Good. Does That Mean You’ll Shut Up After November?

Ed Schultz needs more attention:

And I’m announcing today, I’m not going to vote in the midterms. I’m not going to do it. You can say it’s un-American. No, it’s rather revolutionary is what it is. I’m at that point. I’m checking out.

I’m checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don’t know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over ’em.

You know what big babies actually do? They stay home and pout.

Does this mean he’ll shut up and quit his show on MSNBC and someone interesting like Lawrence O’Donnell will take over? I mean- he certainly wouldn’t have the brass balls to bitch about the Republican House and Senate after sitting out the election and advocating others do the same, would he?

*** Update ***

Via the comments, I see there is video of the Ed’s announcement:

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

125 replies
  1. 1

    Dumb Ed. jeebus.

  2. 2
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Does this mean he’ll shut up and quit his show on MSNBC and someone interesting like Lawrence O’Donnell will take over?

    Unfortunately Ed’s not THAT poutraged, but O’Donnell is getting his own show after Maddow starting in the fall.

  3. 3
    El Cid says:

    Whatever you think of this idea (and I think it’s horridly dangerous, despite the effect on one’s ‘conscience’), not voting is anything but “revolutionary”, either that or tremendous numbers of eligible voters have been conspiring in more revolutions than Bolsheviks, Maoists, and Foco-ists ever dreamed of.

  4. 4
    Cacti says:

    I’d be willing to bet that Ed Shouts has never pulled the lever for a Democrat in his life.

  5. 5
    DougJ says:

    Why the two different types of tags?

  6. 6
    You Don't Say says:

    I’ve never liked him. What a tool. Anyone know what his viewership is compared to Hardball, Countdown and Rachel?

  7. 7
    TooManyJens says:

    “Loot at me”?

    Are we supposed to smash storefront windows, steal some TVs, and chuck ’em at Ed?

  8. 8
    fasteddie9318 says:

    You guys think his TV show is bad? Try listening to the radio show. Every time he interviews a Democratic politician, the last 5 minutes devolve into a mutual handjob session about how wonderful they both are and how indispensable they are to the country. Of course, these are the same Democrats that he’s now not going to vote for.

  9. 9
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    God all fucking mighty. He gets dumber by the day. This is exactly why the Dems are so scared, because ‘progressives’ and their allies abandon the midterms to old white people, gun nuts and bible thumpers.

    Lawrence O’Donnell: decent guest, lousy host, and totally infatuated with his own insiderism. IMHO.

  10. 10
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @You Don’t Say: according to this KO and The Rachel Maddow beat Schultz, and to my surprise, Schultz beats tweety.

  11. 11
    BR says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Lawrence O’Donnell: decent guest, lousy host, and totally infatuated with his own insiderism. IMHO.

    This. And he’s too pissed that Obama and co. are passing all the things insider Larry wished he passed when he was the seniorist of the seniormost staffers in the senate. Did you know he worked in the senate?

  12. 12
    Jade Jordan says:

    I’ll take 2 or 3 hours of Rachael Maddow. I don’t like either O’Donnell. Larry is angry that Clinton is not President any more. Nora is a mean girl.

  13. 13
    You Don't Say says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: That’s depressing. Say what you will about Matthews, he’s much better than Schultz, IMO.

  14. 14
    freelancer says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Lawrence O’Donnell: decent guest, lousy host, and totally infatuated with his own insiderism. IMHO.

    He was great as Jed Bartlet’s Dad though.

  15. 15
    mr. whipple says:

    @BR:

    Did you know he worked in the senate?

    LOL. When I was a kid,……

  16. 16
    BR says:

    Also – and I know this is a stupid thing to ask for – but when are they going to add non-token diversity (i.e. not Eugene Robinson every once in a while)?

    I mean not only do they have a large number of white guys, but male or female I think half of MSNBC’s lineup is Irish-American. Just saying…

  17. 17
    SB Jules says:

    @BR:

    This. And he’s too pissed that Obama and co. are passing all the things insider Larry wished he passed when he was the seniorist of the seniormost staffers in the senate. Did you know he worked in the senate?

    Why I’m shocked to learn he worked in the Senate:)

  18. 18
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @BR: I would much rather have Allison Stewart back, but I guess she’s contracted to NPR. Melissa Harris Racewell is pretty good on TV, but she has another job, or Robinson, I think, would be great, he doesn’t take himself too seriously (unlike…. Schultz, Olbermann, Tweety, O’Donnell…..)

  19. 19
    lamh32 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    thx u, ur description of Lawrence O is spot on!

  20. 20
    lamh32 says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Melissa Harris LACEwell, not RACEwell.

  21. 21
    Comrade Mary says:

    What a maroon. A loud, messy, destructive maroon.

  22. 22
    nepat says:

    Had high hopes for Mr. Ed. Now dashed. He was one of those “progressives” whose brain was eaten by Public Optionosis. Never recovered.

  23. 23
    Mike says:

    Wow, radioequalizer.blogspot.com.
    I haven’t seen or heard of that site since the early days of Air America and his big imminent switch to the big leagues – a spot on Malkin’s bench, a non blogspot.com url, and his own nationally syndicated radio show! I guess he never raised the $100 / year for the site address, and I don’t pay too close attention to the other two, so I hope it’s not too presumptive of me to congratulate him on also too mission accomplished!

  24. 24
    Frank says:

    And I’m announcing today, I’m not going to vote in the midterms. I’m not going to do it. You can say it’s un-American.

    This is bizarre. As I recall, Schultz recommended last year that the Democrats should withdraw its health care bill, wait for midterms, gain more seats and then re-introduce the bill.

    And now this guy is not even going to vote. Good grief.

  25. 25
    Lev says:

    Good, Ed. Now, if you can only convince your alter ego, El Rushbo, to say the same thing to his audience, everything would be good!

  26. 26
    Hal says:

    This is actually a great idea! Just think of all the new experiences the electorate could have if a major number of Dems stayed home!

    * Dems would lose their majorities in the House and Senate two years after winning the Presidency. Oh wait, that’s already been done.

    * Well, then once Republicans take over they could impeach the President on some trumped up charge. Oh yeah, that’s right, already happened.

    * Well, we’ll at least get the country to see how horrible things could get having Republicans majorities! Just wait until the public gets whiff of Republican plans for the economy. Hell, they might even usher in a ultimately unpopular war with an middle eastern country that lasts for years and costs trillions of dollars!

    Now that would be something to see…

  27. 27
    Allison W. says:

    You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over ‘em.

    I love this type of generic I-know-nothing advice! Right up there with “grow a pair!” and “get a spine!” Great. can you be more specific?

  28. 28
    Sgt Dan says:

    I quit listening to his radio show ages ago when he launched a vicious personal attack on Susan Sarandon for daring to endorse Hillary’s anti war opponent in the NY senate primary.
    All he ever did was talk about how liberal he was and complain about not making enough money.

  29. 29
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I’m checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don’t know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over ‘em.

    So this idiot’s solution, that he recommends to other people (no Senate vote in MN this year, I believe), is to strengthen the hand of the Republicans, the Blue Dogs, and the Squishes. What a fucking maroon. How the fucking fuck does this this fat-headed oaf think this “runs over’em”? Fucking idiot.

  30. 30
    Nylund says:

    No matter how mad someone is at the Democrats one cannot forget that the lesser evil is still, well, less evil. And in this case, the “evil differential” is quite large.

    This is not like canceling your season tickets for your favorite baseball team. This has real consequences.

  31. 31
    Paula says:

    Why aren’t there ten bazillion posts defending him yet? Isn’t he some kind of Troo Progressive Hero ™?

  32. 32
    Hunter Gathers says:

    Go fuck yourself, Ed.

  33. 33
    Kevin Moore says:

    But…

    Staying home and not voting may be silly, but his larger point is frustration with both Obama and the Democrats for either conceding too much to the right wing, or perpetuating policies created by Bush that are odious. So what does a conscientious liberal do? Shut up and hold your nose and vote for some douchebag because there is D next to the name? Or do you find third party candidates who better represent one’s values, conscience, policy preferences, etc? The last time I did that, I was told I had made it possible for Bush to win — even though I voted in a Gore-winning state. (Funny, I thought the Supreme Court did the election stealing, anyway.)

    Not to re-litigate the past, as the kids say, but you should at least acknowledge that behind Ed’s blowhard bellowing there is a kernel of a truth, that both parties really super suck, and there are many very good reasons to seek out alternative political representation.

  34. 34
    Allison W. says:

    @Hal:

    I think the plan is to subject the American people to right wing rule for approx. 2 years and then seeing how much of a disaster the right wing has caused, the country will then swing all the way to the left, elect Dean/Kucinich to office and bring about Progressive majorities in the House and Senate.

  35. 35
    mr. whipple says:

    And I’m announcing today, I’m not going to vote in the midterms.

    That’ll show ’em. I mean, remember how people stayed home or voted 3rd party in 2000 because Gore was just like Bush, and no ill would come of it if he lost? Good times!

  36. 36
    Socraticsilence says:

    “You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over ‘em.”

    What the hell does that even mean in the context of the Senate- that Harry Reid should kill a few GOP’rs to break the filibuster? Because barring that I don’t know what Ed thinks he could do- I mean he does realize the reason FDR and LBJ could ram things through is that they had 60+ and that the filibuster wasn’t used nearly as often right? I mean he’s not just ignorant I assume.

  37. 37
    mr. whipple says:

    @Socraticsilence:

    I mean he’s not just ignorant I assume.

    Don’t assume.

  38. 38
    lamh32 says:

    Here’s the thing, I’m of the school of thought if you are able to, and still don’t vote, then I’m sorry, you lose ur right to complain all that much to me, as someone who’s voted since I turned 18.

    You can’t say that the bush v gore election was stolen, if you didn’t even vote. I voted, my vote was stolen, you did not vote, your vote was NOT stolen.

    BTW, I’m talking about those people who are able to vote, and still dont’, not people who for valid reasons can’t or don’t vote (though, I’m not too sure what a valid reason would be)

  39. 39
    HyperIon says:

    Ed Schultz needs more attention

    and you are giving it to him.

    BTW who the fuck is Ed Schultz?
    Please don’t answer as I have gotten this far in life without knowing….

    There are lots of people wrong on the Internet and on TV. Do you intend to name them individually and repeatedly?

  40. 40
    jl says:

    @Kevin Moore:
    People are disillusioned, Sure they are.

    But staying home is the silliest and about the most irresponsible way to deal with it.

    I don’t like write-in campaigns or symbolic third party runs, but even those are better than staying home. If Ed’s ego is even half as big as it seems to be, I think he would at least have the motivation to bestir himself on election day and write in his own name. But he can’t even muster that, he is going to sit on his fat self-righteous behind.

    I hope people complain loudly if he keeps talking about this, or starts to carry out his vague talk about a boycott.

    Ed thinks that, in the US, not voting out of cynicism or disillusion is ‘revolutionary’? It is more like a self destructive tradition in this country.

    Are we going to have two ‘Special Eds’ now? one on each side of the political spectrum. Special Ed Left and Special Ed Right?

  41. 41
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    So what does a conscientious liberal do? Shut up and hold your nose and vote for some douchebag because there is D next to the name?

    You let Blanche Lincoln lose and do everything you can to get Paul Hodes to replace Judd Gregg and Lee Fischer to replace Voinavich. You do everything you can to mobilize younger voters and minority voters and some of the twenty million single women who don’t vote, so you that people like Dianne Feinstein and Bill Nelson, who have Blue Dog tendencies, see that caving to the right isn’t always the best voting strategy. When the DNC calls and asks for money, you laugh at them and tell them not one fucking dime while Ben Nelson is still in the party. You harass the media so that maybe we can work the refs back in the other direction .
    You don’t give up and walk away because you’re not getting the political theatre you want.

  42. 42
    Allison W. says:

    Ed must be trying to set himself up as a player for 2012. Everyone and their mother is saying the Dems will lose big in the mid-terms. He gets out in front and says he will stay home and then the day after he can proclaim that Dems lost because HE and his 5 million viewers stayed home. Now Obama will have to come on his show since Ed has soooo much influence on elections.

  43. 43

    @Kevin Moore: There is never a strategy behind not voting, we cannot cease living today in hopes tomorrow might be better. To get to tomorrow you have to participate in today. And in politics, not participating usually means the other side of two gets it’s way with you and yours. If you don’t like a dem candidate, agitate for a primary candidate you can support. If he/she wins, fine, if not the calculus is always the same. You either vote for a flawed democrat, or the wingnut. Nobody gets to navel gaze that there is any more to it than that and still be part of the system/

  44. 44
    You Don't Say says:

    @You Don’t Say: For instance, Matthews is making some asshole Republican look like the fool he is right now …. not that that’s too hard.

  45. 45
    Stillwater says:

    Back in his Air America days, I remember being very confused as to whether he was a liberal (he was on AA) or a conservative (he advocated armedness as a solution to political problems). This was maybe 6-7 yrs ago. I settled on the idea that he was a member of the recently converted who left conservativism in a huff, but couldn’t get comfortable in his new team colors. Anyone know if that is right?
    …….

    Found this from Wiki:

    He became a Democrat in 2000 marking the formal turn in his politics from conservative to liberal.

    Personally, I think this may go some distance in explaining his histrionics – he still thinks like a Republican.

  46. 46

    @HyperIon: Always the ray of sunshine.

  47. 47
    Allison W. says:

    I have grown to detest people who proclaim all day that there is nothing we can do when the reason we are being screwed is that we are not doing anything. Or not doing enough.

    Just look at republicans. As they continue to shit on this country, they get rewarded with silence or money. They will stop when they get punished. And the way to punish them is to vote them out over and over and over again.

  48. 48
    Suffern Ace says:

    Jeebus.

    Dear Ed,

    You are a very wealthy man on a program that reaches millions. Therefore, whether you vote or not actually makes no difference. Because you have a media program, politicians will try to be interested in coming to you. Your viewers, on the other hand, have far fewer opportunities to do this, to at least be pandered to and counted, and elections are one of those times.

    It has been a very long time since the progressive position has been that life would be better if fewer people took an interest in politics and exercized the franchise. Our position has been that it would be good if MORE people did those things. While people who follow politics from the progressive side are fed up with the Senate and the party, it is no reason to tell people not to vote in this election. There are state offices, municipal offices and-for crying out loud-lots of House members who don’t deserve to be voted out of office just because Senate rules are a fluke. A lot of these local offices matter, and people should pay attention to them.

    Rich men who encourage everyday people not to vote or to participate one iota less in public life are not progressive.

    As has been noted elsewhere, it is not really revolutionary if you are already on top of the heap and will remain so no matter how you act.

  49. 49
    GaBuck says:

    What a bullet-headed frakking Asshat. This guy constantly gets schooled by the likes of Ron Christie (and brother that’s sayin’ something) and somehow keeps a show on national teebee.

    well, like Forrest always said “stupid is as stupid does”

  50. 50
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Stillwater: Schultz is mercurial. He went from excoriating crazy leftists who were going after that fine, sensible Democrat Joe Lieberman to getting into a fist fight with a Lieberman supporter after the primary. When I started hearing his show after Franken quit, he was very blue doggy, used to have Kent Conrad and Max Baucus on a lot to wax on about heartland values and bipartisanship. The health care fight seems to have been a real turning point for him, and good on him, but this ridiculous tantrum is infuriating. I agree, Tom Vilsack is a fucking moron. So call him out on it. Make other Dems and WH officials afraid to look stupid. The solution is not to send Carly Fiorina and Mike Castle to the Senate, or to encourage Stephanie Herseth (sp?) to lean further to the right.

  51. 51
    jl says:

    People need to contact Special Ed (Left Edition) and complain.

    If he opens his yap about this again, complain again, and ask that he lose his show.

    Not sure if it will do any good. From what I’ve seen of this guy, it might just set him off on a smug voting boycott crusade.

    Maybe some one should suggest a campaign where anyone dissatisfied with their choice for an office just write in Ed’s name. That would get him lots of attention, and as I mentioned, his ego seems big enough that he would be delighted with the idea.

  52. 52
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    You let Blanche Lincoln lose and do everything you can to get Paul Hodes to replace Judd Gregg and Lee Fischer to replace Voinavich. You do everything you can to mobilize younger voters and minority voters and some of the twenty million single women who don’t vote, so you that people like Dianne Feinstein and Bill Nelson, who have Blue Dog tendencies, see that caving to the right isn’t always the best voting strategy. When the DNC calls and asks for money, you laugh at them and tell them not one fucking dime while Ben Nelson is still in the party. You harass the media so that maybe we can work the refs back in the other direction .
    You don’t give up and walk away because you’re not getting the political theatre you want.

    Linked and quoted for truth.

  53. 53
    ThresherK says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: + 1 more for O’Donnell, but at least he doesn’t have Irishy McIrish disease:

    That odd strain of something which makes well-off MSNBC white men with Irish blood (like Tweety and Barnicle (and the late Tim Russert? Irish?) fetishize over the idea of hard-working middle-class middle-Americans to the exclusion of anything that will help todays Irishies (like myself) hang on to that middle-classness.

  54. 54
    Bob L says:

    @Kevin Moore: Because as bad as the Democrats get, we all know the Republicans are much, much worse. Frankly from a progressive stand point things remaining the same is a vast improvement from them just going to hell like they will with the GOP back in power.

  55. 55
    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people) says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Funny thing is Jon Stewart’s Daily Show has more viewers than most cable news shows if the wiki viewership listing of 2 million per night is true.

  56. 56
    Ed Marshall says:

    @Allison W.:

    I don’t think everyone and their mother is right. When you want to predict any election the most accurate model that exists uses one set of data: real income growth in the six months before the election. Voters are not real bright, they don’t remember six months back, unemployment doesn’t seem to phase them, everything else is more or less noise as long as people think the last six months have seen improvement.

    Real income has been growing over the past six months, there is supposedly going to be some strong numbers out of the auto sector tomorrow along with the new real income numbers in the Personal Incomes and Outlays report from the BEA due out tomorrow. Pay attention to that.

    This isn’t some dark art either, it’s been known to political science to greater and lesser degrees of certainty for a decade. It just doesn’t sell newspapers or make must-see-teevee.

  57. 57
    angler says:

    This all felt good. F yeah! F Ed! FF and F the F word!! I never liked Ed anyway. He has the nerve to draw a paycheck and has personal qualities that not everyone finds amenable.

    Listening to the segment, ES says he won’t vote IF . . . Dems let unemployment benefits expire for those at 99 week mark and urges those at 99 week mark to organize politically.

    Vote for the Dems even if they stick it to the middle class because the Repubs will stick it harder, but save the sanctimonious rage. If the Senate can’t win some easy ones what are they doing. That’s the point, and it’s the same point in a bunch of recent BJ posts about the new dismal normal for middle class Americans.

  58. 58
    PaulW says:

    If Ed wants to Go Galt, I’ll gladly take his job. I’ll do it cheaper too.

  59. 59
    taterstick says:

    I am proud to say that I have never watched Ed’s show, and sure as hell haven’t listened to him on the radio. I can stand Tweety for about five minutes, KO for about ten. Rachel I could listen to all day. Ed? No fucking way.

    He is one huge WATB.

  60. 60
    Nick says:

    I’m checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don’t know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver’s seat, you hit the throttle, and you run over ‘em.

    Too bad there wasn’t an open Senate seat in Ed’s home state so he can put his money where his mouth is and actually run for the seat in hopes of bringing change to the Senate.

    …oh wait.

    He’s not going to vote…pffft, what an asshole, he acts like he doesn’t have an opportunity to go and do something helpful, LIKE RUN FOR OFFICE LIKE AL FRANKEN DID WHEN PRESENTED TO OPPORTUNITY, of course not, he’ll lose.

  61. 61
    Tom Hilton says:

    @freelancer: and don’t forget his role in Big Love.

  62. 62
    jl says:

    @angler:

    I listened to the segment, and I choose to be sanctimonious about it.

    There are many constructive things that people can do if they are dissatisfied with their party before an election. Some will work better than others (contacting party bigshots and telling them they will not get your money unless they shape up, and you will bypass the party when you give, may have some impact). Some have very little chance of success, except if enough people do them, they might have some symbolic impact (write in campaign).

    Staying home is not one of them. And not voting is definitely not revolutionary, at least in this country.

  63. 63
    Resident Firebagger says:

    @Kevin Moore:

    Not to re-litigate the past, as the kids say, but you should at least acknowledge that behind Ed’s blowhard bellowing there is a kernel of a truth, that both parties really super suck, and there are many very good reasons to seek out alternative political representation.

    Yes.

  64. 64
    Allison W. says:

    @angler:

    IF? the benefits for 99er’s are already done. If you’ve reached it, that’s it. And if your state’s unemployment rate has dipped below a certain level, you only up to 93.

    Instead of threatening not to vote. Ed could use his influence at nbc and get them to talk to or about 99er’s on local morning shows or local news.

  65. 65
    Stillwater says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Schultz is mercurial.

    That’s what I remember most from the radio show – seemingly uncaused eruptions of emotion (usually anger). That and the sniping, pot shots, platitudes expressed with such intensity he felt sure they were conveying something more … And of course the mutual reach-around with his favored blue dogs.

    I’ve never heard him speak intelligently about a nuanced or complicated issue.

  66. 66
    Nick says:

    @jl:

    There are many constructive things that people can do if they are dissatisfied with their party before an election. Some will work better than others (contacting party bigshots and telling them they will not get your money unless they shape up, and you will bypass the party when you give, may have some impact). Some have very little chance of success, except if enough people do them, they might have some symbolic impact (write in campaign).

    and some who have the money, the support, and the name recognition RUN FOR FUCKING OFFICE WHEN PRESENTED THE CHANCE!

  67. 67
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Kevin Moore:

    Not to re-litigate the past, as the kids say, but you should at least acknowledge that behind Ed’s blowhard bellowing there is a kernel of a truth, that both parties really super suck, and there are many very good reasons to seek out alternative political representation.

    The kernel of ‘truth’, such as it is, is that both parties really super suck if you judge them according to an ideal that is completely unattainable in this country.

    Of course, judging them by that standard makes no sense at all; hence the scare quotes around ‘truth’.

    As I’ve said before (repeatedly): you go to elections with the politicians you have, not the politicians you wish you had.

    (By the way: if you’re yearning for a 3rd party that isn’t doomed to instant irrelevance, then do everything you can to push ranked-choice or instant runoff voting. If we had IRV in presidential elections, it would be possible for people to express their true preferences without actively working against their policy interests. Until that’s the case, there’s no possibility of a constructive 3rd party.)

  68. 68
    Mike in NC says:

    I think half of MSNBC’s lineup is Irish-American.

    Well, I’ll drink to that! It’s Monday!

  69. 69
    Nick says:

    @jl:

    I think he would at least have the motivation to bestir himself on election day and write in his own name.

    He wouldn’t even run for Senate when a seat was offered to him by the Democratic Party on a fine piece of china.

  70. 70
    Newsie8200 says:

    Here’s why the Ed Schultz’s of the world are even dumber than you think.

    Given the importance of state legislatures and governor’s offices to redistricting, if the GOP wins enough seats, they’ll just gerrymander their way to a majority in the House… in other words, they’ll draw districts that result in a Congress that is even less representative of the electorate.

    And then, you’ll find the same progressives wondering why legislation is watered down even further.

    And let’s not even get started on the subpoenas. Like progressives will get anything if the only thing coming out of Congress is frivolous subpoenas and investigations of the Obama White House.

    The obstacles to progressive change are many, and we can’t control them all and can only affect a few. One of the few obstacles we can change is the shortsightedness of other progressives.

    The Ed Schultzes of the world have been working this same shtick for decades and they’ve only seen more backsliding.

  71. 71
    Nick says:

    @Allison W.:

    Ed must be trying to set himself up as a player for 2012. Everyone and their mother is saying the Dems will lose big in the mid-terms. He gets out in front and says he will stay home and then the day after he can proclaim that Dems lost because HE and his 5 million viewers stayed home. Now Obama will have to come on his show since Ed has soooo much influence on elections.

    Well, he’ll be disappointed, because everyone was (rightfully) blame the movement of Independents to Republicans, the President will move to the center, abandon the left, get reelected or lose, the Democrats will abandon the most controversial parts of their agenda, and the liberals can wander in the proverbial desert for another decade.

  72. 72
    Nick says:

    @Newsie8200: I’m pretty sure people like Ed aren’t interested in passing progressive legislation. They know reality, they have to change votes to pass things, votes that cannot be changed.

    They just want to see stuff like Anthony Weiner did last week and live in a fantasy world where everyone else does too. It makes them feel strong. They just want yelling. They don’t care about results.

  73. 73
    keestadoll says:

    Poor Ed. He’s broken so many mirrors by kissing them so hard, not too mention chronic neck strain from giving himself fellatio.

  74. 74
    Newsie8200 says:

    @Nick:
    The result they seek is not progressive legislation… IA with you there. The result they seek is having their ego stroked.

  75. 75
    Malron says:

    For those who may not remember, another Manic-Progressive superhero went on “The View” soon after the 2008 elections to announce he never votes in elections.

    Same Bat shit, same Bat station.

  76. 76
    burnspbesq says:

    @HyperIon:

    Please don’t answer as I have gotten this far in life without knowing….

    Lovely. Ignorance is rarely a winning strategy in anything, but hey, knock yourself out.

  77. 77
    Nick says:

    @Socraticsilence:

    I mean he does realize the reason FDR and LBJ could ram things through is that they had 60+ and that the filibuster wasn’t used nearly as often right? I mean he’s not just ignorant I assume.

    Worse, he doesn’t even realize FDR and LBJ didn’t RAM anything through, but rather compromised to get enough votes. It’s revisionist history.

  78. 78
    kay says:

    Ed should read the piece on the Senate that John just posted, and he’d have a better understanding of what’s going on.
    I think it’s weird to say “I’m not voting in the midterms”.
    So he’s not voting in any state or local races, either? Or he’s just leaving the US House line blank?
    He lives in some wholly federal, oddly congressional state and community?
    Do people really split a protest ticket like that?
    I don’t have a chance in hell of my congressional candidate winning, but that’s always the case. I don’t feel like I need “total ticket enthusiasm” to provide enough momentum for that arduous 23 minute journey.

  79. 79
    burnspbesq says:

    @Resident Firebagger:

    Oh, Christ – not the same old bankrupt Naderite “there’s no difference” shit. Even you aren’t stupid enough to fall for that one.

  80. 80
    Nick says:

    @kay: I’m pretty sure Ed lives in DC, so his vote is worthless anyway

  81. 81
    Malron says:

    Also, too, and then some, you betcha: go fuck yourself, guy-who-looks-like-Limbaugh.

  82. 82
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Newsie8200: Exactly. I mean if you have a choice between two bad candidates for one office, leave the line blank, but telling people to stay home is irresponsible, and actually not much different than leaving a note under someone’s door telling them that their polling place has changed or that the vote was called off.

    I mean, is Bill White such a monstrosity to humanity that having him as the governor of Texas would be “Just awful. Just the same as Perry?” Would Minnesota be just grand with Mike Emmer as governor, so the heck with it?

  83. 83
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    You don’t give up and walk away because you’re not getting the political theater you want.

    This. If everyone on the left thought this way, I wouldn’t care at all about what they sound like.

  84. 84
    Paula says:

    @Newsie8200:

    The obstacles to progressive change are many, and we can’t control them all and can only affect a few. One of the few obstacles we can change is the shortsightedness of other progressives.

    Can you, really? I mean, are they really a part of any movement?

    I’m half kidding, but only half. Reading their reasoning in random flame wars about “ponies” and what-not and it honestly seems like all they care about is their own feelings in being acknowledged by … someone, anyone in politics whether it be POTUS or John Cole. A lot of it is the same kind of shallow “retail” and/or narrowly ideological politics that we decry the “other” side of having — just because we agree on the abstract idea of “health care for all” doesn’t mean that the fundamental problems of American progressive politics have been mitigated. Mainly, anti-left pro-capitalist corporate propaganda, a legislature corrupted by greed, nominally “conservative” ideals like “Christian” values and the myth of a meritocracy, a population that’s either too comfortable or too undereducated about issues.

    Very few of these people sound like they’ve made serious attempts at convincing non-liberals to change their minds. Very few of them attempt it even among like-liberals, so …

    At the end of the day, real progressive activists are still struggling to build a constituency in country inundated by conservative propaganda, which the only way to get stronger left-leaning pols and better legislation. They get no help from the bloggy hordes because those guys are too busy typing about what-have-you and not making progress with actual humans beyond the keyboard. (And then they wonder why they’re not making progress beyond the keyboard. Vicious cycle.)

  85. 85
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @angler: The only “easy” wins would be the ones where Dems allowed the Republicans to write the bills. It will not be easy again in the Senate until people get out and vote so many Republicans out of Congress that their wills are crushed. Which won’t happen as long as people like Ed keep telling people to stay home.

  86. 86
    Shalimar says:

    @Stillwater: Rumor right before his Air America stint was that Ed had become a liberal because he saw a syndicated market that he could get rich from in a way he never would as a run-of-the-mill local conservative radio guy just like thousands of others around the country. Who knows whether that is true or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

  87. 87
    Kerry Reid says:

    You forgot the link to the video of the announcement!

  88. 88
    kay says:

    @Nick:

    his vote is worthless anyway

    DC has local races. I think it’s baloney, Nick.

    Non-Presidential years are lower turnout elections. If you’re in the habit of voting, you’d show up, for one or another reason.

    I don’t really get why he needs a whole bushel ‘o enthusiasm to go vote for his city council members or in other local races. I recognize it’s not as action-packed as a Presidential election year, but reliable voters somehow manage to get up off the couch, with or without “enthusiasm”.

  89. 89
    Nick says:

    @kay: Well I was thinking his vote was worthless when it comes to Congress.

  90. 90
    micah616 says:

    Ed is a moron.

    For most of human history, one could not vote for one’s leadership. A few hundred years out of 100K? Here in the US, roughly half of people don’t vote, and less than 40% on off years, and that’s after two major struggles to secure the voting rights of blacks and women.

    Maybe for a rich, straight, white male like Ed is not voting is revolutionary, but not for anybody the fuck else.

  91. 91
    Kerry Reid says:

    @Stillwater:

    Lovely. So even though I’m apparently quite a few years younger than Schultz, I’ve voted (and worked) for Democratic candidates in at least four more presidential cycles than he has. So he can officially have a nice hot cup of STFU until he’s got some more skin in the game. Jesus.

    And if you don’t want to vote, just don’t fucking do it. No one needs a goddamn PSA every time some whiny tool mistakes his or her fainting couch for a barricade. It’s not about you, Ed. Really, it isn’t.

  92. 92
    eemom says:

    Here’s another “kernel of truth”: rich assholes like Ed who have no personal stake in the outcome of any election can afford to put on bullshit drama queen acts about not voting being “revolutionary.”

    The rest of us, not so much.

    Fuck you and DIAF, Ed.

  93. 93
    Son of Dunn County says:

    It’s nice to see from all the comments that the left wing circular firing squad is still alive and in use. No one has seemed to learned a damned thing these past 30 years about not attacking our own. Use all that energy to attack the right wing talking heads, pundits and radio jocks. Stop being stupid and grow up.

  94. 94
    Comrade Kevin says:

    One thing about Schultz’s radio show. It is not, and was not, an Air America program.

  95. 95
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Paula: Not that I haven’t participated in this, but I do think it is rather sad that in 2010, progressives feel the need to affirm or debate that voting in elections is something we agree on.

  96. 96
    Stillwater says:

    @Shalimar: Well, if true, it would certainly explain why has attitudes and behavior so often appear like a (somewhat sympathetic) rightwinger’s caricature of a liberal rather than the sincere expressions of an actual liberal.

    I mean, Ed’s no liberal, he just plays one on TV.

  97. 97
    handy says:

    @Comrade Kevin:

    No, but Stephanie Miller wasn’t either, neither was Randy Rhodes after a while, nor Mike Malloy for that matter. Which raises the question: what exactly was Air America, anyway?

  98. 98
    Gary says:

    @Kerry Reid

    No one needs a goddamn PSA every time some whiny tool mistakes his or her fainting couch for a barricade.

    Thank you. It has never been said any better.

  99. 99
    Dennis G. says:

    What a complete asshole.

    And yet we still must wonder this WATB was given an opening night speaking slot at NN. What I don’t get is how punching a rag in the wind like Ed became equated with ‘hippie punching’.

    Ed is about as progressive as New Coke.

    Still, the clip of Corky could fill in for Ed on any show, anytime–just run that sucker on an endless loop.

    Cheers

  100. 100
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @lamh32 #38:

    Absolutely (I even vote in primary run-offs!)

    You know, I wouldn’t even have that much of a problem with people who went to the polls and then refrained from casting a vote in selected races (or voted “none of the above” if that’s an option) as a statement of conscience. But just to stay home? AFAIC you lose the right to express any political opinion about any issue or elected official.

    I have never liked Ed Schultz. The arrogance displayed in this bit of assery is why.

  101. 101
    Redshift says:

    @Stillwater: On radio, I used to occasionally tune in for a bit if it happened to be his time slot. Then one day he had an old friend of his on for a friendly conversation, the head of the John Birch Society. After that I couldn’t hit the station change fast enough when I heard his voice.

  102. 102
    Michael says:

    @Kevin Moore:

    Staying home and not voting may be silly, but his larger point is frustration with both Obama and the Democrats for either conceding too much to the right wing, or perpetuating policies created by Bush that are odious. So what does a conscientious liberal do? Shut up and hold your nose and vote for some douchebag because there is D next to the name? Or do you find third party candidates who better represent one’s values, conscience, policy preferences, etc? The last time I did that, I was told I had made it possible for Bush to win—even though I voted in a Gore-winning state. (Funny, I thought the Supreme Court did the election stealing, anyway.)

    Fuck you and your kind. You’ve done that over and over, and wondered why, in the face of a demographic war that pony hunters cannot win, you never seem to win.

    Did you consider that elevating the Gore totals in Gore states might have made some of those 5 Bush selectors on SCOTUS blink?

  103. 103
    eemom says:

    I’m not usually one for litmus tests but this qualifies. Anyone who says they care about progressive values, change, or anything else good and decent who refuses to vote, is a liar and a fraud. The End.

  104. 104
    Someguyfromnewhaven says:

    What Cole said, a thousand times. Some excellent comments too, but I’ve sort of learned to expect that (on both ends.) Great blog.

    Not really a comment, but when I put this post up at FB, the ‘teaser’ text is all wrong— after the headline, the preview begins with Idiot Ed’s little tantrum. Sort of gives the wrong impression(!)

    Thought I should mention it, anyway. Cheers, and a good Anything-Can-Happen-Tuesday to all.

  105. 105
    CalD says:

    The things you miss when you’re sworn off cable “news”.

  106. 106
    angee says:

    what about Tamron Hall @5?
    She will definitely give msnbc more diversity. Loved her and David Shuster together. Amazing how msnbc let the good ones get away.

  107. 107
    slag says:

    SamSederSamSederSamSederSamSederSamSeder… Sam Seder!

  108. 108
    Newsie8200 says:

    @Paula:

    I’m half kidding, but only half. Reading their reasoning in random flame wars about “ponies” and what-not and it honestly seems like all they care about is their own feelings in being acknowledged by … someone, anyone in politics whether it be POTUS or John Cole. A lot of it is the same kind of shallow “retail” and/or narrowly ideological politics that we decry the “other” side of having—just because we agree on the abstract idea of “health care for all” doesn’t mean that the fundamental problems of American progressive politics have been mitigated.
    […]
    Very few of these people sound like they’ve made serious attempts at convincing non-liberals to change their minds. Very few of them attempt it even among like-liberals, so …
    At the end of the day, real progressive activists are still struggling to build a constituency in country inundated by conservative propaganda, which the only way to get stronger left-leaning pols and better legislation. They get no help from the bloggy hordes because those guys are too busy typing about what-have-you and not making progress with actual humans beyond the keyboard. (And then they wonder why they’re not making progress beyond the keyboard. Vicious cycle.)

    You won’t get an argument from me on what you wrote here.

  109. 109
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    It’s another Historic Obama Win!

  110. 110

    @Allison W.:

    It sounds to me like you need to grow a pair of spines and get in the driver’s seat and put the pedal to the metal because when you’re stuck digging two holes the last thing you need to bring is three shovels.

    Whoa! Shit. For a moment there I was channeling Ed Schultz and Tom Friedman. When I find the dealer who sold me this shit…

  111. 111

    Fucking Ed Schultz. What a crybaby piece of shit. Do you know what I hate about fucks like him? Well lots of things, but this whole “I’m not voting” schtick. Jesus that pisses me the fuck off. Like how fucking hard is it to vote? Hell you don’t even have to go to the polls in most states any more. Just mail in your ballot. The way that fucksticks like Ed Schultz make it sound they’re doing something as dangerous and revolutionary as what the Freedom Riders were doing in 1961 or what the civil rights marchers were doing in Birmingham.

  112. 112

    @Kerry Reid:

    No one needs a goddamn PSA every time some whiny tool mistakes his or her fainting couch for a barricade. It’s not about you, Ed. Really, it isn’t.

    FTFMW! Man I wish I wrote that. What a brilliant image.

  113. 113

    @jl:

    Are we going to have two ‘Special Eds’ now? one on each side of the political spectrum. Special Ed Left and Special Ed Right?

    Can “Special Ed Left” and “Special Ed Right” become tags?

  114. 114

    @John Cole

    Ed Schultz needs more attention:

    Would kicking him in the junk count? I’ll be very attentive while I do it.

  115. 115

    @Socraticsilence:

    What the hell does that even mean in the context of the Senate- that Harry Reid should kill a few GOP’rs to break the filibuster?

    You have to admit, that would be kind of awesome. Harry Reid stands up while some shit golem like Sessions, DeMint or Shelby is bloviating, pulls on a pair of gloves, pulls out a Colt 1911, screws a silencer onto the end of and just caps the motherfucker.

    Personally though I’d like to see Reid re-enact the teamwork scene from The Untouchables and crush Joe Lieberman’s skull with a baseball bat.

  116. 116
    JenJen says:

    @Kerry Reid: Late to the party, but good gawd, did you nail it. Genius!

    Corky!!

    I needed this LOL tonight. Thanks Cole, and Kerry.

  117. 117
    OhSuzanna says:

    Absolutely can’t watch him. I used to listen to his radio show from time to time before he joined MSNBC, but all he does now is shout and say ridiculous things. No Schultz and no more Tweety (until he dumps Pat Buchanan).

  118. 118
    Kerry Reid says:

    @Wile E. Quixote: I agree! No one is asking Schultz to stand on the Selma bridge and get his head bashed in to exercise his franchise. Seriously, I cannot stand the air of victimization. I also suspect that some of these same people who are so “disillusioned” by Obama also routinely dump partners because they aren’t their “soulmates.” As Chris Rock put it, “Nobody gets a ‘soulmate.’ If you’re lucky, you get a mate.”

    Didn’t Schultz also go on at Netroots Nation about “working his ass off” for Obama? Meaning WHAT, exactly? I worked at a ward office in Chicago one night a week as a volunteer doing phone banking — it was a commitment, it required rearranging some things in my life, but I wouldn’t say I killed myself. OTOH, my friend who ran the office full-time essentially gave up most of her other freelance/consulting gigs for two months to volunteer for Obama — she decided she could afford it (barely), and it was the most important thing she could do, long-term, for the nonprofits she usually works for. THAT is working your ass off. Bloviating for big bucks on the airwaves? That is what your idiot overlords pay you to do.

  119. 119
    Ronbo says:

    It seem perfectly sane to me to take the same actions and expect different results?!?

    With a 60 person majority, the Democrats voted for maintaining the status quo. Healthcare (?), no, forced insurance purchases. Stronger banking regulation? Let’s have a panel of bankers regulating bankers. That’s change you can’t believe in!

  120. 120
    themann1086 says:

    @Ronbo: Clearly, letting the Republicans back in will make things better! Wait…

    Assholes like you (and Schultz) are like the assholes who think if a battered woman goes back to her husband and he really gives it to her, this time she’ll leave him for good! What’s a few beatings, a broken bone or two, and psychological trauma compared to the long term good? Maybe this time, when America goes back to the Republicans, they’ll screw us over so much that they’ll finally, permanently leave them! What’s a few million dead people, collapsing infrastructure, and worsening wealth inequality compared to the long term good?

  121. 121

    Staying home and not voting may be silly, but his larger point is frustration with both Obama and the Democrats for either conceding too much to the right wing, or perpetuating policies created by Bush that are odious. So what does a conscientious liberal do? Shut up and hold your nose and vote for some douchebag because there is D next to the name?

    Yes. That’s exactly what you do. Because the alternative is so much worse, that there are actual real life and death consequences. And having a poutrage is only going to make things worse.

    You have every opportunity to vote your heart out for the liberalist of the liberals in the primaries. After that, you have to suck it up, hold your nose, and do what you have to do to prevent the country from getting worse.

  122. 122
    Tom Betz says:

    @handy:

    Initially, it was Morning Sedition at 6 AM (lightning in a bottle starring Marc Maron, Mark Riley, the short-lived Sue Ellicott, and a cast of writers and the characters they played, most prominent among them Kent Jones and Jim Earl), followed at 9 AM by Chuck D, Liz Winstead and Rachel Maddow and Unfiltered, then The Al Franken Factor (just to piss off Bill O’Reilly) at noon. 3PM to 7 PM (yes, four hours) was Randi Rhodes, followed by Marty Kaplan’s one-hour arts program So What Else is News? and ending with Sam Seder and Janeane Garofolo’s three-hourThe Majority Report.

    Then Marty Kaplan was fired and Majority Report moved from 7 to 10, and for a while, Mike Malloy ran from 10 to 1 AM.

    Then it all began to fall apart.

  123. 123
    Kerry Reid says:

    @themann1086:
    Stealing this analogy for future reference. Thanks!

  124. 124
    sceptical about ES show says:

    IMHO, the ES show has become a place for right wingers, posing as progressives, to call in, bitch about non-issues, tell lies, start conspiracies, and get Ed to agree.

  125. 125
    Cheeryjuan says:

    @You Don’t Say:

    Ed barely has 500,000 viewers and only 120,000 viewers in the key demographics between 18 and 54.

Comments are closed.