Is Ed Schultz sinking to hate radio levels by saying he'd "cheat" in the Mass. special election?

[alp227]

On his blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton criticized liberal political commentator Ed Schultz. Regarding the US Senate special election in Massachusetts, Schultz said:

I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

Brayton is the founder of the organization Michigan Citizens for Science and also blogs at The Panda's Thumb. On his Dispatches blog he frequently criticizes religion and conservatism. These all some pretty left-leaning credentials. Brayton basically thinks that it's not right for Schultz to sink to the level of right-wing hate radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and thinks it'd be much more controversial for a conservative radio host to say such a thing advocating voter fraud than for a liberal.

Meanwhile, at ConWebWatch, Media Matters senior editor Terry Krepel compares supposedly extreme rhetoric by Schultz and Michael Savage.

[Matariki]

1. I heard that - it was OBVIOUSLY a joke.

If you heard it too you'd know that. Why are you spreading this?

[alp227]

6. After reading Brayton's post, I wondered if Schultz really meant it or was joking.

Because often we criticize conservative radio hosts for saying stuff like what Schultz just said, even when they defend their rhetoric as "humorous". I listened to the soundbite even. Shouldn't we hold all political commentators to the same ethics in speech?

To put this in perspective, I absolutely do not find stuff like Michael Savage's smear of autism, Rush Limbaugh's non-stop audio minstrel show, or other fringe figures' advocating a coup of the government any way smart or humorous. Or is Schultz's remark about vote cheating not really comparable to freepers advocating overthrow of the government?

[Matariki]

10. Yes, I'm sure you do.

As they say 'thanks for your concern'.

There is absolutely no question they were joking around - ACORN was mentioned and it was clearly sarcasm.

I question your motives for posting this.

[apocalypsehow]

17. It was a joke, but it came off bad and there is fallout. You need to stop the innuendo about another

DU'er just because you don't like their legitimate OP.

[Matariki]

19. Quoting out of context & twisting words to make Progressives look bad is a legitimate OP?

Okay. If you say so.

[apocalypsehow]

21. What a nifty looking Strawman you have erected! Have some more fun batting it down.

And it's not me that "says so" about your implications about another DU'er who hasn't given you a shred of credible evidence - as opposed to your Strawman construction above - that they are anything other than an honest OP: it's the DU rules that "say so."

A link can be provided to them for your perusal upon request.

[Matariki]

23. You need to google the meaning of Strawman

I don't think you understand it.

[apocalypsehow]

24. So now you want to argue about the definiton of your proferred Logical Fallacy, rather than simply

comply with the rules. Typical.

Want that link? :shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

25. And speaking of not understanding so good:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

This is, of course, the precise definition of your post above. Physician, heal thyself. Or at least bring yourself up to speed on the things about which you post. :thumbsup:

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[gateley]

2. He was joking. nt

[virgogal]

3. I have never watched Ed Schultz but have read about his comments.

Advocating cheating is not too smart IMHO.

Shame on him.

[peace13]

4. So what if it is?

It was said and done. It doesn't matter.

[onehandle]

5. That's a joke that the RW is treating as real. nt

[hughee99]

9. It seems like every time Limbaugh opens his stupid yap

to spew out some garbage or other, repukes claim it's a joke and we treat it as real. What's the difference?

[freddie mertz]

7. It's a joke. "Vote early and often" is an old Boston wisecrack.

Refers back to the days of James Michael Curley.

Though SOME claim that it hails from Mayor Daley's Chicago.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Michael_Curley

[mucifer]

12. Groucho Marx in his autobiography discussed NY election day as voting then going

to a parade then voting AGAIN. That was around 1900. It's been happening and it will keep happening.

[freddie mertz]

14. Not as easy these days.

I think the cemeteries used to turn out a lot more reliably in Curley's day than they do today.

[Divine Discontent]

8. They'd play it over & over if he ran for senator. I would have advised him against saying it, but

oh well. He was joking for TV sensationalism, obviously.

[Davis_X_Machina]

11. Ten years ago...

...there was about this much room|---| between Ed Schultz and Rush Limbaugh, especially on taxes. He saw that the line for the pay window on the left was shorter, is all.

[CK_John]

13. Ed is the same as Rush, he doing his job or shtick. He has an on the job persona and his real self.

They are not related.

[Knockout]

15. So Repugs cheat to win all the time - They're never called on it like Schultz though

[Iggo]

16. No.

[JDPriestly]

18. Ed Schultz was not serious. He was exaggerating. It's called hyperbole.

It is a literary device. Ed Schultz is an honest guy -- honest to a fault. That is why he can joke about this.

[RB TexLa]

20. If you are not willing to do whatever it takes to win you do not deserve to win.

[anonymous171]

22. The GOP would do it.

Just saying :shrug: