2011 : Page 258 : The Other McCain

STATEMENT FROM MSNBC REGARDING ED SCHULTZ:
MSNBC management met with Ed Schultz this afternoon and accepted his offer to take one week of unpaid leave for the remarks he made yesterday on his radio program. Ed will address these remarks on his show tonight, and immediately following begin his leave. Remarks of this nature are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

(Via Memeorandum.) Apparently, Ed’s remark today exceeded even the dubious standards at MSNBC that permitted Schultz to say this:

“Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we ought to be kicking [Moammar Qaddafi’s] ass . . . Whose side are you on? Are you with the terrorists, Sarah [Palin], or are you with the President of the United States? . . . And I have to ask the question tonight: Where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where’s the patriotism of the Republican Party?”

And also this:

“The Republicans lie! They want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”

To repeat what I said before: “Ed Schultz reminds me of every mean drunk I ever knew.”

He is an unattractive personality who is unlikely to endure on TV even in the fetid swamp of deranged partisan hatred that is MSNBC.

UPDATE: Here is the on-air apology Ed made tonight:

“I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company. And I have been in this business since 1978, and I have made a lot of mistakes. This is the lowest of low for me. . . .”

The lowest of the low so far, you mean. When your contract runs out and MSNBC dumps you like a sack of stale garbage, then you might get to the lowest of the low: Standing by an expressway off-ramp, holding up a sign: “WILL HATE FOR FOOD.”

Please Remind Me: Why Was It So Important to Elect Scott Brown?

Posted on May 25, 2011May 25, 2011Comments

You guys remember how fired up conservatives were in January 2010, right? I’ve been scratching my head lately:

Senate Democrats forced a vote Wednesday on the controversial fiscal plan drafted by House Budget chief Paul Ryan, splitting the Republican caucus . . .
Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine were joined by Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in breaking with Republican leaders to oppose the Ryan plan.
Snowe and Brown are up for re-election in 2012.
Tea Party-backed Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky also voted against the budget, saying its proposed spending cuts are not deep enough.
All Senate Democrats voted no.
The final tally was 40-57. Fifty-one yeas would have been necessary to move the plan forward.

Da Tech Guy wonders if Brown thinks he can win re-election by appeasing liberals.

UPDATE: More news from Michael O’Brian at The Hill. Now a thread at Memeorandum.

Not News? Columbia Professor and Huffington Post Contributor David Epstein Pleads Guilty in Incest Case

Posted on May 25, 2011May 26, 2011Comments

You will recall that Palin-hating blogger David Epstein was arrested in December and charged with felony incest for having sex with his adult daughter (now 24) from 2006 through 2009.

One of our readers has obtained court documents (for Case #2010NY090162) indicating that Epstein copped a plea to a misdemeanor charge of attempted incest. (Click the image to enlarge).

That ruling was on May 11 — two weeks ago — and yet I can find no news reports about Epstein’s conviction. You might think that at least the New York Times would find the disposition of this case newsworthy.

The alert reader who informed me of this previously unreported news also passed along the court documents to some members of the Columbia University faculty, resulting in this angry e-mail from Epstein’s lawyer:

From: Matthew Galluzzo
Date: Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Subject: notice
To: [Redacted]

Mr. [Redacted], I am an attorney and I represent Dr. Epstein. Please be advised that he does not wish to receive any further communications from you ever again. I have already alerted the District Attorney’s Office to the emails you have sent him thus far, and should you ever contact him or me again, we will make the appropriate criminal complaint to law enforcement.

Matthew J. Galluzzo, Esq.
Galluzzo & Johnson LLP
48 Wall Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10005

Well, facts are facts and if Professor Epstein has now pleaded guilty, the presumption of innocence is over. Epstein is still listed as a faculty member on the Columbia University Web site.

Is Epstein’s behavior something that the university tolerates or approves?

Someone should ask Professor John Huber ([email protected]), chairman of the Department of Political Science, or Columbia University President Lee Bollinger ([email protected]).

UPDATE: Linked by Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom — thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked by Ann Coulter — thanks!

UPDATE III: Linked by Don Surber and Piece of Work in Progress — thanks!

UPDATE IV: Linked by the American Pundit — thanks!

UPDATE V: Linked by POH Diaries and by Rodney Graves at Wizbang — thanks!

UPDATE VI: Linked by Maggie’s Notebook — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers!

PREVIOUSLY:

Dec. 18: Lawyer for Accused Columbia Professor Compares Incest to Homosexuality, Calls Daughter ‘Accomplice,’ Not ‘Victim’
Dec. 13: God and Man at Columbia (American Spectator)
Dec. 13: The ‘Ick Factor’
Dec. 11: Incestophobia?
Dec. 10: But They Were Consenting Adults! (American Spectator)
Dec. 10: Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest

Obamanomics: The Predictable Suckage

Posted on May 25, 2011Comments

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

“If the US economy got off to a bad start in 2011 with a 1.8% GDP annualized growth rate, the start of the second quarter looks like it might be worse. The Commerce Department reported this morning that durable goods orders fell 3.6% in April after a 4.4% increase the month before.”

Keynesian economist Brad DeLong analyzes the indicators and urges — wait for it — more Keynesian “stimulus” efforts. (Because if it hasn’t worked yet, we just need to do some more of it!)

The phrase “double dip recession” is cropping up again, as I’ve been predicting for months. We’re also starting to hear a lot about “stagflation,” another phenomenon I’ve been predicting since at least May 2009:

“The stimulus-and-bailout policies have not addressed the fundamental problems of the economy — namely, an excess of debt and a shortage of capital to spur job creation — while the entitlement trainwreck of Social Security and Medicare looms immediately ahead. By piling on new trillion-dollar deficits, at a time when the recession will result in significant tax revenue shortfalls, the Democrats are steering the economy into a stagflation trap.”

Why is it that the experts who have been so wrong for so long continue getting paid and praised as experts, while I — having no special claim to expertise — am so relentlessly right, and yet still rattling the tip jar?

Ed Schultz Calls Laura Ingraham ‘Slut’; Feminist Outrage at MSNBC in 3, 2, 1 …

Posted on May 25, 2011May 25, 2011Comments

What? No? You mean feminists aren’t threatening a boycott over this?

President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Mo., on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name?, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.

Via Michelle Malkin, who has much more (hat-tip to Alyssa Farah on Twitter). If anyone at Fox News — Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck — had used such a word in talking about Andrea Mitchell or Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz would be screaming about “right-wing hate,” and the story would be a front-page item at HuffPo with a half-dozen feminist bloggers commenting. But Laura Ingraham is a conservative, and so the feminist reaction . . .

What’s that, ladies? You’ll have to speak up. I can’t hear you because of the noise from all these chirping crickets.

UPDATE: Tim Graham at Newsbusters:

MSNBC anchor David Shuster was suspended in 2008 for suggesting Hillary Clinton had “pimped out” her daughter Chelsea on the air. So how will MSNBC handle their host calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” and a “talk slut”? Will Schultz be pressed to apologize to the Catholic churchgoer and mother of two?

Remember “civility”?

It’s the New Motherf–ing Tone!

Now a Memeorandum thread.

UPDATE: Laura Ingraham responds on Facebook.

Media Psy-Ops in NY-26

Posted on May 25, 2011May 25, 2011Comments

In my very first post about the NY-26 special election (May 10), I warned:

NY-26 is a winnable district, and a GOP defeat would be interpreted by the media (however falsely) as a repudiation of the conservative agenda.

And on May 17, I warned that a Democrat victory “will be headlined as evidence that the Paul Ryan budget plan is a political liability for Republicans.” You can see those prophecies fulfilled in this morning’s headlines at Memeorandum:

Democrat Wins G.O.P. Seat;
Rebuke Seen to Medicare Plan

Six Months After Midterm Disaster,
Hopeful Signs for Democrats

Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins Upset In NY-26,
Medicare Vote Key To Victory

Readers should be asking themselves, “Why didn’t I hear any warnings about NY-26 on talk radio or Fox News? Why have MSNBC and other liberal media been banging the drums about this special election for weeks, while most conservative media ignored it?” I don’t have any answers to those questions, but I think it’s important to ask.

Da Tech Guy contrasts the media spin on NY-26 with their spin on last year’s Hawaii special election. Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are attempting to turn perception into reality, by engaging in what Da Tech Guy accurately describes as “psy-ops.”

Oh, My: Hearing Turns Ugly

Posted on May 25, 2011May 25, 2011Comments

Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, a special advisor to President Obama, got raked over the coals yesterday by Rep. Patrick McHenry and other Republicans:

A House committee hearing on Tuesday about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau disintegrated into heated accusations of lying, with the panel’s chairman accusing Elizabeth Warren of giving misleading testimony at a hearing in March and of making up facts about her agreement to testify this week.
Representative Patrick T. McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who is chairman of a subcommittee of the House oversight committee, told Ms. Warren, who is directing the start of the consumer agency, that he believed she had misled Congress about her role in settlement talks between government authorities and mortgage servicing companies. . . . .
After an hour in which Ms. Warren repeatedly parried efforts by Mr. McHenry and other Republicans to pin her down with “yes or no” answers to questions about her March testimony — and about the bureau’s powers and responsibilities — Mr. McHenry abruptly moved for a temporarily recess so lawmakers could attend a floor vote.
Ms. Warren objected, saying that she had agreed to be present for only an hour and had no more time. . . .

It was at that point that the following exchange took place:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Warren claimed that they had agreed to work around her schedule, and that she had important meetings to attend . . . What meeting might Warren have that would be more important than a Congressional hearing into the activities of her agency?

(Via Memeorandum.) Permit me to observe that, if Obama is going to put Harvard Law faculty in charge of economic policy, perhaps he should appoint some economists to the Justice Department. Just to be fair.

UPDATE: The meeting that Elizabeth Warren was so insistent on attending may have had a political purpose:

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who is fending off criticism from members of his own party for publicly opposing a GOP plan to overhaul Medicare, could face a potential challenge to his seat from the woman appointed by President Obama to run a controversial agency designed to protect consumers from bank abuses.
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who is anathema to Republicans for her fierce criticism of the banks, reportedly is being recruited by Democrats to run for the seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for nearly half a century. Brown surprised Democrats by winning the seat in a special election in January 2010. He is up for re-election in 2012. . . .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) would not confirm that it is wooing Warren to run nor would a spokesman deny it.

Was Warren supposed to be meeting with Chuck Schumer and the DSCC staff to discuss the Massachusetts election? And if so, did McHenry and his colleagues know it?