Ed Schultz and the blogosphere

[BobcatJH]

I listen to Ed Schultz's radio show every day. Since I realized that there was an alternative in the area to local right-wing gasbags, Big Eddie has been a fixture in my afternoon repertoire. Each day at 3 p.m., I look forward to his views on the issues of the day, from matters as pressing as Iraq to those as trivial as his many fishing trips. He confronts topics head-on, offering his many listeners a no-strings-attached chance to debate the host. His mic is open and so, typically, is his mind.

But I had to scratch my head yesterday when I heard Schultz say, about the race between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, "And I think what we're seeing here is a struggle. And I'm not in the middle of it. But for some reason, it just seems to me that the blogosphere is doing everything they possibly can to make life miserable for Joe Lieberman." To be sure, Schultz has some strong positions on the blogosphere. But you would never guess why he thinks the blogs are going after Lieberman.

Schultz began Monday's show by responding to an R.J. Eskow column on the Huffington Post taking the leftie talker to task for, in his view, adopting right-wing spin in support of Lieberman. Friday, Eskow paraphrased Schultz as mentioning that Lieberman voted with the Democrats 90 percent of the time, then asking "what is enough" for some people? A higher percentage? In response, Eskow said, "'What's enough' is whatever Connecticut's primary voters say is enough. Period. If Ned Lamont can convince a majority of primary voters on Aug. 8 that Lieberman doesn't represent them, for any reason - then that's enough. It's called 'democracy.'"

Schultz responded during Monday's monologue, maintaining that he hasn't endorsed either candidate in the race, also mentioning that, while he supports Lamont's views on redeployment, censure and North Korea, he did think that Lieberman defeated his challenger during last week's debate. To Big Eddie, this is about how big the Democratic Party's tent really is. It's also about his thoughts as to the netroots' motivation behind their widespread support for Lamont, whose surge has forced Lieberman to plan to abandon his party and run as an independent should the challenger win the primary. The motivation? 2004.

"This is all about Iowa and Howard Dean and how Joe Lieberman really, relentlessly went after Dean and the bloggers have never forgotten it," Schultz said, later adding, "He was aggressive. He went after Dean on every position. And the blogosphere obviously mounted the attack and the support of Howard Dean, obviously because he's a grassroots guy and he represents what he claims to be the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. ... But I think there's a little angst in all of those on the far left in dealing with the blogs and I believe it has morphed into something even bigger than that, to the point where 'It's all about Lieberman and we're going to prove it and we're going to do a get-back.' This seems to me to be a 100 percent get-back."

When I heard that, I did a double-take. Iowa? While Schultz is on the right side of things on so many issues, I found this lack of awareness stunning. How could someone like Schultz, who clearly has his finger on the pulse of many Americans, show such a tin ear for why many - including the blogosphere - oppose Lieberman. "We are not against Joe Lieberman because we are leftists who require ideological purity," as Cenk Uygur said so well. "We are against him because he aids and abets an out of control Republican Party." And Uygur, a true centrist Democrat, offered a very accurate assessment of why people like him, and many others, oppose Lieberman.

To Uygur, it's not just that Lieberman has sided with the right on the most pressing issue facing America. It's that the senator has carved out a niche of being the right's favorite Fox News Democrat. The same Fox News Democrat who parroted his right-wing friends when he said last year, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." The same Fox News Democrat who appears alongside Sean Hannity nearly as often as does Alan Colmes. The same Fox News Democrat Ann Coulter wholeheartedly endorsed. Yes, the war matters. So does the Supreme Court. But it's about much more than that. It's also about Lieberman's willingness to give the Republican Party bipartisan cover for its disastrous policies.

Yet, to Schultz, pointing out our opposition to Lieberman brands us as a pack of wolves out to get the senator, doing so as revenge for the 2004 Democratic primaries. That, to me, is laughable. Schultz, whose show is a testament to vigorous debate, should recognize the blogosphere for what it is, not what it's not. We're not a nameless, faceless lynch mob out to settle political scores for our boss. We're part of the new face of American politics. We represent a new approach, an open-source philosophy that appreciates the impact an everyday, average American can have on the political process. A philosophy that respects the power a motivated group of these Americans can have when they organize behind their ideas. A philosophy that rejects the notion that the only acceptable conventional wisdom comes from inside the Beltway.

In fact, fuck the Beltway. Beltway thinking got us into Iraq and kept us there 2,500-plus deaths past Mission Accomplished. Beltway thinking has America locked in a staredown with Iran and North Korea. Beltway thinking has taken away our rights and has turned the government from our friend into our enemy. Behind this tragic transformation has been the Republican Party. And behind the Republican Party have been willing accomplices like Lieberman. If participation in my small corner of the blogosphere has taught me anything, it's that we no longer have to sit back and take it as people like Lieberman undercut the party while claiming to support it. We don't have to take it or leave it anymore. We don't have to buy the rocks with the farm. This rock, Lieberman's rock, is too big a boulder for our farm to sustain.

We're not trying to throw Lieberman under the bus, nor are we trying to shrink the size of our tent. We're also not taking our marching orders from the top, either from atop the Democratic Party or atop the blogosphere. No, we're fostering an open debate on the issues, the very type of dialogue Schultz champions. Why not get it all out there and let the people decide, something Big Eddie has said over and over? To paint this as an across-the-board personality attack against Lieberman is to insult the very motivations for Connecticut Democrats to support Lamont. To couch this election in those terms is to adopt right-wing frames and allow them to marginalize as extremists those taking part in a movement that embraces the best aspects of our democracy. It's too bad Schultz doesn't recognize that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Good analysis

I don't listen to Ed Schulz since Guy James is online, but it was interesting to find out what Big Eddie is saying and thinking now. I'll stick with Guy, I think.

[OKNancy]

2. excellent

I don't listen to Schultz, but as you wrote... it's not about Dean and Iowa. I'd say there are probably a lot of non-Dean people who are disgusted with Lieberman too. I know that, as a Clark supporter, that never entered my mind. My total disgust with Lieberman is all about his independent run. Up until then I figured that, although his actions were not to my liking, I'd sit back and let the voters of Connecticut decide. When he decided to opt for an independent run is when I decided that a long distance donation might be in order for Lamont.

[DeBunk]

3. I like Ed, but he's and establishment democrat

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. However, I do think that we, progressive democrats, are going to win this fight with the establishment democrats.

The reason is....they don't win elections.

Fuck Lieberman. We are doing the right thing supporting Lamont.

If it were just that Lieberman supported the war I wouldn't care that much.

But, Lieberman is part of the right wing spin machine. He whored himself out at our expense. He gave them ammunition against us.

For that I think he must go down.

[ray of light]

48. this is funny because last week DU was calling him a Republican

[stepnw1f]

63. Not Everybody at DU

[Cha]

4. They like to frame

what the reasoning is..they don't want to say it's because "bloggers think lieberman bushwar loving lying son of a bitch."

[Bretttido]

5. I want Lamont to kick Lieberman's sorry ass!

And I had no idea that Lieberman railed against Dean in 2004. I want Lieberman out for the same reason we all do: he is a Bush-apologist that has helped empower the Republican stranglehold over all branches of our government.

[erknm]

52. It is time to stop evaluating options based on how they align with the

Republicans. I cannot think of a more ridiculous statement than:

"We are against him because he aids and abets an out of control Republican Party."

What are his policies? He, like so many others, supported the war in Iraq. He has not backed down while others have conveniently forgotten that they too rode the wave of popular opinion and supported our efforts in Iraq. Now of course, either they claim they did no such thing, or whine about being misled. While I oppose much of what has happened in Iraq, I applaud Lieberman for his integrity in not trying to pretend that he said anything different. He is not practicing revisionism.

Once again, when will we grow up and stop evaluating options based on what the Republicans support? It reminds me of a teenager who will do whatever his parents oppose.

Embarrassing.

FH

[Polemicist]

56. You sound like a Republican...

For if you don't dislike someone who aids Republican politics, like Joe Lieberman has consistently done for the last 6 years, then you must like Republican politics.

Calling those who reject Republican political ideologies and reject those who enable the GOP, as "rebellious teenagers" and "embarrassing", is doing nothing more than spouting right-wing talking points and attacking the person, rather than their political position.

You sir, sound like a Republican. In sheep's clothing.

[Bretttido]

79. No one is allowed to change their position when new facts arise!

At least that is the thinking in Bush-World... you must either stay the course or you are unpatriotic, un-american, hate the troops, or are trying to "rewrite history". There is a word for when someone that makes a decision and sticks to that decision no matter what new evidence is presented to them. No, it's not "patriotic" like the folks at faux news might tell you. It's "Stubborn"

What do the Republicans in congress support? Not holding the executive branch accountable for anything; Gross amendments that degrade what our constitution represents; a domestic policy that puts corporate interests above the interests of their constituents; unrestrained corruption. If you want to support someone who encourages this kind of congress, then by all means, Lieberman is your kinda guy.

Take that mentality to freeper-land and they will throw kisses at you.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. Lieberbush has the blood of 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dripping from

his war-mongering hands, never forget that. Then there is the blood of the 2500+ U.S. soldiers dripping from his war-mongering hands. How anyone who isn't a raving Likkudnik can support him is beyond me.

[FredStembottom]

6. He'll let callers on to make this very point, however.

I have bones to pick with Ed, for sure. But it's the best place to actually hear what a caller's point is.

Someone will point out that Lieberman has worked against the Dem party in order to cozy up to criminals. And Ed will let the call on.

[LibDemAlways]

7. Does Ed Schultz really believe that

Lieberman has been "forced" to abandon his Party and run as an Independent if he loses? No one is forcing Lieberman to do anything, and, in fact, the honorable thing for him to do would be to accept the will of the voters and work his ass off for Lamont, if he's the Dem. nominee.

I've listened to Ed Schultz talk about how he has nothing against the chimp personally. I've heard him interview a bunch of uninspiring, middle-of-the-road DINOS. I'm not impressed. But then, I'm not Ed's target audience.

I think Schultz serves a purpose.He appeals to the working class guy who has probably voted "R" for years without even thinking about it. Schultz is giving that guy an alternative point of view and a reason to vote "D" for a change. If he can make some converts, that's fine by me.

Still, this is one battle Schultz should steer clear of. I know he has a soft spot for Holy Joe, but the decision is up to the voters of CT not Ed Schultz and not Joe Lieberman.

[ray of light]

49. You said his point! It's up to CT voters! (Exactly what Ed said!)

Which is why he pointing out that the blogs have been a NATIONAL movement against Lieberman.

[LibDemAlways]

64. It is up to CT voters, but that certainly doesn't mean

that people elsewhere shouldn't express an opinion or make a donation to Lamont, it that's what they want to do. Holy Joe brought this on himself with his cozying up to Bush and support for the mess in Iraq. What happens in the Senate affects all of us, and we need more Dem. senators who will take on the administration - not ones endorsed by Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

[femrap]

51. Good analysis on Big Eddie....

he is out there to recapture the angry white male Reagan Democrats.

He's too right for me....and sometimes he sounds as if he hasn't done his homework....like yesterday's comments about the blogosphere and Lieberman.

I rather read than listen to him.

[LibDemAlways]

65. He proved to me he doesn't do his homework when he

had Howard Kurtz on as his guest and was genuinely surprised when he started spouting rw talking points. Get a clue, Ed.

[guidod]

77. Ed never does his homework!

But, I'm handicapped and pretty much stuck at home and he's a lot better than "Days of Our Lives". :shrug:

[Protagoras]

8. I thought his major fixation was wrapped around that 90%

as if having that number was what made the debate somehow valid (for Lieberman). And the idea that a number like couldn't possibly be made up.

But I've read a number of congressional score cards and this number is a joke. Why? Because it was given without any context OR source. (Edit: Some quick research shows me all some of today's articles mention Congressional Quarterly, but no link yet)

Is that 90% over the last 6 months, his whole career? During 1 year 3 years ago?

And how does that 90% compare with his voting for Conservative bills? 90% of bills passed are total pap to begin with so what are those 10% issues that Lieberman is crossing the line on. And how does his % compare to other Democratic Senators (if it's actually 90%).

And Ed knows these are BASIC questions that should be asked as soon as ANYONE starts tossing out some concrete number. Yet he did none of that.

Now it shouldn't have taken one of Ed's producers too long to go to a place like Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103 and check some of the data...but it doesn't appear that they did.

And this is a thread about ED, not Joe. So I'll leave it at this. Lieberman does obviously vote with Democrats on a lot of issues. But right now he is crossing the line on the issues that MATTER the most. Great, he agrees with Democrats on what days to declair national Pickle day...heck he even votes against some of the tax breaks that Bush is pushing through for billionaires. But on Choice, the War, and even Censorship he's doing things that he must answer for....answer to his constituents who obviously have opinions ON THOSE ISSUES.

Ed didn't do any homework...which isn't unusual when I've listened to Ed. If I could give his conversational style to RR I would and we'd have the best talk show on Radio...but I can't so I'll take shrill and informed over hearty and ignorant any day. Sorry Ed...but Lieberman isn't the only one crossing the line these days. Voters AND listeners are paying attention.

[mkb]

13. Senate Race

     I still believe that the choice facing progressives is a
difficult one.
     I only suggest being thoughtful about approaching these
issues, because I don't think the progressive movement is in a
strong position, at the present moment.  Lamont could very
well struggle to win in a general election contest.  One has
to consider carefully the ramifications of having a Republican
elected.  I think it should be thought over thoroughly.
 

[iconoclastNYC]

46. What?

Why don't you think the "progressive movement" is in a very strong position.

You do realize that that ballot in November will read "Ned Lamont - Democrat". It won't say "Progressive"

What makes you think that Lamont will struggle in the general? Do you realize how blue CT is? Lamont's positions are very mainstream in CT. He's anti-war in a very anti-war state. He's against Bush tax cuts in a very blue state.

I think the difficult choice is for the establishment Democrats in D.C:

1. Let democracy take its course in the primary; and support the winner

2. Go third party when you get thrown out by the voters to save your own skin

Either way progressives win.

[erknm]

53. The democratic party cannot afford to have Lamont in a leadership

position. He will be relatively unimportant at least for his first term if he is elected. The democratic party will lose a strong, well respected member and will replace him with a rookie who will be viewed as too far left to be considered much of a national roleplayer for the democrats.

FH

[PassingFair]

61. The Democratic Party cannot afford NOT to have Lamont in a

...leadership position.



"too far left to be considered much of a national roleplayer for the democrats."

:rofl:

Our centrist dems are SO good at their roles of national "players".
The last 6 years have been a CAKEWALK!

We need a CLEAR AND STRONG voice for the people to emerge for
our party or we will become even MORE IRRELEVANT than we are.
Then, we need to KEEP ADDING VOICES until the people are heard.

Lieberman votes with the fascists on WAR, FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES,
BANKRUPTCY, MORNING-AFTER PILLS and he leans towards them on
SOCIAL SECURITY and VOUCHERS.

People with those view want a REPUBLICAN.

Lieberman is on notice.

I only hope that the voters of Connecticut are up to
the struggle. I know that the ones here on DU are
working their tails off, and to them, I will send
another donation immediately.

[Bitter Cup]

70. Which Democratic areas has Lieberman given us STRONG leadership on

really...I'm forgetting at the moment.

As for a members importance, I'm thinking the ability to unseat an incumbent has to show you have some gusto that might just catch the otherwise toady congress's attention.

Sorry I have to say Lamont all the way because the status quo (which Lieberman seems to define) sure hasn't got it done for us.

[Mr_Spock]

Ed got 8 of 10 callers yesterday who took him on for his Lieberman position

It was really good to see his callers take him to task for his somewhat conservative position on Lieberman.

Clearly many of us feel some angst throwing a Democrat under the bus when we so desperately need a majority. Ed sees the possibility of losing that seat - just to make a point, and then where would we be? Lieberman is still better than the average Republican - albeit not by very much. I can see his nervousness about this - I feel it too even though I despise Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

10. Who's throwing Lieberman "under the bus?" It is a primary.

It is not a purge, it is not throwing anyone under the bus. We should have choices in the primary, and we don't now. In Florida nearly all our candidates are picked by our state chairwoman, Thurman, Bill Nelson, and Rahm.

There is too much faux outrage about someone running in a primary. You would think we had lost our Democracy.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. Who says Lieberman is a Democrat?

:evilgrin:

[Mr_Spock]

16. We are vehemently against Lieberman here on DU

We are outraged here; and if you read here often, you would get the impression that we would do anything to make sure that Dems vote for Lamont. I personally think this is a good thing as Lieberman has lost his way and needs to be ejected since he clearly is not learning from his mistakes. Our anger is perceived as "throwing Lieberman under the bus" - fairly or not. The terminology doesn't bother me because I have zero sympathy for Lieberman.

What is this "faux outrage" that you are describing?

[janetle]

12. I agree.

I listen to Ed every day and thought it was Ed-like to have that position on Lieberman and I cringed. But also, the thing about Ed is he will change his mind. I cringed about his position on drilling in the Arctic Wildlife refuge---I sent him a nice but critical e-mail about his position. Also, many people called and e-mailed telling him the error of his ways and he changed his mind.

[flpoljunkie]

24. One of those callers was Paul Hackett who told Big Eddie that if Lieberman

lost the Democratic primary, that he should not run as an independent, but instead support the Democratic nominee. Good for Ed to hear this message from Hackett.

[Mr_Spock]

28. Hackett when asked who he'd vote for said "Lamont - no question"

Hehe - Ed could not find a friend yesterday, though some of us think he takes these positions to create controversy & improve his ratings - I tend to agree - he's not dumb.

[Mr_Spock]

9. Dupe

Dupe.

[cascadiance]

11. That "voting with the democrats 90% of the time" is BS!

That is supposing that the Dems ALL of the time vote for the right thing. Percentages are meaningless unless he can qualify what votes he broken ranks with the Dems and why to explain why he was proud of breaking ranks with them in those cases and how that represented his district. If he votes based on priniciple he wouldn't have any problems doing so.

The Dems in many cases don't vote for the right thing when the DLC flexes their muscles, like cloture on Alito approval, which Lieberman voted for. Now did he consider that vote voting *with* the Democrats? Or did he consider it one where he broke ranks with the Dems? In EITHER case, how would he be proud of that vote?

Folks like Russell Feingold can point to this vote and other votes where he voted as a minority even amongst Democrats where he can say he proudly did so (i.e. the Telecomm bill of the 1990's, the Patriot Act, and his censure bill). And many Dems would vote for him BECAUSE of his dissent on those instances. What vote did Liebermann vote not with the party that he was proud of and would challenge Lamont on whether he would do so too?

He's a DLC and corporate tool, and he knows it, and that's why he's just throwing out percentages as if that says he's a progressive when such a stat is really meaningless.

[ooglymoogly]

33. and don't lets forget about the bankruptcy bill

where he voted against filibuster which would have killed the bill, so he could then vote with the dems knowing it would lose and he could keep his voting percentages in line with other dems...this is his m.o. you are right percentages are meaningless...he is a corporate tool and the gop's bragging rights to bi partisanship.

[loveable liberal]

82. "Lieberman votes with dems agreeing to keep flag colors r, w & b"....

These are the kinds of votes Lieberman voted with the democrats on. The 10 percent of the important votes he carried water for chimpy....

[Totally Committed]

14. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend any of his fans here, but I'm not one

of them. I find him too "center/right" most of the time. I also don't like that he talks sports and hunting a lot -- so he's a man's man, big deal -- I'm not interested. He is also a bit too self-important at times. I used to listen to him when he first came on here, but haven't bothered for months now. I just don't like his show. Sorry.

(I also find the whole "Big Eddie" thing repulsive, but that's a personal thing... nothing to do with his show.)

TC

[Riverman]

20. I Do Not Like Leiberman - that's enough!

I kinda of like Big Eddy, he plays to the middle of the road 'mericans who fish and hunt and go to work take care of their families. Does not bother me. 'Cept that a while ago he said he liked Hillary! Yesterday I had the sme reaction as many here with the Leiberman defense - what BS, Eddy. Now, a big boy like you living up there in Fargo ought to know when you step in a big 'ole stinky fresh cow patty in July. You did yesterday, now you gotto go wipe them boots clean, man!

I never liked Leiberman, Never. When Gore picked him as the VP I had to hold my nose. When he was so pleasant with Cheney in their so-called debate - I thought what a schmuck! Leiberman is the senator from Insurance and Financial Services - those are his corporate overseers! That's all you really have to know about him. That he is a religous phony makes him all the more sickening. It is no surprise that he is pulling the crap he is now about running as an independent - it is always about Joe! That he was one of Clinton's Democrtic Leadership sycophants got him on Gore's ticket in the firt place. He likely cost Gore the election.

I have no idea if the those who will vote in August will get rid of Leiberman - I really hope they do, couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Buh Bye Joe!

[AJ9000]

17. Maybe it 's true of Ed that he was hired by establishment Dems

to be their spokesperson as has been talked about.

This would explain why he's coming to the aid of an establishment Dem who's under fire, even though it's a DINO (Lieberman) in this case.

This would mean Ed is not a true populist/progressive at all.

[madfloridian]

18. Big Ed is now owned by Rush Limbaugh's mentor at Clear Channel.

Randy Michaels. He is the one whose name is synonymous with sensationalism.

Randy bought Big Eddie from Democracy Radio. He was a Clear Channel founder.

Using Dean as an issue will definitely get attention, and that is what Randy is good at doing. Sensationalize, make people angry, piss them off....that is what it is about.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Most of the broadcasters are conservative I thought

You think Randy is pulling Ed's strings? :eyes:

[madfloridian]

22. Randy was a founder of CC, think he started a new company.

I can't think of the name right now, Products and then something with an I.

He really made Clear Channel what it was, no holds barred. Yes, I think from doing some searches he might be in control of a lot of what Ed does.

I think Ed started as being used by the congressional or senate Dems like Randi said she turned down. But now I don't know. I know he was bought by Randy Michaels last year.

[Mr_Spock]

25. Yes, Ed made it clear that he has absolutely no control over content

and that it was simply a business decision as Randy doesn't care about politics, he cares about money - and Ed makes money.

[cally]

21. I'm amazed at how many think the blogosphere is about Dean

I was explaining the Lamont/Lieberman race to my husband and he mentioned that he thinks the leftwing blogosphere are all Deaniacs. I laughed. Anyone online here during the primaries knows how divided the blogosphere was over which candidate to support. I think it's become a convenient dismissal of the blogs to characterize them as Deaniacs. Since Dean didn't win, it helps them dismiss the growing power of the blogs.

I think the Lamont/Lieberman race is shaking up the beltway establishment. I hope the rest of them are paying attention and think before they hit the pundit shows with rightwing talking points and trash Dems. (Please pay attention Feinstein.)

[rucky]

23. Blogging is Democracy!

the voice of the individual is empowered like never before. If people feel threatened by that, then that should be telling them something about themselves - moreso than the bloggers.

[loveable liberal]

26. I like Ed. He doesnt have to be right.

I was dismayed at his apparent support of Lieberman. I didnt understand it. But I understood it coming from a guy who came from the wrong side. Lieberman is a lapdog, yes, but just like we need control of one of the houses of congress, we also need centerists..... even if they make us puke. Yes, Lieberman will possibly split the ticket and perform his final act of treason, but Lieberman will not make or break our democracy. It's taken a long time to dumb down the country, it will take a lot of work to bring back participation and intelligence.

[joefree1]

76. I love big Eddy

I don't always agree with him but I love hearing him think out loud. More proof that we dems are the "big tent" party. Gods help us from copying the lock step right wing wackos.

[Penndems]

27. "In fact, fuck the Beltway. Beltway thinking got us into Iraq and

there 2,500-plus deaths past Mission Accomplished."

Um, no.

What got us into Iraq was a rigged election in 2000 that put a megalomaniacal, failed Texas governor-businessman with a messianic complex into the White House. He, aided and abetted by right-wing Republicans in Congress, made the decisions to put Dominionists and neocons into positions of power. Now the entire nation is paying for it.

Scott Ritter warned this country, and no one listened.

Richard Clarke was running around "with his hair on fire". No one listened.

Ambassador Joe Wilson told the American people that the "yellowcake" scenario was false. No one listened.

Ann Wright, Brady Kiesling, John Brown, Randy Beers, Roger Cressey, and God knows how many others in the diplomatic and intellligence communities resigned in protest to this war. No one listened.

Every last one of them has worked "inside the Beltway" for most of their adult lives. They were all serving this country honorably a long time before The Village Idiot hit town. They are renowned experts in their respective fields. Why do you think the right tried so fervently to shut them up and discredit them? Because they were telling the truth.

(BTW, contrary to that idiot, bullshitting liar Tony Snow, the Clinton Administration was at the negotiating table with North Korea for almost the entire eight years Bill Clinton was President.)

If you want change "inside the Beltway", stop sending g-d nutjobs to this town who forget about you once their purpose has been served, and instead start electing people who know the meaning of the phrase "public service" - and come to work every single day knowing who pays their salary (and who can put them out of a job, should they forget their noble responsibility). Only when that happens will you start seeing real, honest-to-God, reform.

As far as the subject of Joe Lieberman goes: That's up to his constituents in Connecticut. If they're sick of him, they'll vote him out. You and I and everyone else on this website (and any other Democratic, progressive or liberal blog) can scream all we want about how "Joementum" is kissing this Administration's ass, but the decision rests solely with those in The Constitution State.

Come to D.C. Go to work in public service. Once you interact and deal with some of the loony toons some people elect and send to this town, I guarantee you'll start wondering what the hell was going through these people's heads.

It has a tendency to make one incredulous, believe me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. EXACTLY.

A lifetime of public service is not something one should be made to feel ashamed of. The problem isn't people who have spent their entire lives in Washington D.C. working in the public sector; the problem is amoral right-wing ideology and its unchecked dominance over American politics for the past six years.

George W. Bush did not live inside the beltway until 2001. Is he somehow preferable to, say, John Kerry, who has been a public servant in D.C. for 22 years, or Russ Feingold, who has been a public servant in D.C. for 18 years?

The problem isn't "beltway thinking," whatever the hell that even is, it's corrupt and immoral right-wing ideology.

[NCarolinawoman]

74. You've made some good points. Thanks. n/t

[snowbear]

29. You failed to mention.. Eddie will have Ned Lamont on as a guest..

...soon. They attempted to have Ned on earlier and he was unavailable at that time -- but he WILL be a guest on Eddie's show.

You also failed to mention that Eddie (once again) has invited anyone who cares to talk directly to him, to blog live with him this Thursday, July 13th at 9:00 p.m. EST, 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time.

And that he is welcoming your comments regarding the Lieberman/Lamont race.

Yes -- he said all of the above on yesterday's program

And YES --- he blogs often with his listeners for hours and WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU POSE TO HIM.

Try getting that from the fat ass bastard Limbaugh that some of you dare to compare him to.

Big Eddie, you FUCKING ROCK !!!! :headbang:

[Mr_Spock]

30. Great! I'm glad he's going to get Lamont on his show.

Ed is an up close and personal guy. He has had Lieberman on his show and thus he feels some loyalty to him, but I think if he has Lamont on & likes him, his tune on Lieberman will mellow quite a bit.

[Norquist Nemesis]

31. If a guest in my house disagrees with me, I don't throw them out

BUT when a guest comes to my house, eats my food, asks for money, and claims entitlement for a ride to where ever--all the while bad-mouthing me and calling me a "jihadist" or "terrorizing" them, they are no longer welcome.

edit to add K&R

[BrewAz]

34. What did happen to Lieberman anyway?

Here is the guy who could have/should have been VP for the Dems...yet now here he is a vocal supporter for a clearly failed Repub foreign policy and war effort. Did something traumatic happen to him or were we not paying attention close enough earlier?

I mean I can guess at some of his rationale for supporting the shrub...but can anyone help clarify?

BrewAz

[dkos refugee]

42. What happened to Lieberman?

He totally sold out. He is so disconnected with his original base (CT dem voters) that he is willing to sidestep around them by running as an Independent. He is so brainwashed by beltway thinking that he doesn't even hesitate to brag about his contributions to pork barrel politics. And he's proud to be faux new's propaganda bipartisan poster child. He's #%^#$ proud of it...

It's like if you're a complete slob and you get up in front of everybody and tell them "I haven't showered in a week, AND I'M DAMN PROUD OF IT TOO!" It disgusted people, and people like Joe and Hillary can't understand this because they are too deep inside something that really stinks... they just don't notice the smell.

CT has some pretty smart people. They need to get rid of Joe. And really they have nothing to lose. Not a damn thing. Lamont may turn out to be a rethug in disguise, but so what. How exactly would that be different than what they are faced with now? At any rate, they can address that problem in the next primary. They need to send a message: no more repug lite.

Why then, did this man, technically, make it all the way up to VP? Because we were even more naive in 2000 than we are now. I used to watch faux news back then... it was all I had. CSPAN was just too boring for me at that time in my life. (And still is for the most part.)

Fast forward 6 years and now I have a highly personalized network of connections that can supply me with literally hours a day of high quality multimedia news and non-propagandized information. Think about it. In 2000 we had the net but how many non-corporate video clips could you check out on any given day? Let's face it we can't just read messageboards all day, we need multimedia. And it really took off in '04 and will take a few more years to really reach its apex. You think the Joes and Hillarys are frightened now? Just wait, it has only just begun...

[femrap]

54. Does AIPAC have something to do with

Lieberman's hawkish stance?

[BrewAz]

60. That was my initial guess...

Given his constituency and their interest in the Palestinian/Israeli continuing confrontation it would not look good to be seen as "anti-Iraq war"....could be seen as too "pro-Muslim". I do not think that would play very well with his long term supporters in CT.

I was just looking to see if I had missed anything with Lieberman.

Thanks, BrewAz

[femrap]

62. I don't think AIPAC represents too many

voters in CT. Many people in CT want out of this occupation....Jews, Protestants, Catholics, and atheists! AIPAC sure has a boat load of $ though.

[BrewAz]

66. So even if AIPAC supports Lieberman...

the voters of CT can still rule. As it should be.

BrewAz

[femrap]

75. And I hope the voters

of CT are ready for a change. I really think Lamont gives a damn about this country and CT.

[tavalon]

72. Could have/should have?

Lieberman and Al Gore's wife are two reasons I had to hold my nose when voting for Gore. I definitely didn't want shrubby but I couldn't believe the Dems paired Asswipe Lieberman with Gore.

[zulchzulu]

35. I find Ed's dissing of "bloggers" pithy and Repuglified

He had various "outs" to different segments of his show inferring that bloggers are nothing more than nagging children whose opinion is "conspriacy theories" and "left-wing attacks"....he sounded EXACTLY like Bill O'Reilly.

Ed is all over the place and is generally inconsistent in his message. He doesn't do his homework a lot either. I enjoy his show for the most part, but know he is always a little behind the curve on many issues.

[LindainCinci]

38. Yes, again

Wow, it's so nice to be around like minds.

Like I said in my post as a response. I think he feels threatened by bloggers-especially with his rhetoric discussing the Yearky Kos Convention. And it's no surprise who Kos is supporting.

[zulchzulu]

40. Welcome to DU, LindainCinci!

Wow...two posts...anyway, welcome to DU.

[Totally Committed]

81. Welcome to DU! /eom

TC

[thoughttheater]

36. Political Strategy: Splitting The Baby

Read a series of postings on the netroot efforts in the Lamont v. Lieberman race which evaluate the influence of the netroots, the risks associated with their efforts in Connecticut, and the impact it may have on the Democratic Party...the Rove strategy...and the outcome of the November election...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[LindainCinci]

37. YES!

I felt like I was being tortured listening to this yesterday. I think someone is feeding him BAD information. Most of what he was saying sounded like Lieberman or DLC talking point.

I said the same thing in an email to him. How about wanting a Democratic Senator that has Democratic Values like Social Security, Public Schools-not VOUCHER systems and NOT PreEmptive War.

The difference is that I sensed a major shift in Big Eddie many weeks ago and I stopped listening. I only tuned in yesterday because they posted on Daily Kos that Paul Hackett was going to be on. BTW That was the other distorted view on Ed's part. His questions about Lamont still running even though the Party didn't endorse him at the Convention. "That's what a Primary is FOR".

He seems to want to disassociate himself from Democrats and is talking at them and calling names way too much. He said his loyalty is to his Advertisers, but advsertisers want an audience. I believe after threats of being cancelled or being dropped, he panicked and did a switch a few weeks back and is acting almost threatened by bloggers. He REALLY got worked up over the Yearly Kos Convention.

I just can't handle him anymore. And I definitely can't call in. He seems to like to MUTE his FEMALE callers a little too much.

[jean]

39. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[dansk47]

43. Agreed

I turned ed on, listened, and sat there scratching my head. 
His logic - that because Lamont didn't get the state party's
endorsement but was still running in the primary was
equivalent to Lieberman running as a third-party/independent
if he loses the primary was so fuzzy and confusing.  Someone,
it may have been Hackett brought up the fact that Lamont, a
political unknown until recently, actually go 40% of the vote
at the convention.  Ed didn't even attempt to go down that
road, just ignored it and stuck with his argument.  I have
been a fan of schutz' since he came on here, but yesterday's
show gives me pause.  And it is not that he seemingly supports
leiberman - his politics are his own - it was the position he
was trying to defend.

And I was unaware of his attack on ykos.  so much for the
grassroots huh ed?

[dansk47]

44. Agreed

I turned ed on, listened, and sat there scratching my head. 
His logic - that because Lamont didn't get the state party's
endorsement but was still running in the primary was
equivalent to Lieberman running as a third-party/independent
if he loses the primary was so fuzzy and confusing.  Someone,
it may have been Hackett brought up the fact that Lamont, a
political unknown until recently, actually go 40% of the vote
at the convention.  Ed didn't even attempt to go down that
road, just ignored it and stuck with his argument.  I have
been a fan of schutz' since he came on here, but yesterday's
show gives me pause.  And it is not that he seemingly supports
leiberman - his politics are his own - it was the position he
was trying to defend.

And I was unaware of his attack on ykos.  so much for the
grassroots huh ed?

[dansk47]

45. Sorry! - first post jitters n/t

[AtomicKitten]

50. Welcome to DU!!!! n/t

[Totally Committed]

80. Indeed, welcome to DU! /eom

TC

[madfloridian]

57. Yep...he had "talking points" for sure. He is not up on party stuff..

So someone fed those talking points to him.

Good catch. I just wonder who it was..hhmm...mmm

[AtomicKitten]

41. Ed Schultz is welcome to his opinion.

I listened to his show while on long drive yesterday, and I think he presented his opinion thoughtfully even if I don't agree with him. He gave Paul Hackett a forum to dis Jack Murtha which bothered me a lot but I appreciated hearing it for my own information.

I don't think there's much to be gained from throwing Schultz under the bus because people disagree with him on certain issues. He provides an open forum for discussion and I always appreciate more information as opposed to confining my data input to like-minded info which is tantamount to singing to the choir. Whether or not I agree is really irrelevant. Like they say, expand your mind and your ass will follow.

[Qanisqineq]

59. I agree with you about expanding your mind

I disagree with a lot of what Ed Schultz says but I do like to listen to his show a couple times a week. He takes many callers with differing opinions. I like to hear what other democrats (and even some conservatives) think about the issues. It makes me think.

I know he was a conservative at one time. I GREW UP WATCHING him on TV and HEARING him on the radio. I lived in ND. I heard many stories about the guy, good and bad, but I won't repeat them. They are stories that went through person after person and probably only contained a sliver of truth by the time I heard them. A boss of mine (10 years ago) knew his ex-wife (stories from my old boss were especially subject to being altered). He says he's changed and I'll take his word for it. I hate when people say he is not a democrat. There are many people who call themselves democrats that think the way he does (especially farmers I grew up around). Just because I am much more liberal and disagree on some issues doesn't mean they should be excluded from the democratic party. He is right, we will lose if we try to exclude these people. I was raised to believe liberals are tolerant, accepting people. I wouldn't want to be part of a party that is so unaccepting.

[BrewAz]

47. Ed Schultz is just a personality....

I should have posted this earlier...but my take on Big Eddie is that he is just another radio personality. Have you ever really listened to him? Yes...he seems to be a Dem...but most of his talk is just that....words to get others talking. He rarely will take a major stand almost as if he doesn't stand for anything except fishing and loving Fargo (Is he still in Fargo?)

I like listening to Ed when I can get him...but I contrast him with Randi Rhodes. Now with Randi there is more than just words...she believes and defends her positions. I may not agree all the time, but with Randi you get what you see/hear...with Big Ed I sometimes wonder who is providing him with the material he discusses.

As I see it, Ed is still trying to grow his audience (not that its a bad thing) ...rather than being a lightening rod for the issues.

BrewAz

[KoKo]

58. Great Article Explaining what we feel... Beltway Politics including Think

Tank Politics has corrupted our political process. Lieberman and some others are the shining example that we have and it's time to clean up our Party so that we can get back to the "core" without this "clutter" of Quasi-Repugs who aren't helping us win elections.

Maybe the Russerts and other Pundits would be forced to reshuffle their line up of "must have DINO's" if the only ones left were Democrats who stood closer to FDR's policies than those of the Neo-Con's and Supply Siders.

We've waited too long ...we hard core Dems compromising ourselves away.

This was a fantastic article. I'm glad Ed Schultz is out there given that I remember back in the early 2000's when we Dems had NO VOICE at all. And, he 's helpful in attracting the Limbaugh disaffected over to another view. But, I have heard gossip that Hillary and Daschle were very instumental in getting his show on the air. It's possible he owes them some loyalty for that. And, I don't think that he really is as as "well read" about Dems as he should be...but then Al Franken seems to be very well read about Dems and I can't listen to much of his show just because I personally don't like his comedy. I don't listen to Schultz much either but I'm glad for all the Dem voices we can get out there on airwaves any way we can do it...because we have NOTHING on the Networks or Cables.

I hope you sent your piece to Schultz. and a :toast: to you for expressing why so many of us want Lieberman out of the Senate. It's a very "practical" reason.

[cinder2002]

68. Agreed, but...

With this being my first posting on DU, I hope I don’t offend anyone. I have been reading DU for the better part of 2 years now and finally felt compelled to write. Believe me; I’m in line with 99% of the prevailing views in the DU but with all this Lieberman vs. Lamont thing it seems that some here may be taking their eye off the ball.

That race is to be determined by the CT voters. The strong feelings are welcome to be shared amongst everyone, but the CT voters ultimately will weed out the weakest link and hopefully send a democrat back to the senate. All the talk about cleaning up the party, removing those that don’t conform to our DU “lefty” views will definitely LOSE and continue to lose all subsequent elections.

What Ed was saying as I heard it…though I had to scratch my head some as most of the rest of you did…was that as much as an apologist for the administration Lieberman seems to be, he is still a democrat…though the hugging of B*** (I just can’t write that word without fuming) was sickening…and we need as many as possible to re-establish some checks and balances.

I can’t help but feel that this is being fomented by the republican machine as a way to divide and conquer the democrats, and they are succeeding.

The republicans have seized power at all branches of the government by thinking as one. It shows lack of ideas and a lemming mentality, but it is effective. Democrats tend to think, have independent ideas and steadfastly hold to them. This is a great thing for democracy and the way it should be, but we are in a struggle now and need to keep together in the bigger picture.

Currently, we have no say in the legislature, or the executive branch and are losing the judicial one as well. We are hardly at a point to hang out one of our own to dry no matter how Liebermanish he or she is. It may disgust all of us what the so called leaders of the Democratic Party are doing, but it comes from being marginalized by not only the republicans, but those inside our own party.

The republicans would vote for anyone…Nixon, Eisenhower, B*** (I just can’t…), Ted Bundy, Josef Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, John Wayne Gacy, etc…as long as they had a “R” after their name.

It may repulse us, but the primary mission this year is to get a democratic majority in the house and senate regardless of the field of candidates. Once success in this is achieved, we can have our views represented. Under the current republican rule, we don’t have a chance.

[rpannier]

67. I like Big Eddie too

I missed his show that day -- I have to stream his show here in Korea.

But, I agree with your analysis. On this issue he totally missed the mark.

[yurbud]

69. Ed lost me on this one, but I'll still listen. Lieberman should run as a

republican. At least that would be truth in advertising.

[Terre]

71. 90% of the time?

...that Lieberman voted with the Democrats 90 percent of the time...

I missed that show, but pray tell where did Ed get that fact? Gee, wonder if it coulda been during the debate when Joe himself lied about it?

If ProgressPunch is correct (not sure how often it's updated) Joe votes 76.43% of the time with Dems (NOT 90!) and is #39 on the list. There are only 5 Dem Senators with voting records worse than his.

If anyone happens to talk to Ed on the show, you might want to impart that tidbit of info.

[tavalon]

73. I have to head to work so I can't do the footwork

but I think Ed Schultz needs a list of votes that Lieberman did that were against the Democratic position and also some choice quotes that show how Republicanlike Joe is.

[Clarkie1]

78. He said today Lamont and Lieberman will be on his show Thursday. nt