Free Markets, Free People

Ed Schultz

Stray Voltage

A little reading for you about how awful the Obama Syrian policy (or lack thereof) has been using Samantha Powers own words against her and the administration.

Even die-hard supporters of President Barack Obama’s “realist” approach to foreign affairs are nauseated by the White House’s Syria policy. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, a vocal supporter of the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, is fed up with nearly five years of the “fecklessness and purposelessness” of a Syria policy that “has become hard to distinguish” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s. “Syria is now the Obama administration’s shame,” Cohen wrote last week, “a debacle of such dimensions that it may overshadow the president’s domestic achievements.” Ambassador Dennis Ross and New York Times military correspondent David Sanger also published articles excoriating Obama’s policies in Syria. There is a military solution, it’s “just not our military solution,” a senior U.S. security official admitted to Sanger. It’s Putin’s.

Think  of the charge of “war crimes”, something the Dems used to love to try and hang on George W. Bush.  It’s a pretty negative review.

Speaking of negative reviews, here’s one for the laughs it brings.  All you ever wanted to know about Kanye West and then some.  Kanye will not be happy, but I chuckled all the way through it. Some good points, in general, are made, not just about West:

West’s prepubescent views on everything Kanye haven’t stopped over the past decade, but everyone is too scared to mock him because he’s black and they don’t want to be called racist. He’s aware of this, so when his clothing line fails he says it’s because people were too “racist” to buy his stuff (this from a guy who gets to wear the Confederate flag on his bomber jacket). His clothing line was made up of people wearing brown nylons and strange “skin-colored” sweatshirts that looked like they were made out of Nazi lampshades. We recently learned that this foolish mistake put him $53 million in the hole and he took to social media to beg Mark Zuckerberg to bail him out to the tune of $1 billion. No word yet on why you get to be $947 million in the black when you screw up that badly. Forbes’ two cents is Yeezus might be able to get the money tax-free.

Read the whole thing … it’s worth it.  Another example of the Emperor having no clothes – in this case, literally.

Another example of the absurdity of the claim that ID laws “disenfranchise” minority voters:

On Tuesday, however, it was the state of Wisconsin that had the last laugh. Just one business day after Oliver predicted mass disenfranchisement due to voter-ID laws, Wisconsin held its first election with the voter-ID requirement. And according to a study by the University of My Eyeballs, turnout increased 55 percent statewide over the last similar spring-primary election.

In 2013 — the last contested statewide supreme-court election — around 364,000 voters turned out in Wisconsin. On Tuesday night, that number skyrocketed to about 564,000 voters. Even the 2011 Supreme Court primary, which took place during the electric Wisconsin public-union battle, drew only around 420,000 voters — well short of Tuesday’s total.

And the turnout bump wasn’t due to rural Caucasians flocking to the polls en masse. In the city of Milwaukee, which is 53 percent ethnic minority, the vote nearly doubled, from 34,000 to 65,000. Earlier, local election watchers had predicted a turnout of about 30,000.

Georgia, my home state, has had a voter ID law for a few years and have had exactly the same experience.  This is the “global warming” of voting.  Or said another way, if they keep repeating the big lie often enough, it has to be “true” doesn’t it – regardless of whether or not the facts destroy the myth.

So how are we doing economically and how is that reflected in the job market?  Well, Dems are going to tell you we’re at “full employment” because the fudged unemployment rate is around 5%.  This chart gives lie to the claim:


Women fare slightly better, but as you can see, the US is bottom of the barrel when it come to “employment to population ratio” for men. Heck of a job there, Dems. Oh, and Bernie says he’ll fix this.  Just sayin’.

Pertaining to the GOP and SCOTUS, file under “predictable” and cross-file under “stupid” as in “Stupid Party:

The playbook is the same every time. Even in the face of less consequential political fights, Republicans start out talking tough. Then, leadership allows the weakest liberal members to begin dissenting from the party line and even trash talking the party to the media. Next, leadership says they have to embark on the legislative process to be fair but still oppose the initiative and will personally fight against it. Then, depending on how many votes it needs to pass, they decide whether to throw in with the liberal Republicans.

And sure enough:

Yesterday, the dominos began to fall. While Sens. McConnell, Hatch, and other senior leadership members were still talking tough, liberal Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) announced his support for Obama to put forth a “consensus” nominee. And although Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Majority Whip, reiterated his desire that the next president fill the vacancy, he said that holding hearings is entirely up to the Judiciary Committee Chairman and scheduling a floor vote is entirely up to McConnell.

And then:

Obama knows how to push the RINO buttons. He will nominate someone who comes highly recommended in the legal field and it will be a big “first.” Perhaps the first transgendered Muslim immigrant to be picked. He knows Republicans are very sensitive to looking like “obstructionists,” especially in the face of such “historic” progress.    At that point, it will become a slow bleed. You will see Sens. Murkowski, Collins, Kirk, and other liberals join with Heller and call for “fair hearings.”  (How eerie that just two weeks ago, I called for Sen. Grassley to be replaced because his spot on the Judiciary Committee Chairman is too vital for someone so fickle.) Grassley will undoubtedly cave to pressure and that will get the ball rolling.

And once the nominee goes through the meat grinder of confirmation hearings, how can he not get a floor vote?  To that end, the weakest members of the committee, beginning with Lindsey Graham, will likely vote the nominee out of committee and onto the floor.

How many times have you seen this happen?

Freedom of speech is a wonderful and protected right.  But one thing some people seem never to understand is that it doesn’t shield you from the consequences of your “speech”:

In the wake of Beyonce’s controversial Super Bowl halftime performance of her new song “Formation” — which critics say contains an anti-cop message — police and politicians around the country have been speaking out against it.

But the criticism could be manifesting itself in practical ways, given what’s happened since police in Tampa, Florida, got a request to work her April 29 concert in town.

Usually off-duty officers sign up to work concerts and sporting events for extra cash, but to date no officers have signed up for the show, WTVT-TV reported. And given it’s expected to sell out, that could be a security issue.

That’s a great way for cops to get their message across.

Speaking of no one signing up, I got a huge laugh from this story.  You remember Ed Schultz don’t you?  Once with MSNBC and now with Russian (propaganda) TV?  Well, like Kanye West, Ed has become a little full of himself.  Ed decided to start a “Super PAC” feeling pretty sure he could save the middle class:

Last year Ed Schultz started the Americans for a Strong Middle Class Super PAC.

“I feel like I am perfectly positioned with my national platform, with my name and visibility and credibility with the middle class, to be the person to head up this super PAC,” he told  told the Fargo Forum. “We are a 527; we are a nonprofit; we are incorporated in Washington, D.C., and we are going to get involved in issues around the country that are vital to a strong middle class, with our focus on jobs and wages, health care, education, trade agreements and justice.”

“Middle class issues are here to stay,” Schultz continued.

Unfortunately for Ed, his PAC isn’t.  A couple of weeks ago, Big Ed quietly folded Americans for a Strong Middle Class Super PAC.

Only none of that actually happened. According to Mediate, Schultz ran up $10,345.44 in legal fees, $3,000 in web design fees, and a $100 loan and only collected $25 in donations to the organization which was apparently headquartered at a UPS store in downtown Washington D.C.

I’m sorry I coughed up a lung laughing at the donation total.  That’s about what Big Ed’s ideas are worth, and, in the market place of ideas, that’s what he was able to bring in.  Capitalism – don’t you love it?  No wonder the left hates it.

Finally, I love it when a loony law is field tested:

Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women’s locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.

It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

“Really bizarre,” MaryAnne Sato said. “I can’t imagine why they would want to do that anyway!”

Oh, my … hoist on their own petard, eh?  The other lung was coughed up on this one.  This isn’t bizarre at all.  This is precisely what critics of this sort of stupidity said would happen.

According to the SJW’s who pushed this “gender inclusiveness” law, all one has to do is “feel” like another gender and they’re in like Flynn.  Apparently, at least that day, this guy was feeling particularly female.  And yet, those exposed to the “woman” felt the situation was “bizarre”.  Imagine.

Loved this quote – by the way, he’s talking about the new law and the SJWs:

“Sort of works against the point they’re trying to make. They’re causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable,” said pool regular Aldan Shank.

Exactly right, sir.  This is how laws that sound wonderful in drunken dorm room bull sessions end up when put into practice.   As usual, never factored in is something called “human nature”.

Funny that.

Have a great weekend!


Ed Shultz– patriotic “chicken hawk?” Dissent is now “unpatriotic” …

Frankly this sort of stuff is just funny as hell, in an ironic sort of way.  The ever consistent left.  Remember when  any dissent, as long as it was the left dissenting and George Bush was the target, was the height of patriotism?

Yeah, not so much anymore.  Check out this from Ed Schultz.  Ed Schultz for heaven sake, talking about dissent and war:

ED SCHULTZ: Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we should be kicking [Gaddafi’s] ass . . . Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists, Sarah, 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? . . . What about being a patriot? . . . So the question now for the doubters who are out and about: why don’t you support the president? . . . We’ve been talking about the lack of patriotism from prominent Republicans . . .  Laura [Flanders] what about the patriotism?

Sometimes I have to wonder if these guys are like geese and just wake up in a new world everyday, because they apparently just don’t remember the Bush years at all or what they said during that time. And just as apparently they don’t seem to remember when they argued that dissent was as patriotic and American as apple pie.   As I recall Ed Schultz was the voice of dissent about Iraq – in fact he liked to brag about that fact.  Change each of the names above to “Ed Schultz” and it would be precisely what he whined about and pushed back against when he was the target of such nonsense.

But now, suddenly, because it fits his agenda apparently, he’s what I can only assume he’d have called a “chicken-hawk” a few years ago.  And he’ll brook no dissent, by gosh.  You’re simply “unpatriotic” if you disagree. 

Ed Shultz – another irony impaired  lefty blowhard with no integrity who has a memory as long as … well you pick the proper metaphor, but whatever you choose, it’s not very long at all.  You can see the clip of him “leaning forward” on MSNBC here.



Violent hateful rhetoric? The left is peerless in that realm

It appears we’re again witnessing leftist projection as those on that side of the ideological divide continue to try to sell the “violent and hateful right-wing rhetoric” canard as a reason for concern.

In fact the right can’t really hold a candle to some of the left.  Media Research Center provides a little primer.

Under the category of hateful rhetoric, see if you can guess who said this Michelle Malkin?

“…a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

If you guessed Keith Olberman, give yourself a point.  Of course we could probably cite Olberman for any number of hateful diatribes but one example makes the point.

And this about then sitting (2007) VP Dick Cheney?

I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

A little hard but not much – that would be Bill Maher, that paragon of restraint and good taste.  Maher also popped this one out there about Rush Limbaugh when Heath Ledger was found dead (2008):

Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?”

No cries for “civility in discourse” then, were there? 

Hateful?  Try this from Charles Karel Bouley, a San Francisco radio host on the announced death of Presidential spokesman Tony Snow from cancer:

I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?

Yeah, “civil discourse”.

Violent rhetoric?  Any idea who said this about Congresswoman Michele Bachman in 2009?

“Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

That would be Air America’s Montel Williams.  Had that been someone on the right we’d have heard the usual suspects on the left denounce Williams as a misogynist, etc.  Instead – crickets.

Mike Malloy, a favorite lefty radio talker on Rush Limbaugh:

“I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!

That was just last year when Limbaugh was taken to the hospital with chest pains – you know, “civil discourse.” (more Malloy here)

Ed Shultz joins the civil discourse choir talking about the left’s favorite righty, Dick Cheney.  Here he lovingly wishes the former VP a happy life in 2009:

“He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?

And in 2010, Schultz continued his enviable record of “civil discourse” when talking about Cheney and his heart problems:

“We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

Who is “we” Mr. Schultz?

Finally, another hypocrite master of civil discourse who has been chiding the right for a couple of weeks now fantasized on the air about the death of Rush Limbaugh:

“Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.”

Bless their little hearts, when it comes to “civil discourse”, they are the standard, no?  And of course, as anyone who has followed the “discourse” during the Bush years (and as the examples above point out, since) they know that what is listed above is the very tip of a honking big iceberg of similar “civil discourse” from the left.

It is the primary reason I refuse to be lectured to by these people.  I’ll again make the point that they’re much less interested in “civil discourse” than they are in shutting the right up. 

Ain’t gonna work, fellas.



Lefty rally falls short of Beck’s day

It appears the astroturfed "One Nation" rally – which was apparently organized by unions and socialist organizations – didn’t quite add up to the attendance hype despite claims to the contrary.

You did know that’s what this is all about didn’t you?

It was all about who could claim bragging rights as to who turned out the most.  If you don’t believe it, go read the links at memeorandum.  In fact, Nicole Belle at the aptly named “Crooks and Liars” lives up to the blog’s name. 

Dr. Blue has a cool animated gif that seems to settle the question of comparative crowd sizes. But just as interesting is the seeming attempts by some media outlets to make the crowd at least equal to the Beck rally.

AP had the story which included this paragraph:

Organizers claimed they had as many participants as Beck’s rally. But Saturday’s crowds were less dense and didn’t reach as far to the edges as they did during Beck’s rally. The National Park Service stopped providing official crowd estimates in the 1990s.

However, when MSNBC ran the AP’s story on it’s site, well, as Confederate Yankee points out, that paragraph didn’t make the cut.  Of course Ed Schultz, the lefty loudmouth who boasted he could turn out as many as Glen Beck, works at MSNBC.

And then there’s CSPAN’s choice of a crowd shot.  They either missed the fact that the picture they used to illustrate the “One Nation” rally had Gadsden flags all through it (i.e. the picture is that of the Beck rally), or they simply ignored them (or, I guess, thought no one would notice).

I offer all this up as a perfect case study in media complicity (some media) in carrying a narrative.  The narrative?  There is no enthusiasm gap, the left can turn out as many as the right.

Damn inconvenient that the crowd shots and other media reports don’t support the narrative, isn’t it?



Some interesting poll results

As we enter October, now is the time to begin to pay close attention to election polls.  As the November election date approaches, more and more people will turn their attention to them and the polls will begin to more accurately reflect the probable outcome.

But there are other polls out there that are interesting as well.  They give indicators, moods and trends which, when combined with election polls help better explain why one candidate is surging and the other faltering.

Two of those catch my notice today.  The first is the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll.  While it may mean absolutely nothing in 2012, the most important year for Obama, it does provide a snap-shot of the mood of the electorate.  In it pollsters found:

  • Only 38% say Obama deserves re-election and 44% will vote to oust him out
  • Voters trust congressional Republicans to create jobs more than Obama by an 11-point margin
  • Republicans hold a 4-point edge in generic ballot

The significance is the difference in his job approval rating (42% – an all time low) and his "deserves reelection" rating. The latter is the most significant, and it says he’s a one term president – for now.  Remember, in politics, it is all about the confidence one has in the leadership.  This poll could be considered a lack of confidence vote as it concerns Obama right now.

The fact that voters ‘trust’ Republicans to create more jobs than Democrats by 11 points isn’t so much an endorsement of Republican economic policies, but a rejection of Democratic ones. They’re deemed to have failed (and that failure, I would claim, is directly connected with Obama’s reelection number).

You have to wonder if Republicans are able to do a marginally better job on the job front (or the economy begins to rebound naturally and they get some credit) whether it will also pick up Obama’s reelection numbers.

The last number – 4% on the positive side for the GOP on the generic ballot – simply reflects the facts the other two numbers do. Voters are deeply dissatisfied with Democrats. That doesn’t mean they’re wild about the GOP though.

Some other news from the poll concerns the media preferences of the electorate:

  • 81% of those polled get midterm election news from cable news channels
  • 42% say Fox News is their main source – more than CNN (30%) and MSNBC (12%) combined
  • Bill O’Reilly seen to have greatest "positive impact" of opinionated media personalities with 49%, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are second and third
  • MSNBC personalities largely unknown – 70% have never heard of Ed Schultz, 55% haven’t heard of Rachel Maddow

Now this is interesting stuff for many reasons.  One is it provides proof that the left’s attempted demonization of Fox News has not worked at all.  I wonder how that’s going to sit with the White House.  In fact, it seems to have been a dismal failure.  What the left would characterize as “right biased media” apparently rules.

Secondly, I find it hilarious that the “stars” of the left are unknown to the majority of those polled.  And remember, the 30% who say they have heard of Ed Schultz (I’d be one of those) don’t necessarily listen to him (I’d also be one of those).  John Stewart, however, did quite well on the “positive impact” side of things.

Last – is Limbaugh’s star being eclipsed by O’Reilly and Beck?  I realize that O’Reilly, for some reason, has held the top spot on cable opinion shows for some time, and Beck does both radio and cable while Limbaugh only does radio, but that’s interesting info if correct.  However, regardless as to the ranking of those three, they apparently convincingly own the “positive impact” category of “opinionated media”.  Wonder what Hannity thinks about all this (and not being really in the running?)?

And as an aside, despite their declining circulation numbers, newspapers remain the most important news source for likely voters:

Despite steady declines in circulation over the past decade, newspapers are more influential than national news broadcasts when it comes to news on the upcoming election, with 72 percent of respondents saying they turn to newspapers or their websites.

Local news did better, at 73 percent, and conversations with friends and family was the second-most-cited source, at 79 percent. Radio was cited by only 58 percent of respondents, and non-newspaper websites and blogs by 39 percent.

Anyway, all of this makes sense when you view the results of the other poll.  And, given the majorities who’ve never heard of the liberal show hosts, I’m not sure it would be any different if it was the Republicans in control and failing as dismally as the Democrats are.  When that was the case, those folks were on the air and apparently few were tuning in to hear what they had to say.

Why?  Because for the most part, Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly talk about getting government out of our hair, making it smaller and less costly.  That resonates.  That reflects the mood of the country.  It is also something you’re not going to hear from the Ed Shultz’s and Rachel Maddow’s of the world.

There’s a free clue (and one that should be obvious by now) to any politician or political party that wants it. 



Quote Of The Day

Sometimes the mask slips in the most unlikely places. The little watched Ed Schultz show on MSNBC hosted Ralph Nader and Barney Frank. Frank took heat from Nader for not, in Nader’s opinion, regulating the financial institutions enough. Frank responded by saying:

Democrats are “trying on every front to increase the role of government.”

Tell me again why the GOP shouldn’t be the party of “no”? They should embrace the role.



Fairness Doctrine Needed for Presidential Press Conferences?

Also included at the press conference was a blogger from the left-wing Huffington Post (and more power to him, I might add):

Longtime members of the White House press corps who are accustomed to sitting in the front row of presidential press conferences were surprised to find their prime real estate occupied by Ed Schultz, a strident liberal who hosts a nationally syndicated radio program originally based in Fargo, N.D., but of late broadcasting from the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

So, since no right-wing bloggers or talk show hosts were included, does this mean we need a Fairness Doctrine for Presidential press conferences?

Clearly, President Obama was making a point of showing deference to the Left at his first prime-time press conference, which was broadcast to millions from the stately East Room of the White House on Monday.

Like such a show was actually necessary. I can’t wait for Sen. Debby Stabenow to bring the Fairness Doctrine up again in the Senate. Watching someone embarrass themselves is usually pretty entertaining.