Ed Schultz shows his RW roots with slurs against poverty

[bobbolink]

Ed Schultz has never been kind toward poor people, but then, most "progressives" ignore poverty altogether so I didn't see him as that much different.

In an article last month, Salon brought some of Schultz's anti-poverty stances to light:

Last September, for example, Schultz responded to a wave of gang violence in Chicago by calling on Obama to deploy the military in the city:
Mr. President, I got a great idea as to where you can send those troops that you just brought home from Iraq. How about Chicago, Illinois and a bunch of other big cities in this country? It's time we look out for our own backyard, security is an issue.

The right-wing version of Schultz opposed abortion in all circumstances, mocked homeless people by sneering, "How about getting a job?" and proclaimed that "I'd like to see the president get all the illegals out of the country, so we can start all over again."

But in his books, Schultz describes a first date with his future wife, Wendy -- whom he met for lunch at a homeless shelter -- as the event that sparked his reconsideration of politics. In his 2010 book, "Killer Politics," Schultz claims he didn't even know there were homeless people in Fargo:

Wendy asked me to meet her at a homeless shelter where she volunteered. It hadn't really dawned on me that homelessness could exist in Fargo. In my mind, a homeless person was a slacker, someone who just wasn't trying hard enough, and said these self-righteous things on the air. I didn't know then that one in four homeless people is a Vietnam veteran.

I will never forget as Katrina was unfolding, Schultz loudly questioned the poor people who stayed there, characterizing them as too stupid to know enough to get out of the rain. *He* would have left, so why didn't those who had no transportation, no money, and nowhere to go *NOT* leave?

That shows now that not only was this not a new (ignorant) stance for Schultz, but that he hadn't changed all that much, at least where poverty is concerned. His ignoring of poverty today is now all the more clear -- at least when it comes to poverty, Schultz is a RWer.

THIS is why it is so important for other "progressive" media to be talking about poverty and homelessness. Many people who listen to Schultz will take on his attitude, and when there is *no counter voice*, the ignorace gains favor.

Please write LTTEs about the issue of homelessness, and please, as many have asked before, write to your favorite progressive spokespeople and push for them to cover this issue.

There are many facts on DUer Shireling's OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1113459

DUer Green PartyVoter has two journal entries which includes more facts to use, and contact info for media:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/GreenPartyVoter/7
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/GreenPartyVoter/5

As progressives do with other issues, we MUST counter the mis-information on poverty and homelessness!

[meegbear]

1. Here's an article from Salon about that ...

The forgotten right-wing past of Ed Schultz

The most reliable Democratic partisan on television used to be the Rush Limbaugh of the Great Plains

[RamboLiberal]

57. Yeah let's always be suspicious that someone cannot change

IMHO in the last couple of years Ed has done more for the poor & middle class & working people than most of us here could ever hope to do.

Fine you don't want to watch him, don't. You don't like him, fine!

For some here if you're not Dennis Kucinich for all your life then you will always be suspected.

So Ed is not 100% pure liberal. So what!

I remember a day when there was hardly a liberl/progressive voice on the radio/TV. It was one wilderness for us.

We need voices like Ed's to bring around some from the RW rhetoric in "the Heartland".

Those folks might listen to a gun-totin', fishing rural guy like Ed.

They won't listen to the likes of KO, or Rachel, or Thom Hartmann.

So he said some stupid things in the past and may still say some stupid things today! Big deal if most of the time what he champions is in the best interest of the poor and workin' folk.

[Zorra]

63. Yes. People can change. Hillary Clinton was a republican. Stephanie Miller voted

for Reagan. They changed when they learned that they were wrong, to their credit.

At first when Ed was first on XM, I was suspicious. But after listening to him for a long time on an almost daily basis, I do not see how anyone can call him a racist or someone that is not concerned about poverty. People fight poverty in different ways.

If we analyze Progressive/Liberal platforms and policies, we find that the entire Progressive/Liberal movement is primarily geared toward the elimination of poverty, and I totally agree with you RL, most of the time Ed is championing the best interests of the poor and working folk.

Just because he is not doing it the same way that Mother Teresa did it doesn't make him a person that hates poor people.

[RamboLiberal]

69. Oh geez I'm waiting for the Mother Teresa bashers here to show up

There are some.

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. "but then, most "progressives" ignore poverty altogether"

I call bullshit.

[bobbolink]

3. personal attack rather than any rebuttal.

:crazy:

Drop the epithets and post links.

[RKP5637]

4. K&R !!! n/t

[bobbolink]

8. Thanks!

:yourock:

[ThatPoetGuy]

7. Calling bs isn't a personal attack.

And the burden of proof is on the op, who made a sweeping generalization that progressives don't care about poverty, and not on the person who called bs.

Provide links if you care to, to support that broad smear; but demanding links only from those who disagree with that unsupported smear is the most putrid form of hypocrisy.

[bobbolink]

9. Take the facts given in the two resources, and show where they have been included in "progressive"

media.

Your logic is FAIL. You know, I'm sure, that its impossible to prove a negative. I can't replay all the progressive media here to show that there is NO mention of poverty. So, yes, the burden of proof is up to YOU.

Good luck with that. The facts are listed.. show where they have been used.
Then, you can add this reading to your list:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1119017

Thank you.

Oh, and don't forget to unrec. That is the "progressive" way.

[Shireling]

17. This is a better link

The above link on my thread has a typo.

Try this: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html

I had posted the entire article, but was asked by mods to limit it to four paragraphs. The above link will provide the rest of the info.

[bobbolink]

23. Thanks so much! That was great of you to post that!

I understand the rules the mods follow, but actually, I think the Coalition wants their material used, just with attribution.

I don't think they stick to that limit.

:yourock:

[ThatPoetGuy]

42. I made no such counterclaim.

I merely pointed out your poor logic and hypocrisy, and I'm doing so again.

No one is asking you to prove a negative. You said, and I quote, "most 'progressives' ignore poverty altogether." Now you seem to be backtracking and saying you meant progressives in the media, which is fine if you want to amend that statement. But it has nothing to do with proving a negative.

You made a sweeping, nasty statement about progressives, one that I've seen no evidence for in reality. When people have challenged you on that disgusting smear, you falsely claimed they were making a personal attack, and then you falsely said they need to prove that your smear is false. They don't; you haven't done more than say "progressives ignore poverty," and all they have to do to counter your claim is to say, "no they don't."

Once you've provided evidence to support your cockamamie anti-progressive slam, then the "nuh uh" response becomes less compelling. But as it is, you've made a baseless assertion. To prove it, you could cite a poll of self-described progressives and their attitude toward various issues; or you could show the donation habits of various self-described progressives versus the general population. There are so many ways you could support that statement, if there were any support for it, and none of them involves trying to prove a negative.

If you're trying to argue that progressives IN THE MEDIA ignore poverty, all you'd have to do is cite the time they devote to subjects under discussion. But so far, you're not claiming only progressives in the media -- you're including most progressives in your claim that "most 'progressives' ignore poverty altogether," which seems to be plainly untrue.

[bobbolink]

48. NO, Most Progressives Ignore Poverty.

Deal with the reality.

[ThatPoetGuy]

53. You made it up, you admit you can't prove it, you falsely claim it's "proving a negative"....

Let me be clear about where I stand: I was disgusted throughout the 2008 Democratic primaries to hear so little about poverty from most of our candidates. I was appalled to learn how low a priority it was for many Democratic voters.

But those who support labor unions are anti-poverty. They're helping provide one solution to poverty, not ignoring it.

Those who support universal health care are addressing the lives of the impoverished.

Those who support a social safety network, from unemployment to food stamps, are addressing poverty.

Those who support jobs programs are addressing poverty.

Those who support public transportation are addressing poverty.

Those who support bottle bills are addressing poverty.

And on and on. Like you, I would prefer the subject to be addressed head-on, and dealt with head-on, but a great deal of the progressive agenda helps the poor and -- more importantly -- is intended to help the poor.

(I'll admit that some progressive focuses, such as environmentalists, often fail to take the poor into account; charging an extra five cents per plastic bag at the grocery store has a serious effect on the lives of poor people.)

[bobbolink]

56. The issues that are brought up on "progressive" media are MIDDLECLASS. They use the word MIDDLECLAs

There is no pretense that it is about poverty.

It is self-interest. Maybe you could call that "poverty prevention", but there are so many of us who are ALREADY THERE and we are being IGNORED.

You can denigrate me, call me names, make up lies, but the end result is, Poverty. Is. Ignored.

[bobbolink]

14. "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

~~Martin Luther King, Jr.

[demtenjeep]

37. agreed

so sick of this one horse pony. There are Many issues including poverty and homeless.

[bobbolink]

39. Which "one horse pony"? Me?

You may want to notice.. "One horse pony" doesn't even make sense.

When the rest of you begin to INCLUDE poverty and homelessness and actually MAKE IT AN ISSUE, then talk about the ponies.

Until then, only until it hits home, it seems, will the rest begin to GET IT.

[TheKentuckian]

43. That is a hell of a pony, not only is it a crucial issue that is of up most importance

to millions very, very directly as they cope with either life on the streets or are a hair's breadth away but it should be critical to about everyone considering the ever growing resource and income disparity, ever rising cost of higher education, the both ends meeting at the middle attack on primary education, diminishing opportunities and upward mobility, millions out of work, arrested and now shrinking wages, and rising costs on food, fuel, and energy but a poor little pony has to carry a fucking horse as well.

If Bobbie is one trick, it is one of the greatest importance and one that she doesn't get the support or number of voices supporting the issue that is required to make any headway.

There are plenty of one trick ponies up in this motherfucker but this one gets lashed out at, probably because somewhere in the back of minds or buried deep in hearts is a quiet, still voice fucking with folks.

[LiberalLoner]

50. Amen, Kentuckian! We only tell people to shut up when it makes us uncomfortable

to hear what they are saying.

Thank you for coming to Bobbie's defense, in such an eloquent way.

Sometimes I wonder if we forget there is a REAL person behind these computers. People who get hurt feelings just like you and me, people who carry harsh words with them for a lot longer than you'd ever believe.

Nobody here is a cardboard cutout. Every one of us is flesh and blood and a beating heart and all the cares and woes and losses that life throws at us.

I'm willing to bet every single one of us here is going to have plenty enough heartache by the time our lives are over with. Plenty enough losses and plenty enough opportunities to weep.

We don't need to make lives that are already hard, any harder.

[mntleo2]

70. But Bobbie is correct about this rampant hatred ...

This is because Progressives along with their Rethug counterparts refuse to acknowledge that poverty is an institution based on racism, sexism, ageism and classim. The reason it is kept in place as an institution is that the upper classes benefit from it while pretending they don't. As a matter of fact they live off the backs of the poor refusing to address this institution and then blame the poor for being so.

That cheap crap you go to WalMart to get that is locking in their workers after hours and forced to work for free? YOU benefit by their "cheap" prices.

That WalMart who "employs" (more like exploit) the poor so the Walton familyt only becomes richer while pretending they are "doing a service to your community" wjhile not paying enough for the poor to pay the rent and are thus homeless? Not just the Walton greedheads are benefiting, YOU benefit.

That WalMart that killed your small business town square and then refuses to so much as use your local bank to deposit their hundreds of thousands, sending it to their headquarters in another place to be laundered in another country where they don't have to pay taxes? YOU benefit because while the local economy dies, you are shopping your head off at WalMart for all that "cheap" stuff.

That WalMart so many patronize that pay poor women overseas pennies on the dollar for working in their sweatshops? YOU benefit.

WalMart is an example I use because it is the most blatant to profit off the poor, but there are others. Sometime I will write again about all the non-profits who use the poor as their "merchandise" in order to create and keep wealth in the upper classes.

I am sure the institution of poverty would be horrifying to the classes who benefit from it if they opened their eyes. Still, it is beyond immoral to pretend it is not so that the "elephant is not only in the living room but crapping on your new carpet", and then blame the crap on the person standing next to it instead of doing something to remove it, this is indifference, which is actually a hatred.

As Martin Neimuller wrote: "...First they came for the Trade Unionists and I said nothing because I was not one ..." He was describing this indifference/hatred as he awaited his death in the Hollocaust.

Cat in Seattle

[RKP5637]

5. Recommend!!! n/t

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[Scuba]

10. Thank you for your continued fight against poverty. n/t

[bobbolink]

11. Thanks. It is a never-ending uphill battle. It is a crying shame that "progressives"

won't educate about the real facts, like they do with other issues.

:cry:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

12. Do you have a link to the Schultz article?

Maybe I'm just not finding it

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

13. Sorry, I thought I had included it. I think meegbear put it in....

Sirota talked about it this morning and although Sirota doesn't talk about the real facts on homelessness, he sure underscored Schultz's derogatory comments.

I hope you will take the facts from the two links I *did* remember to give, and do a bit of writing.

Thanks! There was a time when I had a brain and remembered to include all links. :hi:

[bananas]

15. megbear put it in reply #1

here it is: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/14/ed_schultz_right_wing_past

[LiberalLoner]

16. K&R and I'm horrified to learn that he said those things. :( My

brother-in-law, who is a pretty active Democrat in Montana and one of the smartest people I know, said recently that there is no longer a war against poverty but instead a war against the poor.

[Shireling]

18. This is a better link

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html

It is so easy to blame, but it takes effort to understand.

But there are many good, caring progressives out there. Just hard to overcome the regular media that ignores important issues.

I remember one time reading in the newspaper about a catholic nun who worked with the homeless. She said the homeless were the most spiritual people she had ever met. (By spiritual, I think she was referring to the qualities of strength, hope, determination, compassion, and so on.) She loved her work and the people she worked with.

Money has ruled far too long. There is more to life than $$$$$$$.

PEACE

[LAGC]

19. Schultz is pretty bad, but no one beats Neal Boortz when it comes to bashing the poor.

That sucker thinks anyone who isn't a self-made millionaire is a "leech" on society, and needs to be eradicated so that only the "producers" are left to create prosperity for their fellow richies.

His comments in regards to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans were just plain sickening, worse than anything Limbaugh or Beck could even dream up.

"Cock-roaches" indeed.

[Shireling]

20. Recommend

I recommended this thread, but for some reason it is not registering as such.

[bobbolink]

24. That's because the UNrec Brigade is out in force.

They don't like anything by me about poverty and homelessness, and that is their way of showing it.

:(

[librechik]

21. ED is a fairly shallow progressive

he doesn't seem to know the deep background on civil rights, choice, immigration, labor movements, you name it. It's so much easier to advocate for those causes if you have a memory and understanding of their history and motivations. He just doesn't.

But he does have a great radio voice--now if we could just get him to do his homework instead of letting his old-fashioned assumptions fill in the blanks.

[Shireling]

22. Shallowness

There seems to be a major black out on these important issues for a lot of people. I don't think it is being taught very well in schools.

[librechik]

25. So true-- it isn't being taught in schools at all. Parents need to fill in the gap

or grandparents, in my case--had an extended Twitter exchange yesterday with my 13 year old grandson about what unions are for, in particular the Baseball unions. Had to start at ground level with 146 characters!

[G_j]

26. I think that is probably a good description

as "progressive" as he may see himself, he still sips some of that Kool-aid...

[bobbolink]

27. Sirota described him this morning as an "opportunist".

He was very upset about the way that Schultz criticized those who have a differing opinion on the Bin Laden deal.

He put on his website the scathing Special Comment on Schultz by Keith.

http://www.am760.net/pages/DavidSirota.html

My point, however, is Schultz's denigration of poor and homeless people, and the lack of another viewpoint from other "progressives"! Sirota himself does NOT talk about poverty and homelessness and educate people about the real facts, so he is on shaky ground himself.

[G_j]

29. poverty and homelessness are taboo subjects

for many both on the right and the left, because these issues are taboo in America.

[bobbolink]

31. Very true, so it was another example of a bit of hypocrisy.

I'm trying to stay away from "the pot calling the kettle black" because it is racist, IMO, and I don't have another cliche' to put in that place. ^_^

The wall of silence, especially around homelessness, is HUGE, and I haven't found the way to break through it.

Suggestions welcome...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

I don't even know how to get through the first step.... :(

[bobbolink]

28. My point with this topic is that other "progressive" voices aren't countering Schutlz's ignorance.

Look at those facts that Shireling posted, and the ones that GreenPartyVoter posted. Those facts aren't spoken about on Hartmann, Rachel, Amy... etc. In fact, I would be surprised if most progressives knew those things. It sure doesn't show up here. :(

[coalition_unwilling]

65. I tuned Schultz out a long time ago and your reading of him meshes

perfectly with my take on him back in the days of Air America Radio. IIRC, Schultz initially supported the Iraq War, which astounded me. I think it took him about a year to stop fellating the military as Operation Shock and Awe turned into Operation Shocking and Awful.

I would point out, however, that progressive Michael Harrington's "The Other America" occupies a seminal place in the history of attempts to fight and eradicate poverty. But that was roughly 50 years ago and, ever since Reagan, poverty and the poor have been sneered at, except by the hard left (like the Revolutionary Communist Party and Socialist Workers Party).

Of course, I remember when the only groups in the U.S. protesting against South African Apartheid were the same afore-mentioned hard left groups . . . before it became fashionable in liberal circles to be against apartheid. So don't give up hope.

[salinen]

30. Ed Schultz is important

He has a unique quality to grab the gun totin' anti gov crowd and change them. He's kinda crude, but that's what makes him palatable to pukes.

[bobbolink]

33. It sounds like you're saying its OK for him to diss poor folk... we should just make that sacrifice

for the sake of the middleclass.....?

[salinen]

34. It's not OK

but I think we'll put pressure on Ed and He'll understand and do right. If he doesn't, bye bye.

[bobbolink]

36. If you can help find people to "put pressure on him", that would be great!

However, I personally think his prejudice and bias is deep-seated.

As I keep saying,, what is needed is for *other* progressives to speak out more and poverty and homelessness. If you could give those others some push, and recruit some folks to do that, too, I think that will be more helpful in the end.

I think you can imagine how this feels to me. Ignored on all fronts, and dissed on many.

It hurts.

[FirstLight]

32. I think ED is a product of his generation in most respects

There's a lot of his comments that come straight fomr the old thought paradigm of the 50-60's and the attitude towards the poor is somewhat skewed with that.

I agreed with him on the labor front, but poverty is a whole different can of worms, and most don;t know what to do about it. and the old memes filter through because of generational bias. The old fashioned thought that we could change our lives by working hard, that world has not existed in decades, but some can;t get it. My dad wonders why I don;t own a home, etc. because staying in the same job for decades is outmoded too. Thats the difference between unions and the working poor or unemployed. we have no stability because the world changed the rules.

anyway...i guess what I am saying is that it's unfortunate that someone who is considered a big progressive, is still stuck in the old way of thinking in that realm.
ed bats about a .500 with me, sometimes I can;t stand him, sometimes he is right on target... :shrug:

it's the paradigm we need to shift, not the specific people who repeat it... just keep getting the word out and keep organizing our own little pods of change...it will happen...

[bobbolink]

40. That sounds like giving reasons for accepting it.

If it were you on the receiving end of the ugliness, would YOU want your fellow progressives to accept it and tell you to just deal with it?

This is not only hurtful to people who are already stressed and emotionally HURT by being ignored and discriminated against.

This is exactly the kind of thing that encourages crimininalization and hate crimes. It adds fuel to the fire. We are already in the flames.

[Starry Messenger]

35. k&r

[TBF]

41. Thank goodness my mother's family, here in the US since the mid 1600's ,

didn't complain about "illegals". It would be a much less populated place, and much less diverse.

[bobbolink]

44. The only ones who can legitimately complain about "illegals" are the First Nation peoples.

:hi:

And an Indian friend of mine sees that first Thanksgiving, with the Pilgrims lined up for food, as "the first American Welfare Line".

:rofl:

[TBF]

45. I agree -

and that line is too funny!

[bobbolink]

46. I have the T-shirt with that line!

YEs, I really do.

The "Homeland Security since 1492" was my fave until I saw this one!

Wish I could show it to you... you would get a kick out of it. :hi:

[zinnisking]

47. Thom Hartmann says that illegal aliens help bring down the price of wages.

I don't know what his solution is but does his stance against open borders mean that he hates poor people?

Deploying the military to deal with some foolish street thugs seems like a bad idea. But how is that an indication of hostility toward poor people?

Bizarre.

[bobbolink]

49. Pretty simple. "Street thugs" is a dog whistle for poor young usually black or brown males in

the ghetto.

[zinnisking]

51. It's a weak example and you know it.

Besides, why attack someone who has anti-poverty stances. Doesn't that make him an ally?

[bobbolink]

55. Its only "weak" to people who are OK with prejudice.

[RamboLiberal]

67. What the hell are those who are killing each other in Chicago or DC

or other cities but damn "street thugs"? We have way too damn much of black on black and brown on brown etc killing in our cities. Excusing anyone who critcizes as prejudice is allowing it to continue unabated. In some areas we almost are at a point we could use military to stop the killings and victimization of the innocent people living in the community!

And no I'm not advocating sending in military but just pointing out that in some cities the killing is way out of control.

[ErikJ]

52. Ed isnt ever going to be a "bleeding heart" lib.

Ed is a tough guy sports jock and hunter and is more equivalent to Teddie Roosevelt the Trust Buster. The Dems need more diversity and strong no compromise representATIVES. We dont want them to all fit the stereotype.

That's why the RW is so afraid of Ed. When he was thinking about running for the Senate the GOP panicked big time. HE is a threat because he would appeal to a lot of the RW gun nuts and jocks. That would kill the GOP if he ever decided to run for Pres.

But just today Ed had Bernie Sanders on and said he's his favorite pol. And nobody has fought harder for Wisconsin than Ed. Sure he might have a few foibles but you cant pigeonhole everybody.

[bobbolink]

54. So, if Ed was racist, that would be OK because he has other "good" qualitites?

[RamboLiberal]

58. Oh yeah all those black leaders he has on think he's a racist

:sarcasm:

[bobbolink]

61. I'm sure you got the point. Prejudice is prejudice. Really, that shouldn't have to be spelled out

to "progressives". :eyes:

[RamboLiberal]

68. No I think you haven't gotten the point

And have let the perfect get in the way of the good. Ed is not a racist.

[ErikJ]

60. So if Ed was a bird and deer killer that would be OK because he has other good qualities?

Well racism is inherently different than being poor for one thing. And Ed is definitely not racist.

Animal rights people could say the same about Ed because he's a hunter. Is that reason to throw him under the bus just because he doesnt bat 100% liberal?
Look at it this way. If we got Ed as a President there would be a hell of a lot less poverty to begin with.
He might even do what FDR did. He put the poor and jobless to work in Federal work programs giving them a place to stay too.

[bobbolink]

62. Prejudice is prejudice. I get that slandering poor people is OK with a lot of progressives.

I am calling attention to that, as did David Sirota, as did the writers of the Salon article.

That YOU think prejudice against poor people if fine is very telling.

Thank you for illustrating it.

PREJUDICE. KILLS.

[ErikJ]

64. I let homeless stay in my backyard.

I have had 2 homeless but currently just one in my backyard, for the past 3 years.
So I'm not prejudiced against them. I just dont think you should throw a man under the bus for just one infraction. Most Progs in Wisconsin LOVE Ed more than anybody else.

[RamboLiberal]

66. Most of us have our prejudices

Few of us are perfect. And you base your prejudice against Ed on one article in Salon. Do you even watch his TV show or listen to his radio show? I do and I sure haven't seen those prejudices you speaks of.

Oh and all poor are perfect and blameless for their plight? And any criticism of some is prejudice?

I challenge you or any here criticizing Ed because of this article or things he said several years ago to watch his show or listen to his radio show and come back here and post whenever he makes what you think is a racist or slam on the poor statement.

I'm going to take note from now on. I don't get a chance to hear the radio show most days but I usually catch the TV show. Watched all last night - nada what you claim.

[bengalherder]

59. K&R