Ex-MSNBC host Ed Schultz joins Kremlin-backed news channel. Next stop on his career path: shilling for North Korea.
Ed Schultz Articles
If you ever heard the phrase “ugly red headed step child” and wondered what it meant, tune in Ed’s show on MSNBC. No matter how much he rants and raves, stutters and sputters, viewers avoid his program en masse.
If you’ve ever wondered what it takes to be considered “over the top” by the management as MSNBC, Ed Schultz has kindly provided the answer.
Schultz started his program Wednesday night by apologizing for calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” on his radio show. MSNBC cut to a commercial after the apology, Thomas Roberts was sitting in Schultz’ chair when they returned from commercial, and Schultz went off to do whatever lunatics do while they’re on suspension.
“On my radio show yesterday, I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura and ask for your forgiveness. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances were. It doesn’t matter that it was on radio and I was ad libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today. I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company. And I have been in this business since 1978, and I have made a lot of mistakes. This is the lowest of low for me. I stand before you tonight in front of this camera in this studio in an environment that I absolutely love. I love working here. I love communicating with all of you on the radio and the communication that I have with you when I go out and do town hall meetings and meet the people that actually watch. I stand before you tonight to take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it, and I am deeply sorry.
A couple quick translations:
- “I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her.” Translation: She wouldn’t take the buffoon’s call.
- “I have embarrassed my family.” Translation: Even more than I do every other day.
- “I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay.” Translation: They threatened to can me and I begged them not to.
- “This is the lowest of low for me.” Translation: “Do you have any idea how difficult that is to measure?”
- “I love working here.” Translation: They pay me far more than I could get anywhere else.
Apparently someone at MSNBC decided they should follow Rachel Maddow’s example and come out of the closet. As extremists, that is.
No more pussyfooting around claiming they’re moderates. They’ve even given up claims that they’re merely liberal and gone straight to extremist.
The new ad campaign gives each of the hosts a chance to one-up the others by revealing just how out there they are.
Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t think Barack Obama is liberal enough. Probably doesn’t think Stalin was, either.
Don’t loan Rachel Maddow money. Since she seems to think the country’s finances are in great shape we’d hate to see what her checking balance looks like.
Ed Schultz is a regular guy. A Cheers bar, neighborhood diner kind of guy. Oh, yeah, and a guy who hates big business. Pray to God you don’t get stuck with the stool next to him at the diner.
Poor Chris Matthews. Looks like all the other good commercial ideas were taken, so he got stuck with the birther concept.
We really need some kind of scorecard. Because we can’t keep up with the rapidly growing list of things Democrats define as racist. For example, according to Ed Schultz it’s now racist to question Obama’s intelligence.
Here’s what the genius said Wednesday on his MSNBC show:
You mean to tell me that [Trump’s] questioning the academic prowess of one of the smartest presidents we’ve ever had? Mr. Trump, when you start getting your advice from all of the special, special Republican advisers that we’ve seen step to the plate in the past instead of Jerome Corsi. Dude, you could do better than that… This is what the Republican Party stands for, though: racism. I think Donald Trump is a racist.
Based on what, Ed, have you determined that Obama is “one of the smartest Presidents we’ve ever had?” His extemporaneous speaking skills without a Teleprompter? The incredible success of his economic plan?
Ronald Reagan can be called stupid with impunity. Ditto for George Bush. But call Barack Obama unintelligent and you’re a racist.
Is it racist to question Ed Schultz’ intelligence?
Ed Schultz achieved the almost unachievable on Friday, April 22. On that night he lost a remarkable 61% of Rachel Maddow’s lead-in audience. And it’s not like her ratings were anything to brag about.
As you can see in the following chart, MSNBC was rolling along with decent ratings – by MSNBC standards, that is – until Schultz hit the airwaves. Then it appears that leftists across America jumped for their remote controls and tuned in somewhere else. Anywhere else.
|6 pm||Cenk||613,000||7 pm||Matthews||601,000||8 pm||O’Donnell||819,000||9 pm||Maddow||959,000||10 pm||Schultz||375,000||11 pm||O’Donnell (rerun)||374,000|
Not only does Ed lose 61% of Maddow’s audience, but the 11:00 rerun of Lawrence O’Donnell’s 8 p.m. show falls just 1,000 viewers short of Ed’s total. And the rerun isn’t even in prime time hours.
We’d call this an embarrassing performance, but it’s worse than that. Wholesale rejection by MSNBC’s niche audience may just be a one-way ticket back to North Dakota for Big Eddie.
Our advice? Don’t sign any long term leases, Ed.
Source: Media Bistro
The lunatic left is at it again. They’ve taken a fact, twisted it beyond recognition, and convinced themselves that it’s something it isn’t.
The background: Premiere Radio Networks said it offers paid actors for call-ins to radio hosts. They explained later that the service is designed for FM entertainment shows, not AM talk shows, but libs had already jumped to the conclusion that Premier-syndicated talk shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity must be using those paid actors.
Enter poor, dumb Ed Schultz.
While falsely accusing Limbaugh and Hannity of using these fake calls, Schultz confessed that he has used fake callers and said the fakes were actually Democratic Party staffers calling in from their congressional offices.
In Schultz’ case we need to revise an old saying:
This is a case of the pot belly calling the kettle black.
H/T: The Radio Equalizer
Good luck trying to follow Ed Schultz’ explanation of why Christina Aguilera screwed up the national anthem at the Super Bowl. In poor Ed’s twisted mind it had something to do with Fox.
And it goes downhill from there.
Seriously. It sounds as if Ed’s teleprompter died somewhere in mid-monologue, so he just started rambling and telling a story about his 8-year old son that had no real point.
Don’t worry, Eddie. We suspect that you’ll soon you’ll have lots of free time to spend with the little tyke.
Liberal talk radio is doing poorly. And the Ed Schultz brand of liberal talk radio is doing even worse.
Back on October 14, 2009 we did a story headlined “Alert the death panel: Lib talk radio dying a slow, painful death.” Hal Ginsberg, morning host and owner of lib talk radio station KRXA-FM in beautiful Monterey, California took exception to that story and wrote a series of comments that excoriated IHTM and our readers for being evil conservatives.
But it turns out that Hal apparently now agrees with us, because we found an article he wrote – one that bemoans the dismal state of liberal talk radio – on KRXA’s website. Here’s what it said about Ed Schultz, whose program airs on the station:
Ed Schultz’s wiki lists 69 affiliates – I would be surprised if he has more than 50.
You’d be overstating it, Hal. We’ve gone over the list of affiliates shown on Special Ed’s website and we can only confirm affiliates in 37 markets.
Note: There are several markets in which Special Ed’s show is carried by multiple stations. We counted that as one affiliate. In Chicago, for example, he’s carried by one AM station (WCPT-AM) and three FM stations on different positions on the dial (all called WCPT-FM).
Nevertheless, in an obvious effort to disguise the extent of his radio rejection, Ed continues to list stations that are no longer affiliates.
For example, he lists a number of stations that have flipped to other formats – country music, Mexican music, rock ‘n roll, Asian language and, in the worst insult of all, a couple have even flipped to a conservative talk format.
Ed’s website also lists “affiliates” who apparently don’t know they’re affiliates. A number of talk stations on which Ed says he broadcasts don’t list him on their schedules.
And finally, Ed lists a number of stations that don’t have websites. Stations like KVNA in Flagstaff, Arizona and KTOX in Needles, California, for example. Minor stations in minor markets (if they’re still on the air). They may well be affiliates, but if a station doesn’t have a website in this day and age how professional is that station? For god’s sake, even Hal Ginsberg’s rinky-dink station in Monterey has a website.
Thirty-seven markets? That’s it, Ed? After years of flogging your dog of a show that’s all you have to show for it? Thirty-seven markets isn’t even a rounding error on Rush Limbaugh’s list of affiliates.
The markets in which Ed is carried are an embarrassment. The only large markets he can honestly claim are New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston, Detroit and Minneapolis, but for every large market you have a Maui, a Petosky, a Langdon and a Coos Bay.
But worst of all for Ed, it would not be an untrue generalization to say that no one listens to him on the few stations on which he is still aired. To put it bluntly, Schultz’ ratings and the ratings of lib talk radio in general, suck.
There’s an old saying: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?
Ed Schultz has a corollary: If a blowhard rants and raves on the radio and there are no stations to broadcast it, does it make a difference?
H/T: Tim Conway, Jr
The Editor’s revered farmer father always said, “Watch out for people who tell you they’re honest. If you’re really honest, you don’t have to tell people.”
The MSNBC corollary is, “If you’re really working for the working man, you don’t have to tell the working an you’re working for the working man.”
But enough about Ed Schultz.
In this clip the always angry Ed tells how he’d love to be more civil, but that probably won’t happen as long as there’s a single freakin’ Republican still drawing air.
Because he’s working hard for the working man, you know.
This is rich. This is classic. Some nights – Thursday, for example – things just don’t go the way poor ol’ Ed Schultz thinks they’re going to go. In this clip, for example, Ed prefaces an interview with Dennis Kucinich with some of his typical outlandish bombast and pseudo-angry overstatement and assumes the radical Congresman will follow his lead.
Sorry, Ed. It didn’t work out that way.
Schultz: John Boehner has to deal with all of this tea party rhetoric in his caucus, and has no interest in trying to work with the President. Sarah Palin, and the Tan Man, and the rest of the Republicans have no interest in rising to the President’s challenge on tone and accepting the plea to change it all. They already have a post-Tucson mentality. They don’t care about stripping 32 million Americans from getting their healthcare. They don’t give a damn about kids with pre-existing conditions. And they want every American armed and dangerous. Pretty clear – this is all about putting Democrats on the defensive, and filling their campaign coffers for 2012.
That’s the way, Ed. You give those evil Republicans what for. You set the plate for the Congressman. You throw him a hanging curveball and he’ll pound it out of the park.
Schultz: … I will not belittle you at all by asking you what kind of firearm you’re going to carry on the House floor if that were to ever pass. So we’ll get on to the serious business of real tone.
Kucinich didn’t realize Ed was attempting to make a joke. He sat there as straight-faced as Washington on Mount Rushmore, Schultz’ attempted ha-ha going right over his head. So Ed plowed ahead although the hurt expression on his face told you he was a little pissy that his sophisticated wit had gone unappreciated.
Schultz: The President made a plea, not only to members of Congress but to the country, to change the tone. What effect do you think it will have in the wake of some of the developments in the stories we just put out tonight about the actions of some of the Republicans. Your take on all of this?
Kucinich: … You know, I love you and you’re one of the most passionate defenders of the people that’s in the media. But, you know, John Boehner is actually, I thought, set a very good tone. I mean, he really rose to the occasion in a way that I suppose is surprising people. I’ve known John a long time and I think he’s been very statesmanlike in the way that he’s responded to the tragedy in Arizona. Now you know, we have a debate coming up on healthcare and I don’t know that he’s going to be able to control everything his members will say, but I think he’s trying to understand that the atmosphere has changed dramatically and that the President set a tone that all of us have to pay attention to.
At this point Ed was obviously more than just a bit put off by Kucinich’s willingness to give Boehner the benefit of the doubt. Why, Ed wondered, won’t this bozo join me in frothing at the mouth?
Schultz: Do you know if he’s publicly called on members of his party and of his caucus to tone it down? Because I’ve missed that story Congressman.
Kuchinich: Well, you know what? John Boehner is not a person who is a flamethrower himself and it’s important to remember that, Ed, because he’s not someone who’s going to approve of anyone who is, you know, he’s going to push the Republican agenda I got that and I don’t agree with him, but he’s not going to approve of anything that will increase the intensity. of rhetoric. That’s really is something he has to reflect on and something our President has cautioned about.
Damn, we wish we could have been there at the next commercial break when Ed fell to the floor, quivering and biting his tongue.
We guarantee – absolutely guarantee – that as soon as this interview with Tucson shooting hero Joe Zamudio was over and they cut to commercial, Ed Schultz started screaming in the studio:
“Why didn’t somebody tell me this guy was a freakin’ gun-totin’, First Amendment lovin’, right wing lunatic? You made me look stupid on the air.”
No, Ed, you do that all by yourself.
The always classy Ed Schultz called Republicans “bastards who want to destroy the American dream” on his Wednesday night MSNBC show.
Schultz: It’s all about takin’ down President Obama. They don’t want to create jobs. They’re not about that at all. And I’ll guarantee you, if you do see the numbers change, which I believe they will, you won’t hear Boehner or any of these new righties give one ounce of credit to the last Congress for fightin’ like hell for a jobs bill. This is an ideological war. I say it on camera tonight here on MSNBC. I will fight these bastards every night at 6 o’clock because I know what they’re up against. I know what they want to do. They want to take down American workers. They want to outsource jobs. They want to destroy the American dream. Concentrate the wealth to the top, and control minorities. That’s what they’re about.
Schultz’ keepers in the control room must have whispered in his earpiece, because after interviewing Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.) Ed came back and apologized. You know someone whispered in his ear, because Ed insisted that’s what hadn’t happened.
Schultz: It is going to be a very passionate fight, and I just, no I haven’t had anybody in my earpiece since I started tonight, and management’s not saying I’m over the top. I just referred to the Republicans as a term I probably shouldn’t have used, but, I know what, they just infuriate me. I don’t think they’re honest brokers. I think they’re out to destroy unions. I think they’re out to destroy the working folk of America. I think they have nothing on the table for middle-class, the middle-class Americans out there who haven’t had the breaks that the top two percent has had. So, if I offended some of you by that term I used a few moments ago, I apologize. Maybe I’ve had too much TV.
Hmmmm. “Maybe I’ve had too much TV.” Same reaction we have on those nights we watch MSNBC.
Time magazine’s Joe Klein showed up on CNN’s Sunday “Reliable Sources” on Saturday. He was fired up. Angry. Disgusted.
In general, he’s unhappy about the lack of complexity on cable news. Specifically, he referred to an earlier appearance he made on MSNBC with Ed Schultz. He flat out called Ed stupid, which will undoubtedly come as news to no one except Schultz himself.
“Well, that brings me to point number two. It’s really hard, we choose – cable news chooses – not to really deal with complicated issues with the level of complexity that they deserve. I was on Ed Schultz’ show to discuss Afghanistan. I was just back from there. It is the most complicated issue imaginable. And the guy writes down on a piece of paper, ‘Get out now,’ and holds it up on the screen. That’s so stupid and it’s so unworthy. And it really — it’s one of the reasons why people hold us in lower regard than they do lawyers.”
C’mon, Joe, you work for a news magazine. Tell us something we don’t know.
H/T: Daily Caller
You put Al Sharpton in front of a camera with Ed Schultz and it’s inevitable that something stupid will be said (again).
Sharpton didn’t disappoint in his remarkably unsuccessful, yet on-going jihad against Rush Limbaugh. He wants government regulations to stop the world’s highest rated talk show host from saying those horrible things Sharpton imagines that he says.
Sharpton: Well, first of all, we’re not talking about censorship. We’re talking about standards. [R-i-i-i-g-h-t.] And there are already standards in place. We’re saying those standards ought to include those that in an explicit or even an implicit way practice racism or sexism or homophobia on the airwaves. And can you imagine the arrogance of saying federally-regulated airwaves should not be subjected to federal public hearings, so they should just grant licenses, allow people to say what they want?
Just wondering, Al, would those new regulations stop you and Ed Schultz from saying the things you say?
Nah, we didn’t think so.
Rush Limbaugh made a joke. A pretty funny joke. The set up is that the media always positions any criticism of President Obama as racist. So when Democrats criticized his tax compromise, Rush turned the tables and said they must be racists, too.
Here are Rush’s exact words:
Rush: Man, oh, man, oh, man, ladies and gentlemen. The left, what a bunch of racists. I mean they’re all over MSNBC. They are all over the New York Times, the Washington Post. I have never seen such a collection of racists, all these liberals criticizing Obama on this compromise on the tax bill. Well, every bit of criticism of Obama’s always been said to be racist, hasn’t it?
Proving that he’s just as dense as his critics claim, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz didn’t get the joke. Neither did his guest, the esteemed Charlatan Al Sharpton.
The following very serious, very outraged discussion ensued.
We’d like to take this opportunity to apologize to Randi Rhodes. We’ve always said she was the rudest, craziest denizen of Air America, but now it turns out she wasn’t. That honor belongs to Lionel. (Yes, just one name. Kind of like Cher, only less masculine.)
In case you thought there was nowhere to go but up after Air America, Ed Schultz points out that Lionel is of Lionel Media, a vast media conglomerate that, we assume, consists of Lionel and exists only in the mind of Lionel.
Anyway, he appeared on Schultz’ show with Republican consultant Ron Christie, an attorney and special former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney and made both Christie and Schultz look like intellectual giants.
Christie, who remained calm and respecful throughout, finally got so annoyed with Lionel’s constant interruptions, histrionics and lunacy that he ends the interview with the words, “What a joke. I hope we never see you again.”
Schultz responds with, “Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. I thought it was great.”
Luckily, for the first time since the interview began, Lionel had nothing to say.
The always classy Ed Schultz, who worshipped at the altar of Teddy “Chivas On The Rocks” Kennedy, seems to think John Boehner has a drinking problem.
Schultz: Yeah, why waste a dinner on John Boehner when he’s probably only going to bring a bottle of Ripple anyway? Yeah, he’s a cheap wine guy. Lot of stuff doesn’t get reported, but he’s a cheap wine guy. I don’t know if you knew that or not. Well, maybe he’ll bring Boone’s Farm.
We’re waiting for Schultz to report the story of Boehner driving his car off a bridge and killing a girl or Boehner being involved in a “waitress sandwich” with Chris Dodd or Boehner getting so drunk that he doesn’t recall his nephew committing rape.
Apparently, Schultz is an elitist and his real problem is that Boehner’s drink of choice isn’t something classy like Chivas and that Boehner doesn’t repeatedly embarrass himself in public like the Lion of the Senate did oh-so-many times.
Stunning stupidity. Incredible ignorance. And a remarkable willingness to call damn near anything racism.
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee ably demonstrated all three on poor Ed Schultz’ MSNBC program.
Special Ed was on one of his nightly rants about the unfairness of Rush Limbaugh’s success and how it can only be attributed to raaaaacism when he asked Jackson-Lee this question:
“Congresswoman, is there anything the African community can do about this? The comments speak for themselves.”
“I’m always committed to the First Amendment because as you well know,” Jackson-Lee responded. “You’ve been called Sergeant Schultz. I don’t know that to be your name. I’m a little sensitive to what that is to garner. Is that because you have a name that may be ethnically connected to being a Sergeant? I’m not sure what that is. I find that insulting as well.”
Would it be racist to point out that Sergeant Schultz was a character – a white German character – on the 1960s TV show Hogan’s Heroes?
Would it be racist to point out that Sergeant Schultz’ most famous line was “I know nothing” and that even if that is true, he’s a genius compared to Jackson-Lee?
Would it be racist to point out that it’s pronounced Lim-bah, not Lim-bow.
Seriously, Congresswoman, you should at least be able to pronounce the name of the guy you want to boycott.
Source: Real Clear Politics
Poor Ed Schultz is nearly apoplectic. All because that damn Rush Limbaugh is making the Democrat party leadership race about race. You know, the leadership race where the black Democrat leader got demoted so the white Democrat leaders could get promoted.
Then Ed goes to Al Sharpton and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who sell out demoted black Democrat James Clyburn to maintain their own positions as overseers on the Democrat plantation.
Schultz: How about a decency law that says you can’t make racist comments on the air. I mean, there’s right and there’s wrong. We’re afraid to say what’s right and wrong anymore, what’s decent and indecent. We’re never going to move the envelope forward in this country when it comes to race relations and tensions in the melting pot of America if we’re going to allow people to go on the air and say insightful things like this that are nothing but harmful.
We’d love to give Ed’s decency the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard to do since he’s had so many moments on the air that fall so far short of decent.
Let’s review a few of his finer, more decent moments:
Ed melts down with one of his radio listeners
Ed freaks out when challenged by a listener
Ed says GOP should be “shoved into the dirthole”
The midterm election results prove Sarah Palin continues to be a formidable force in US politics. Since facts bear this out as most of her candidates won, MSNBC was left with no choice but to make stuff up about her. In other words, it was business as usual at the leftist network.
In between their usual sniping snippets of FOX envy, and snark-snogged attacks on all things conservative, the President’s propaganda channel dedicated delusional Eddie Schultz’s closing segment to an ad hominem Palin attack, along with the obligatory bobble-head guest bought on to parrot his points, this time in the form of HuffPo’s Roy Sekoff, who mimicked the host with his “The Palin factor is really no factor at all.”
CBS News Correspondent Jeff Glor reports, the former GOP vice presidential nominee backed forty-three candidates for the House. Thirty of them won, with races involving nine others still undecided.
Her record in Senate races was closer: She endorsed twelve candidates. Seven won.
Though it’s been fifteen months since Palin stepped down as Alaska governor, she was very much in this election, stumping for candidates across the country, skewering President Obama at every turn.
“My observation of Sarah Palin,” says CBS News political analyst Nicolle Wallace, “is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment. She’s also one of the most electric.”
Rather than “Lean Forward’ perhaps the network could have went with a motto more literal to their agenda:
“MSNBC – Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
– Written by Sonny Palermo
Of course, he lied. It’s Ed Schultz. It’s MSNBC.
Here’s how Ed Schultz opened his show on October 4, the Monday following the One Nation rally in Washington, DC:
“This is the story that has me fired up tonight. And really, it’s something that I’m gonna remember for the rest of my life. Ask yourself the question, ‘What do you think it would be like to stand on the Lincoln Memorial and give a speech off the top of your head?’ I don’t know if you can prepare for that. I did my best.”
Which one was it, Ed? Was the speech “off the top of you head” or did you “do your best to prepare it?” Those two options are contradictory.
And then there’s this video clip of the world’s largest Teleprompter being used by another speaker at the One Nation rally.
Now, admittedly, we have no proof that Ed used the Teleprompter, but he did seem to be looking off to his left frequently during the speech and it did seem a lot more coherent than most of the things he says.
We’re just sayin’…
H/T: Weasel Zippers
This was completely predictable. So we forced ourselves to watch the first ten minutes of Shultz’s MSNBC program on Monday just to see how he tried to spin the abysmal failure of Saturday’s One Nation rally.
And spin he did.
Schultz: Now, conservatives want you to believe that Glenn Beck’s phony religious revival was way bigger than the One Nation rally. Well, let me take you back to the day of the Beck rally on August 28th, 2010, at 6:32 P.M., CBS.com proved Beck’s crowd was, as I said, no big shakes. “An estimated 87,000 people attended the rally organized by radio talk show host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News. The company, AirPhotosLive.com, based the attendance on aerial photos it took over the rally.” Now to be fair, NBC News put the size of Beck’s crowd at 300,000 people. So, somewhere in between all of this, 87,000, give or take 9 grand by that company, and 300,000 is reported by NBC. Pretty much, would you say that the size of the crowd is pretty much the same? I would. I was there. The people I saw, it was packed.
Step One: Ignore all photographic evidence.
Step Two: Take the lowest possible estimate of attendance at Beck’s rally.
Step Three: Take the highest possible estimate of attendance at the One Nation rally.
Step Four: Attempt to make a valid comparison out of them.
There is, indeed, something packed full here. And it’s name is Ed Schultz.
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz went on the air after Glenn Beck’s 8/28 rally and said that if he held a rally, he could draw more than 300,000 people. Didn’t quite turn out that way. Not even close, even with the support of every left wing-union-environmentalist wacko organization in the country.
Sorry, Ed. You tried to make it sound like this was your rally, but One Nation’s socialist and communist organizers refused to give you anything but the opening slot.
It’s not seen on this clip, but one of the idiot lefties who introduced Schultz said (and this is verbatim), “We want a clean environment, so our children will never have to report to drinking water, breathing air and staying healthy.”
Four notes on Ed’s dismal screaming.
- The crowd seems small compared to Beck’s, but that doesn’t factor in all the dead voters ACORN bussed in.
- Early in his screed, Ed had a 70s flashback and actually screamed, “Power to the people.”
- We think we heard a couple crickets chirping after Ed screamed, “Do you love America?”
- He may call Chris Christie “a fat slob,” but it’s been a while since Ed shopped for suits anywhere but the portly department.
If MSNBC’s executives are glass-half-full kind of guys, they look at the results of this new survey and say, “Hey, look at all the growth potential we have.”
If they’re glass-half-empty kind of guys, they say, “We are miserable friggin’ failures, we’re lucky we still have jobs, and the hosts we’ve hired couldn’t attract flies to shit. And come to think of it, that’s really a pretty good analogy.”
The results show the growing influence that 24-hour cable news has on shaping the political consciousness, despite the fact that network newscasts still draw many multiples of the number of viewers of even the highest-rated cable news shows.…Fox’s opinionated personalities were also rated as having the greatest positive impact on the political debate in the country. Bill O’Reilly was rated as having, by far, the greatest positive impact, with 49 percent of respondents rating him positively, and 32 percent negatively.
…MSNBC’s personalities were largely ranked as unknown by respondents: 70 percent said they had never heard of Ed Schultz, 55 percent said they had never heard of Rachel Maddow and 42 percent said they had never heard of Keith Olbermann.
We would like to nominate the TV remote control as the greatest invention in history. Without it, someone might have actually lingered on MSNBC long enough to be familiar with Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz by mistake. With it, they get the anonymity they so richly deserve.