democratic plan for healthcare, jobs, etc...) Right now, Kerry is being the ultimate team player. It's others who are showboating for 08.

He should go on Ed's show and let him know that too.

[politicasista]

42. I agree with your analysis

When I posted about what he had said or what he was up to, the sentiment was like "yeah, he is setting himself up to run again" that's when the conversation turns to "hopefully the dems can find someone to __________ in 08."

I hope he continues to stay focused on 06 or people will assume he is "pandering" for 08. I agree for going on his show again.

[ray of light]

43. lol--the jk-du forum should call his office and leave

messeges for him to do this.

:-) Imagine their surprise! lol

[politicasista]

44. That's a good idea too n/t

[whometense]

45. Okay, I was in the car for the end of the show

today, and a woman called and talked about how much she liked Kerry and still supported him, and how she was angry at Ed for being so down on him.

Ed was polited to her, but he let loose about how "Kerry didn't fight back against the Swift boat liars."

I think Ed needs some emails that are STUFFED with FACTS.

Polite, no namecalling, but firmly indicating the ways in which he is wrong about this. What do you all say?

He ended saying that Kerry "still has a lot to prove" to him. He also talked about how "no one carried more water for Kerry in the 2004 campaign" than him. I don't like that term. To me, to "carry water for" someone sounds like you're apologizing for their deficiencies.

Ed is not very smart. He isn't a deep thinker. But he's loud and his voice carries. I think a re-education program might help. Anyone up for it?

[wisteria]

46. I would be happy to contact him. However, I am beginning to think

people like Schultz build people up and knock them down for ratings. Senator Kerry is popular and being tough on him gets people listening and responding. But, by all means, he needs to be contacted about his comments and we need to keep promoting how wonderful Kerry is.

[Democrafty]

47. I am really confused.

Ed has been so inconsistent on JK. He seems either violently for him (to the point that we've written about it at w<3JK: http://welovejohnkerry.com/2006/05/09/gosh-this-is-making-for-strange-bedfellows/) or violently against him.

I will say that writing to Ed about JK usually gets a response, so it's worth a try.

[globalvillage]

48. I say

Thank goodness for the research forum. Yes, I'll be happy to e-mail Ed (again).

[politicasista]

49. self delete

[Democrafty]

50. The thing is, he was mad about the SBVT,

but he said he'd worked that out for himself. So I guess he's mad again?

[politicasista]

51. Maybe he thinks had Kerry been tougher on them, he'd be in the WH

I deleted cause whome had posted the SBL part. I think he is mad over the Kerry/Feingold (Feingold gets a pass?) amendment too.


BTW: A belated welcome. :hi:

[ginnyinWI]

52. it sounds like a lot of DLC stuff--Ed must be listening.

Yeah and why does Feingold get a pass and everybody jumps on Kerry? If I were Feingold I'd feel neglected.

Today on Washington Journal some idiot said, "I'm tired of the Republicans and the Democrats. I'm in favor of Feingold!" :crazy:

[Democrafty]

53. Oh, I didn't say that because I think you're incorrect.

On the contrary - if he said that's why he was upset, that's what he said. The flipflop is just annoying me, because I don't think this is a nuanced area. Ed's either over it or he isn't, but how do you change your mind about something like that?

And I'm sure you're right about the Feingold thing - but then I remember that Ed was really favoring JK's antiwar remarks at TBA over Feingold's, so I'm really confused. He must just be jumping around to different positions and siding with different people to keep things interesting.

And thank you!! :) I am happy to be here.