The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Ed Schultz Goes Way Off-Message

Posted on | December 13, 2013 | 113 Comments

The Angriest Man on TV™ gets paid big bucks for his act as a left-wing populist who hates Republicans like God hates sin. Alas, when it comes to the lowly wage slaves who haul the freight at his network, Ed Schultz sounds like more like Ebenezer Scrooge:

Ed Schultz decided to take a break from his normal act of ranting against Republicans today by raging against some fellow liberals who had the temerity to criticize him and other MSNBC hosts for declining to publicly take the side of union members in a dispute they’re having with the cable channel’s parent company, NBC Universal.
Schultz . . . lashed out at a report from Salon.com which mentioned him: “I become the target because I’m living good. I become the target because I have a platform. . . . They’re just out to take somebody down who’s got something they don’t have.” . . .
“I’m not going to lower myself to people who just have got employment envy, income envy, exposure envy, platform envy,” Schultz said, according to a Salon transcription of the show. . . .
Schultz also attacked an internet columnist named David Sirota in a way that could not be construed as anything but “punching down.”
“It’s interesting that you have had class envy on me for years, that you’re never going to be as big as I am. That’s what you’re all about, Sirota.” He reiterated his opinion moments later, calling Sirota a “loser.”

Wow, that’s weird. I actually agree with Ed Schultz: His critics are envious, and David Sirota is certainly a loser. But that message is not in sync with the egalitarian ethos of the Left, and Ed Schultz just exposed himself as a loud, phony, hypocritical plutocrat.

Did I mention Ed Schultz’s reported salary is $4 million a year? Anyway, now he’s got Mike Elk after him. Good luck with that.

 


Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Kimo

    Can’t we send him off to join Comrade Olbermann in sportscasting?

  • Kimo

    If he’s one of the “one percent,” shouldn’t he be punished and have everything taken away from him?

  • Pingback: From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.

  • Calvin Everhart

    Just the crack pipe, and any money to buy more!

  • Calvin Everhart

    Best BS award for the week!

  • http://lnsmitheeblog.blogspot.com LN_Smithee

    I listened to the Mike Elk call, and although it’s uncomfortable for me, I gotta agree with Ed, presuming that Schultz’s recitation of the facts (which Elk either couldn’t contradict or was ignorant about) are accurate. Elk, rather than listen to the answers Schultz was providing to his questions, was more interested in getting the answers to “gotcha” questions.

    No, Melk, Schultz wasn’t go to go on the air and “support” other hosts who might strike against the company that send him fat paychecks any more than Mark Levin was going to continue to play “I Wish I was An Oscar Mayer Wiener” in mock tribute to former bitter competitor Michael Savage after Levin’s syndicator Cumulus Media signed him up to run after Levin’s show. Melk sounded much like people who occasionally tell Rush Limbaugh that if he’s so sincere, he ought to risk his radio empire and become an activist for the conservative cause, or even run for office himself. Schultz also correctly took note of the increasing amount of advertising that organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Freedom Works buy on Rush’s program. The talk show business model is indeed capitalist, and is dependent on advertising, even if the host is not completely in favor of it (I still remember the 2007 ads on EIB from Rudolph Giuliani’s exploratory Presidential campaign; now, Giuliani appears in ads on Rush’s show as a spokesman for Lifelock).

    People like Melk, who aren’t significant enough to have even Schultz’s relatively meager daily audience, would be happy to see Ed join them in the trenches along with other anonymous drones wearing the same t-shirts for two reasons (among many); it elevates their visibility in a battle that they heretofore haven’t been able to elevate to public consciousness, and it satisfies their urge to cut people wealthier than they are down to size.

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short : The Other McCain