Ed Schultz is so effective at battling the right wing noise makers because he was one!

[NRaleighLiberal]

He knows how they operate. He WAS one. So he probably is naturally wired a bit differently and can talk over and through and around the BS that the righties utter. What we need is more blustery, abrasive, forceful noisemakers on the left. Many of us on the left are not comfortable with that style, but you need to fight fire with fire - not necessarily in content, but in style.

[malaise]

1. 100% correct n/t

[valerief]

2. I agree. When I first heard his voice on the radio a few years ago, I thought

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, not because of content but because of style. His style isn't my favorite, but I love when lefties attack rightie lies and smears. Ed is becoming the left's attack dog. Not a bad gig.

[rurallib]

10. I have also listened to him evolve and the final product is a pleasure

to listen to. There were days I flat out turned off the radio, but I would always come back because he always listened to his callers and learned.

[Critters2]

15. I had the same experience when he started on WCPY.

The first time I heard him, I thought it was Rush...but...this guy was making sense...:crazy:

[armyowalgreens]

3. I think it's better to fight illogic with logic.

Fighting fire with fire will just make a bigger fire. What we want to do is stop the insanity, not make it worse.

The point is that we shouldn't need screaming assholes on TV to be right.

[itsrobert]

4. Actually fighting fire with fire

Puts out a fire in many cases.

[valerief]

9. Yeah, but that only works with fire, not arguments. nt

[armyowalgreens]

28. Only wildfires. And that's assuming you can't manually clear brush...

ahead of the fire front.

Most of the time you fight fire with water and fire retardant.

But your analogy is to specific to fires. We are talking about conversations.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. I think we all agree that you are right - that approach is logical. But...

at this point it doesn't work. If you put a reasoned, logical, calm person on a news show with a right wing rude screamer/interrupter, they will get completely overwhelmed and the message will not come out.

So yes, I agree in principal with you. But that type of change is going to take time, and will need an assist from the media - which, I'm afraid, will not come...because TV is about ratings - and rantings make better ratings.

[armyowalgreens]

29. Maybe liberals shouldn't be going on Fox-News screamathons...

That would fix the problem.

[Dr Fate]

20. Ed is logical, and he is not a screaming asshole.

Otherwise, I agree with ya!

[Odin2005]

22. That attitude is why we are always losing control of the conversation.

The orator that appeals to emotions and sentiments always beats the policy wonk.

[Marr]

23. Absolutely.

[Odin2005]

24. I am reminded of something Napoleon said.

He said something to the extent of "people don't fight for a half-pence a day or a petty distinction, you must speak to the soul in order to electrify them".

If you want to convince people one has to appeal to their hearts, not their heads.

[armyowalgreens]

27. I'd rather look like I lost and be right to those that know

Than to look like I won because I yelled the loudest.

Smart people will be able to look past screaming and shouting.

[PVnRT]

30. No one ever lost in politics by underestimating the intelligence of Americans

You'd rather lose and be right? Guess what? You've still lost. Those who lose get nothing done in politics.

[ArnoldLayne]

5. He was I didn't know that fill me or all of us on here

about him, some info. please. I don't know anything about him, I've never heard of him before but I like his show alot. I just started watching him for just the past 2 weeks. :dem: :dem: :beer:

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. Info below

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

"Schultz's News and Views radio show was very similar to his WDAY Viewpoint program and quickly grew into a regional broadcast dominating the North Dakota airwaves, with additional listeners in South Dakota, western Minnesota, Montana, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Schultz's political views leaned towards the right during the early years, and Schultz told the Los Angeles Times that he "lined up with the Republicans because they were anti-tax, and I wanted to make a lot of money...." Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders."

"Evolution of political views

In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his attitude. One was his mother's illness. A former educator, she got Alzheimer's Disease and began a long, slow decline. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them. To his surprise, he found some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that was the moment he began to look at poverty differently. (Schultz 9-10) In June 1998, they were married, the second marriage for each.

While he claims to have become a Democrat in 2000, the political evolution seems to have been gradual. He went out to do radio promotions in rural parts of North Dakota, and told reporters about how he met farmers who were suffering and hard-working people who were going hungry, even though Republicans said the economy was doing fine. (Vowell 2004) He began to hold benefits to raise money for people in the heartland who were going through tough times. (Winter 2002) And he began questioning some of the assertions of George W. Bush; although he supported several Republican candidates in the 2000 election, he was becoming critical of other Republicans. For example, Schultz considered running for the Democratic-NPL party nomination for governor against incumbent Republican John Hoeven in 2004, but decided to continue his career in radio."

[ArnoldLayne]

12. Thanks NRaleighLiberal he really did change his political beliefs

and boy am I glad.

[paulsby]

7. i agree

ed reminds me of a scene in chariots of fire, where in reference to eric liddell, somebody says "what we need here is a muscular christian. somebody to make people stand up and notice " (quoting from memory).

people on the left have the same image problem, and one partly created by style. we NEED people like Ed. frankly, i'd take Ed and Maddow (who offers a more cerebral and humorous approach) than somebody like olbermann who just seems clownlike and whiny (to me), and despite his sportscaster background comes off , frankly, as whiny and wimpy.

Ed is, to borrow a phrase used for b*sh of all people (back when he was more popular), somebody people (especially a lot of guys) would like to have a beer with.

that's a good thing.

i liked him on the radio, and think he's made a great transition to teeveee

[ColbertWatcher]

11. I'd love to see Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes take on all comers.

That would be monumental.

Make it pay-per-view and we could pay down the debt.

[valerief]

14. I LOVE Randi! She's fearless! nt

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

13. It's good to see liberals who have the courage of their convictions.

Whether they are abrasive or not is less important to me than being able to articulate and say with some force what they believe. And, we need people who, like Ed in this case, refuse to play the game and say, "oh, I didn't mean it that way." Ed could have caved on the Scarborough show this morning, like most liberals unfortunately do, but he stuck to his position and convictions for better or worse. We could use a few more of that kind of liberal (...even in religion, I might add).

[KoKo]

16. That seems to be a good thing. I can't watch his TV show...or Olbermann and Maddow...

I felt I was beyond what they were talking about...since I'm already ahead of them reading on the "Web" it's hard to listen to the "old news" they try to get off on.

I think they are good listen for the "unenlightened folks" but for many of us who have been at this since "1998" it seems stale and not worth tuning in...or bothering about.

:shrug:

[Berry Cool]

17. I'm plenty "enlightened," and I like Olbermann just fine.

Don't find him "whiny" or "clownlike" either. Different strokes for different folks.

I like Ed too. I think he's an example of how a convert can be your best recruiter. He doesn't sound like people expect a progressive person to sound. It's very hard to stereotype him as a Birkenstock-wearing latte sipper. He also likes holding liberal politicians' feet to the fire and holding them to their promises.

[sandnsea]

18. It's about vivid imagery

He came up through radio so he knows how to write a quick visual message. Keith learned how to write a quick visual message for sports. Their target audience is the same. That's why they're so good at what they do.

Rachel is just friggin' brilliant.

[Dr Fate]

19. Big Eddie was a sportscaster for a stint as well. n/t

n/t

[PSzymeczek]

21. And he and Keith

share a birthday. Ed is exactly five years older than Keith. (and 4 days short of one year younger than I am.)

[Odin2005]

25. Us Fargoans love our Big Eddie!

[Stinky The Clown]

26. But if you do it on DU, people put you on ignore

Sensitivity and all that, dontchaknow?

[inna]

31. rec #7 and kick! informative thread, thanks! nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

32. thanks for the kick and the rec.