2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYou guys remember Ed Schultz on MSNBC? Now he works for RT and he's pro-Putin and pro-Trump....
Back when he hosted a prime-time talk show on MSNBC, Ed Schultz divided the world into heroes and villains. The heroes usually included Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The villains were most Republicans, and especially Donald J. Trump. When Trump obsessed over Obamas birth certificate and academic credentials in 2011, Schultz branded him a racist. When Trump flirted with running for president the next year, Schultz ridiculed him. Who has shown any interest in Donald Trump being the next president of the United States other than Donald Trump? he fumed. Mr. Trump, stop embarrassing yourself!
Another bad guy was Russian President Vladimir Putin. Schultz delighted in ripping conservatives for what he called their love affair with the Russian leader and his ability to make Obama look weak on the world stage. They hate Obama so much they will even embrace the head of the KGB ... Putie is their new hero! Schultz said in one 2013 segment. In another, he smugly reminded conservatives about Putins nasty human rights record and the way his reckless behavior was crippling Russia. More generally, Schultz often framed GOP opposition to Obama as anti-American or unpatriotic.
That was all before last July, when MSNBC abruptly canceled The Ed Show after a six-year run and dumped the 62-year-old prairie populist from the network. By the time Schultz resurfaced this January, he had been reincarnated in a very different journalistic form: as a prime-time host, reporter and political analyst for RT America, the U.S. branch of the global cable network formerly known as Russia Today, funded by the Russian government.
Gone is the praise for Obama and Clinton. Gone, too, are the mocking references to Putie. And gone are the judgments about others patriotism. Schultzs 8 p.m. RT show, The News with Ed Schultz, now features Putin-friendly discussions about the failings of U.S. policy in the Middle East, Americas bloated defense budget and the futility of NATO strategy.
Even Trump is getting a new look from Schultz. Speaking at various points on RT in recent months, Schultz has said that Trump has tapped into an anger among working people, is talking about things the people care about, and even, as Schultz recently declared, that Trump would easily be able to function as president.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833
apcalc
(4,463 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)The only reason he went "liberal" is he met her. That and Rush had the bowhard ratings damped up across the midwest
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)A network that up until now has found little to celebrate about America has finally settled on a candidate it can believe in. Vladimir Putins TV channel isnt just covering the 2016 campaign: Increasingly, its choosing sides.
...
Speaking at various points on RT in recent months, Schultz has said that Trump has tapped into an anger among working people, is talking about things the people care about, and even, as Schultz recently declared, that Trump would easily be able to function as president.
...
Seated next to Simonyan at the dinner and just two seats away from Putin himself was perhaps the most intriguing example of how the Russians have gone about recruiting disaffected members of that establishment: a rugged-looking man in a tuxedo who less than 18 months earlier had been head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagons powerful in-house equivalent of the CIA. Michael Flynn, now a private citizen after a reportedly disgruntled retirement, was not there to gather intelligence. His attendance at the RT gala, before which he also gave a talk on world affairs, appeared to inaugurate a relationship with the network
...
At a moment of semi-hostility between the U.S. and Russia, the presence of such an important figure at Putins table startled current and former members of the Obama administration. It was extremely odd that he showed up in a tuxedo to the Russian government propaganda arms party, one former Pentagon official told me.
...
Flynn now makes semi-regular appearances on RT as an analyst (interviewed by Schultz occasionally), in which he often argues that the U.S. and Russia should be working more closely together on issues like fighting ISIL and ending Syrias civil war. Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that, he said in one recent appearance. And we have to try to figure out: How do we combine the United States national security strategy along with Russias national security strategy, despite all the challenges that we face?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833#ixzz4FNIfrV2U
Michael Flynn, whom Trump was just considering for VP, he admires him so much.
Ed Schultz who now sees Obama as the world's troublemaker.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)Schultz is not "pro-Putin."
Schultz is, as usual, telling it like it is. Read the quotes below the incendiary headline and you'll see that the Politico article says that "now (his show) features Putin-friendly discussions about the failings of U.S. policy in the Middle East, Americas bloated defense budget and the futility of NATO strategy." This sounds like a pretty apt opinion, i.e., that US policy in the Middle East is lousy, the defense budget is indeed "bloated" and a constant confrontational attitude toward Putin is not necessarily the best approach. The remark about Schultz's discussions being "Putin-friendly" is purely Politico's opinion. The ideas are essential good. Shultz isn't on Putin's side because he recognizes limitations in US foreign policy.
I was unaware of Schultz's statement, assuming it's true, that Putin would easily be able to function as president. That's a little over the top. I suspect there might be some slicing up of quotes to make something appear to be true that may not be. Because Trump definitely wouldn't be able to tie his shoes as prez without the "mob" or some other criminal type to tell him how to do it and even then he would tell twenty lies on the way to getting them tied, if he ever did, and in the end he'd probably end up buying a whole new pair of expensive shoes rather than worrying about learning to do something so demeaning as tying his own shoelaces the next time. He's definitely the worst presidential candidate I've seen and I doubt if a worse candidate could be found in all of American history.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Listened to his radio show.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)glennward
(989 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Meaning nationally which she clearly is.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)by the League of Women Voters.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The Libertarians and Greens aren't the only minor parties that nominate presidential candidates. Why should we distract from the debate between the actual contenders by also including every vanity candidate who gets their name on the ballot somewhere?
Stryder
(450 posts)That shit's gettin' old.
If you want to get elected, be the best
candidate for the majority of the people.
Easy Peasy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)From Ballotpedia.org
As of July 15, 2016, a total of 1,796 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.[1].
It could become quite unwieldy...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)now that Ed works for Putin.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)You're either for us or against us. Got it.
Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)Take it up with Skinner
Response to rbrnmw (Original post)
Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM
Star Member Skinner (62,247 posts)
1. Of course.
The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)If you vote for Hillary, she has one vote. If I vote for the rabbit from Trix cereal, Trump's vote total doesn't increase by one because of me. So the whole 'a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump' spiel is all hogwash.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)on the RT payroll.
They're entertainers: they say what they're paid to say.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)steal from their people, and Putin's networth today is over $200 BILLION, more than twice that of Bill Gates!
Let's also not forget how Schultz lobbied on his MSNBC show to "teach the BlueDogs a lesson" and for "Liberals to stay home" in 2010. He got his wish and in a census year of all years, too!
The Republicans took control of our House and swept through States (except California, thanks to the Latino and African-American vote) where they took control of governors houses and State legislatures for at least 10 years.
Look how well that worked out for us ever since.
revbones
(3,660 posts)But isn't she just an "entertainer" too?
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)You can tell she is constrained by whom she works for. However, her employer is not directly an institution controlled by state power. And it's an American company. So there are differences.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)He's backing Jill Stein.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.
There is no difference.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)of the other parties, for making a statement by trashing their own votes. But for some that's value enough.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If you want to start a new party, it must be built from the ground up, not the top down.
Every third party wannabe since the Republicans did it the right way pre-Civil War has attempted to build their party from the top down and every one of them has failed.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Stein supporters fault that it went that way. Your insistence on diminishing people who try to vote on principle is pretty shameful. If the democratic party had been what it should have been the last 30-40 years, reactionary magnets like Trump would never have been able to survive in the political climate, so while I'm not one of the supporters of a third party candidate, I understand the frustration with the establishment and the GAME of politics it likes to play out for the masses, while the same interests continue to get served. Bother to make a nuanced and thoughtful argument as to why people shouldn't vote for Stein for a change. There are plenty of good reasons, and even practical ones, without resorting to name-calling and accusations.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)IT is the exact same thing as voting for Trump.
There is no measurable difference whatsoever.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a spoiler. I may have misinterpreted your original post, and I haven't looked hard at her platform, and have no business commenting on that or your opinion of it. So if I did mistake you, my apologies.
Hyper_Eye
(675 posts)You can read about some of Stein's political beliefs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein#Political_positions
Her platform is very liberal and most of it is generally supported by people on this site. Further down the truth is revealed when the poster states that there are only two possible votes in this election: for Hillary or for Trump. They stipulate that a vote for anyone other than Hillary is the same as voting for Trump and thus a vote for fascism. Through this silly logic they label Stein a fascist. It's absolutely ridiculous. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Stein and nobody else.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)She claimed Trump was better than Hillary. That makes her a self avowed FASCIST!
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,815 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)TwilightZone
(25,467 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Most reporters have acknowledged similar when attempting to explain the Trump nomination.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)You just admitted he is supporting Stein and there is not any difference at all between supporting Stein and supporting Trump.
They are identical positions.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)That's news to me?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Voting Stein is morally the same thing as voting Trump regardless of where you live.
They are identical positions.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)your position.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There are two choices in our presidential elections. A vote against the Democrat is a vote for a fascist.
There are no other choices.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)😂😂😂😂😂
You're entertaining.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)It's down to 2 people you know.
Who are you planning on voting for, by the way?
chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)I've never voted Republican in my 30 years of voting but some of the logic by some Democrats here is just insane.
Nancyswidower
(182 posts)Say you vote for Hillary...that's a vote in her column....say I vote for Sponge Bob...that is NOT a vote for Trump
Hillary's vote total has NOT been decreased and the Dumpster's has NOT been increased.
Just a smaller pool of main candidate votes...NOT a Trumpanzee vote.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)chillfactor
(7,574 posts)I cannot imagine that dramatic a change in Schultz.
RonniePudding
(889 posts)So he has shape shifted before.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
RonniePudding
(889 posts)His GOP past always gave me pause.
Oh, and fuck RT and Putin and anyone else who gives them cover or actively supports them.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 24, 2016, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)
So why are you backing Hillary then.
All I hear is don't play the purity game... every day...
RonniePudding
(889 posts)You do understand the difference, right?
runaway hero
(835 posts)She and schultz have (had?) the same positions on the issues.
You see where this is leading right? You can't do the purity thing at will.
RonniePudding
(889 posts)And I have zero idea why you're so hung up on purity. It's a little odd, frankly.
But hey, you do whatever you need to do. I'll be working to defeat Trump, a long with most people here.
Tah-Tah
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)RonniePudding
(889 posts)But it had little do with Ed Schultz, who is just an actor for hire.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)Music Man
(1,184 posts)"Time to get out your phones for today's poll. 'Do you think John Boehner is a terrible Speaker of the House?' And the results are in... Wow! 98% think John Boehner is a terrible Speaker!"
He was actually a Republican until the late '90s or so. He's a mere talk show host. A weathervane, actually.
mcar
(42,306 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)When he couldn't make it as a right wing radio host he moved to the left. Can't stand the guy.
runaway hero
(835 posts)Money and nothing more.
runaway hero
(835 posts)OP loves stoking the flames.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,833 posts)Can't put my finger on it but something about him just threw red flags up all over the place. His support of progressive positions was great yet it was interesting how seldom any other progressives aligned with him. He seemed alone out there like no progressives in a position to know him wanted to risk their reputations.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,339 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)If someone votes for Stein, the vote goes to her, not Trump.
rug
(82,333 posts)The show, which he continues to host, blends interviews with local officials and sharp-edged banter with callers, spiced up with Big Eddie's rants about national affairs. He might report on a local school board meeting, break for the latest on pork belly futures, then swerve into acid commentary on the presidential primaries. The broadcast area reaches into South Dakota and Minnesota; on any given morning, nearly 30% of radio listeners in the region are tuned in to his show.
For years, Schultz's patter on the regional show was conservative. He scoffed at the homeless for complaining about the cold. "How about getting a job?" he'd ask. He sneered at the three Democrats who represent him in Congress, nicknaming them the Three Stooges.
"I lined up with the Republicans because they were antitax, and I wanted to make a lot of money," Schultz said.
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2004/feb/05/nation/na-radio5
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)This site is about dupporting the nominee.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He never got a free pass.
We are not in primary mode anymore.
This site is about getting Clinton elected now.
rug
(82,333 posts)And I don't think Brock has mocked the homeless.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He was a poor man's Rush Limbaugh.
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Or maybe we did. Being a celebrity is expensive - so as long as someone is writing him a check, he'll be ready willing and able to read their scripts.
Mike Nelson
(9,953 posts)...Ed Schultz knows who is buttering his bread.
ecstatic
(32,688 posts)Interesting.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)He began his career as a right wing talk show host but he wasn't able to compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity so he went left... He couldn't cut the mustard there either....
Check my posting history. I saw right through that charlatan from the jump.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Can see now he was never a friend of unions.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)doc03
(35,325 posts)is going to win the election the last I heard.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)I was critical of Ed's Archie Bunker logic many months ago.
wishstar
(5,268 posts)Thanks for posting this article. I was not aware of this Russian funded propaganda network before. Larry King doing their bidding too.
Putin/Trump/Flynn/Manafort are thick as thieves.
Although Ed Schultz is not "endorsing" Trump, if the article is accurate in describing Ed's comments, he is "enabling" Trump and Russian agenda by soft pedaling any criticism of Trump and making him seem more palatable to American voters.
RonniePudding
(889 posts)If they were openly pro Putin they wouldn't be able to bamboozle some on the far left. If you look around, those are the folks pushing the "nothing to see here" meme.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,922 posts)How sad.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)His altered audio clips & videos turned me off of him for good. When caught, he'd never own up to it
A lot of folks here still fell all over themselves praising him
He's a douchebag
radiclib
(1,811 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)True, but US Mideast policy is a disaster, the US does have a bloated war budget and the NATO strategy is provocative and war inducing.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)It's all about the $$$$$$
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)he was a BERNIE SUPPORTER, this is a 180 degree turn...nothing else can explain this, unless it isn't true!
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)reign88
(64 posts)He's pretty much who I always thought he was.
Let's not pretend that the majority of these TV personalities don't sell their "core beliefs" to the highest bidder. They are phonies. Journalistic integrity is long dead.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Just like Cenk Uygar he's happier than hell to be out of MSNBC/Comcast.. He talked about the TPP one too many times...
mckara
(1,708 posts)I didn't see one quote from Ed Schultz supporting the reporter's argument. The article looked like a hatchet job against RT without any real evidence, only supposition. I think the technical term for this type of "news" is BS.
Botany
(70,501 posts)63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....almost overnight began railing against it, contradicting ALL the "reasons" why he was in favor of it for so long, but without mentioning his change of heart.
And for the last few months of his 1-hour show he spent more than half of it on Keystone.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)What a bloviated douchebag!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)That is Steven Seagal with Putin. Get your facts correct.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Being tongue in cheek.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Cha
(297,154 posts)can see that.
wisteria
(19,581 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)flamingdem
(39,313 posts)He endorsed Bernie
Hekate
(90,648 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)WOW! I used to listen to him religiously during the 2008 and 2012 elections. I guess he sold out for the paycheck.
Damn.
MFM008
(19,806 posts)Im very disappointed.