Ed Schultz, as clueless as ever

Sargeant Schultz simply cannot understand why the “middle” of America rejects Obamaunism. RAAAAAACISTS!

MSNBC host Ed Schultz just can’t understand why all the proles in Middle America don’t like Obama after all of the awesome things he’s given them.

“Why is it in the middle of the country that President Obama has a problem?” he asked North Dakota radio host Joel Heitkamp on his show Tuesday. To no one’s surprise, he immediately added, “Is it race?”

“Look at the job numbers, look at the healthcare, look at the positive things that have happened, we came out of the greatest recession: Why doesn’t that play in the middle of the country?”

Is Ed really that stupid? I know, silly question

Ed Schultz-Marxist Moron of the Day

Old ED just cannot wait for Obama to trash the Constitution and advance the “Progressive” agenda! Of course Progressive really means Marxist, but Ed would likely wet his pants over that too


I really wish that useful idiots like Schultz could go live in the Marxist Utopia they crave for one year. They would quickly find out that as soon as they are not “useful” anymore, they will be cast aside. Wanna bet they would return with a very different ideal of what government should be?

Some things are just too funny

You have to hand it to MSNBS, you really do. That network is THE biggest tree in the Grove of Low Hanging Blogging Fruit, and employs a greater concentration of Moonbats and Leftists than can even be contemplated. These anchors, I would call them on air talents but they seem to have no talent save for lying, are at least funny. And, they do serve as a stark reminder that the Left is nothing but an over emotional wasteland of idiots. But, stupid can be funny, as Ed Schultz proved the other day when he made this pronouncement  “Republicans, they’re afraid of me. They don’t want to talk to me.”

Really Ed? No one is afraid of an intellectual debate with Ed Schultz of course. Now many folks might be too smart to waste their time going on Ed’s show on MSNBS. They realize they would not be allowed to speak, or answer questions. they know Ed’s tactics, and they know Ed is afraid of debate unless he can control it. So, stop it Ed, my gut is hurting from laughing so hard.

Now, if you really want a debate Ed you could try debating yourself over all that union money you have taken to be their water boy, that might be fun to watch Mr. Pro-Worker.

Suddenly, after pimping class envy rhetoric for years, Ed Schultz hates class envy

Hypocrisy much Ed?

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 areenvious, 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

Four Million for that ass hat? Whoever thought acting like a complete buffoon with anger management issues could make you rich? But, when you think about it, many rich Liberals are not that different from Schultz are they? Angry, bitter, foul-mouthed, need I go on?

Funny how Liberals like Schultz change their tune on the “rich” when they are themselves attacked for being rich.


Ed Scultz- a special kind of stupid

Good Freaking Grief!

Indeed, the same was said by MSNBC host Ed Schultz on Wednesday who revealed that Democratic members of Congress are approaching him for messaging tips. His unqualified recommendation: Democratic members should be shouting from the hilltops, “It works!”

“That’s all you have to say: it works,” Schultz declared. “And it’s only going to get better.”

Ed also thinks the Titanic was a very successful cruise ship, and that the Chicago Cubs are the winningest franchise in sports. 

Ed Schultz thinks caller is going to criticize Obama Care, meltdown ensues

Here is the audio

A lot of people are linking this story but not so many are understanding what Schultz is actually doing. Yes, he is a rude asshole, yes he is a bombastic buffoon, we all know that. But, what upsets Schultz is that he thinks the caller might criticize Obama Care. Check the transcript out

“I just called to disagree with you about Democrats caring about veterans. I’m a retired veteran with 23 years of service and I don’t know if you know it, but 1 October, 171,000 of us were kicked off our health care. And those ‘evil Republicans,’ as you like to call them, passed a bill in June and it’s been sitting in the Senate and Reid won’t bring it up,” the 23-year veteran began.

At this point Schultz sees a likely legitimate criticism of Obama Care. And Schultz is not going to risk allowing his Left-Wing audience to hear anything negative about President Obama’s “signature legislation. So, as many Libs do, they attack, and change the subject. In this case Schultz looks to change the subject to the shutdown, which is NOT what the caller was talking about.

“First of all, you have, uh, your facts wrong,” Schultz responded, changing the subject and hollering over the caller when he tried to respond. “I’m not going to freaking argue with you, Russell. You’re full of crap, okay? You’re full of it. The government shutdown hurt the veterans. Is that wrong or right?”

“It hasn’t hurt us yet,” Russell said.

Schultz then vowed to “break your idiot argument down piece by piece!”

Schultz gives the caller almost no opportunity to speak, explain himself, or elaborate after this. Schultz freaks out because he fears the truth getting to the ears of his audience. So, Schultz attacks

The caller again reiterated that he is one of the 171,000 retired veterans who lost their benefits, a move that was supposedly intended to “reduce the cost of providing health care to military retirees.” The Democrats refuse to consider the Republican’s proposal to address the problem, he said. The vet also said he didn’t retire from the military for Obamacare.

“You have your facts wrong,” Schultz repeated, without actually explaining what facts were wrong. “You know what, you need a right-wing talker.”

And, again, Schultz goes back to the “Republicans shut down the government” defense, even though he knows what the caller is talking about is not related to the shut down at all.  The caller even says specifically he is not calling about the shutdown. All Schultz sees is the possibility his listeners might here an Obama Care horror story. In short, Schultz is willing to lie, and shut off a caller to defend Obama Care even though is hurting the very people Schultz claims to fight for.

Here is what the caller WAS actually talking about

According to a recent article by Tom Philpott, Defense officials are expected to soon announce that military retirees and their dependents that live more than 40 miles from a military treatment facility or BRAC (base closure) site will lose access to TRICARE Prime as early as next April.

This move could force as many as 171,000 retirees to shift to TRICARE Standard, which would mean an increase in out-of-pocket costs – especially those with special needs dependents or other chronic health issues.

It is important to note that active duty members and their families won’t be impacted. However, military retirees and their families are not the only ones to be hit by the move. In his article, Philpott points out that some drilling Guard and reserve members enrolled in TRICARE Reserve could also see increases in health costs.

In fairness, these cuts are not, as far as I can tell due to Obama Care

These changes have been in the works for some time. In fact, the new TRICARE support contracts were originally drafted in 2007 (during the Bush administration). These contracts were designed to reduce the cost of providing health care to military retirees by constricting Prime service areas.

Philpott reports that “Congress is not expected to block this long-standing plan to tighten access to Prime if the intent is to hold down costs.  Doing so likely would require lawmakers to find equivalent budget savings elsewhere.”

Many may find it disturbing that Defense officials delayed announcing this TRICARE change until after the election out of concern that it could be used by politicians.

The first round of Prime service changes is “tentatively” planned to go into effect in the TRICARE West region on April 1. The North and South regions will see the plan implemented by October 1, 2013.

Of course, Schultz was not going to even risk allowing a caller to tell their story if it did not match the Leftist narrative. So, apparently the Left wants to silence us even if we are NOT going to criticize Obama, or his health care fiasco. 

I guess the rules for trying to debate Schultz are pretty simple

Republicans are bad and always to blame.

Do not say anything negative about Obama Care, even if what you are talking about has nada to do with Obama Care.

Agree with Ed and the Leftist narrative or shut the Hell up!


NBC news president sh#@ canned

Via Stacy McCain

The New York Times spins it this way:

The longest-serving president of any of the three network news divisions, Steve Capus of NBC News, stepped down from his position on Friday, six months after Comcast restructured its news units in a way that diminished his authority.

Exactly how voluntary was this “stepping down”? John Nolte points to the scandal-plagued tenure of Capus at NBC News:

  1. During last year’s presidential election, Andrea Mitchell wascaught manufacturing a Romney gaffe where none existed.
  2. During last year’s GOP primary, Ed Schultz edited video of Texas Governor Rick Perry to make him look racist.
  3. In April of last year, the “Today Show” was caught editing audio of a 9-1-1 call to make George Zimmerman look racist.
  4. In August of 2009, Contessa Brewer sliced and diced a photograph so it wouldn’t look like a black man attended a Tea Party carrying a firearm.
  5. Just this week, NBC News maliciously edited video of a town council meeting to make it look as though Second Amendment civil rights activists heckled a parent who lost his son in Newtown.

The news is only important if it means NBC is going to actually restore journalistic standards to its news coverage, which, IMO, wold mean firing Andrea Mitchell, Contessa Brewer, Ed Schultz, and anyone else who committed these acts of journalistic malpractice. Otherwise, it is absolutely meaningless.


Another day of pimping tragedies at MSNBS

First up Al “Pimp My Hair” Sharpton

Next, via Weasel Zippers is Ed Schultz

Via Newsbusters:

It seems as though MSNBC’s Ed Schultz has taken Rahm Emanuel’s belief that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste” to heart.  Speaking on Monday prior to President Obama’s final press conference of his first term, Schultz disgustingly suggested that the tragedy at Sandy Hook could be “the 9/11 of gun violence.”

Bottom feeders, both of them.


Oh no! Ed Schultz stricken with Truth Deficit Disorder!

English: Ed Schultz
The Sad Face of TDD!

Another day, another Leftist ass hat contracts one of the many Liberal Maladies I have diagnosed mover the years. The ass hat, in this case, is Ed Schultz, the malady? Truth Deficit Disorder or TDD!

Via Newsbusters: 

The hits keep coming from libtalker Ed Schultz, who’s kicking off the new year on a roll.

First week into 2013, Schultz insisted that Bill Clinton was never tried in the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Schultz followed with the laughable claim that gun laws in Chicago, a city with some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on firearms, “don’t even exist.

Schultz is tripling down on his ignorance, making an egregiously false claim on his radio show yesterday while talking about whether schools should allow teachers to arm themselves (h/t for embedded audio clip, Brian Maloney at mrctv.org) –

“Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there’s guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn’t view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I’m just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense. You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? And so I’m just, is it nec-, haven’t we had enough school shootings where this is necessary?We’ve never had a civilian stop a shooting.”

Never? Really Ed? REALLY?? Well, folks, this has to be TDD. Poor Ed, you gotta feel for the blathering buffoon. He wants so badly for his numerous falsehoods to be true that he has developed an inability to grasp what everyone else sees, that he is, in fact, a lying bag of baboon dung! Mark Hemingway has some facts that lay waste to Ed’s delusional rantings

In response to last week’s massacre in Connecticut, Mother Jones has put together a “study” on mass shootings that makes a pretty bold claim:

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. 

There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that “the shooter took the lives of at least four people.” So then, consider the following:

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I’m sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present.

Newsbusters (link above) also points out that the Oregon mall shooting was stopped, likely in great part by an armed civilian

Back on Dec. 11, a gunman shot two people to death at a mall in Clackamas, Ore., then took his own life when he saw a 22-year-old patron with a concealed carry permit draw his weapon.

“He was working his own gun,” Nick Meli told KGW Channel 8, describing how he positioned himself behind a pillar when he heard gunfire. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”

The Channel 8 report continues —

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

“As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

“I’m not beating myself up ’cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”

See how TDD can ravage people ability to be honest? Please help stamp out TDD in our times. You can help by exposing Liberal lies, and yes, by reading this blog. PLEASE do not let THIS happen to you!

John Sununu says nothing racist, MSNBS immediately accuses him of RAAAAACISM

Via American Power comes your Saturday morning BS from the home of MSNBS

I hate to break the news to Michael Eric Dyson or ED Schultz, but MANY Black Americans DO support Obama strictly because of his color. Likewise many White people likely think it is their duty to vote for Obama, lest they be accused of racism by the likes of Schultz and Dyson. That is sad, but who should we blame for that mindset? Perhaps we ought to look at the Left, who have, for decades upon decades done everything they can to convince Black Americans that their skin color is everything! They have done the same  with women, Hispanics, and Gays, it is called identity politics. The Left loves to divide us, based on gender, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, class, income, age, you name it and the Left will use it to divide Americans.

If the Left can convince voters that they cannot really be Black, or really be a woman unless they vote for people who, I will use one of the Left’s favorite phrases here, “look like them”, then they can count on heavy majorities of those groups to support them. The pushing of identity politics is the real racism, because it assumes that people vote, or think the same because of their skin color. The Left, too, has made a habit of screaming RAAAAACISM at anyone who dares challenge Leftist ideology. It is in seemingly every statement any Democrat issues today. Think about this, when was the last time you heard Democrat NOT invoke class, race, gender, or sexual orientation when they speak? They are devoid if ideas that work, so they are reduced to playing the part of a snake oil salesman pushing accusations of classism, sexism, Homophobia, and of course racism. Is that really a party you want to support?


The first debate very good for Romney, not so much for Obama

A few observations. How many times did Obama look at Romney? He always seemed to be looking down, and angry, or at the moderator. Romney, on the other hand was constantly looking at Obama. It was almost like Romney was a teacher scolding a student at times. On issues, Obama basically repeated talking points all night, while Romney scored because he talked policy, and issues. Frankly, I think Mitt’s best moment was when he asked Obama how he could focus solely on health care while 23 million Americans were out of work. Bottom line BIG win for Romney, this was not close. While Romney spoke clearly, and with conviction, Obama stumbled, paused, stuttered, and looked clueless, and at times, when he looked down, he seemed to be saying “damn, Mitt is right”.

Stacy McCain has his take, and yep, he thinks Mittt won too

Damn. Mitt won it straight-up. I’ve turned my TV to MSNBC to watch their reaction.

Rachel Maddow: “I personally do not know who won this debate.” This means . . . yeah, Mitt won. He beat the hell out of Obama.

Ed Schultz: “[Obama] created a problem for himself tonight on Social Security. He agreed with Mitt Romney. . . . I thought he was off his game.”

UPDATE 10:25 p.m. ET: Jim Lehrer babbling like an idiot about time running out. He wants Obama to get re-elected so ObamaCare will cover treatment for his senility.

UPDATE 10:22 p.m. ET: “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts.” Zing!

UPDATE 10:06 p.m. ET: They’ve been going back and forth about ObamaCare for 10 minutes. If you believe what Obama says — as opposed to the actual facts — then you’ll probably think he won this part of the debate. But if you believe what Obama says, you’re probably too stupid to read this anyway.

Donald Douglas is calling this a bloodbath for Democrats, and notes that the crew at MSNBS are flipping out

I thought my perspective was biased, that Romney just destroyed Obama in the debate. But the results are coming in, and it’s a bloodbath for the Democrats.

See BuzzFeed for the big headline, “How Mitt Romney Won The First Debate.” (At Memeorandum.) Also at Washington Free Beacon, “Liberal Media Calls It for Romney.”

I’ll be updating, but if you’re checking my blog as this post goes live, click your remote over to MSNBC. This is a devastating night for the left. It’s a collective meltdown over there. Ed Schultz just said that Mitt Romney was “in his wheelhouse on the economy.” And Chris Matthews was literally going ballistic. I’ll be looking for the video and will update.

Michelle has one word to describe Romney, UNINTIMIDATE! 

Romney was unintimidated by President Obama.

He was undaunted by lib moderator Jim Lehrer.

He was in command of his facts.

He was comfortable with himself.

He was unafraid of his positions.

He drew clear contrasts. He spoke with ease.

By contrast, Obama looked down at his notes or beseeched Lehrer with his eyes and his mouth to move on.

Romney patiently dissected Obama’s ramblings, injected humor and zingers, and didn’t back down.

Hot Air has more, including a CBS poll that shows a decisive win for Romney

Check out Chris Matthews, who looks like he has lost that Obamagasm feeling he is almost in tears, and in full blown meltdown

If you really want to understand the mind of Chris Matthews…..

…then drive to Crazy Town, take a left turn, past Insaneviile, and keep going until you plunge off Wacko Cliff into the bottomless Sea of Racial Obsession Syndrome. Then you will be where Chris Matthews diseased brain is 

Oh my legs!

What a ludicrous standard! Matthews, how is it possible to speak to the ‘whole’ country? With ‘whole’ for a quantifier, it only takes one to require another pass. Pass, ‘whole’.


Minutes after Paul Ryan finished his RNC speech on Wednesday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews slammed the Republican vice presidential candidate for supposedly ignoring blacks during his “very constricted, very negative, very nasty speech,” and suggested that he was directing the address to racists: “It’s clear that Paul Ryan was talking to people who think about rights as something…produced by Thomas Jefferson, ignoring the people for whom the rights only came in the 1960s.”

Wow! This guy is redefining unhinged on a daily basis. I expect that soon we will see Matthews, in a straighjacket doing his show from a dark cellar and chanting that Chicago is a RAAAAACIST  word!

Matthews then demonstrates his mind-numbing ability to take an idiotic statement, amplify it, and subsequently make it exponentially more idiotic coming from his mouth, when he said this:

“Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman.  What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes.  That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.”

He added, “They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed?  They keep saying Chicago.  That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.”

Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them – Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement:

“There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.”

Maybe MSNBS can replace Matthews, and any guests with Eric Cartman of South Park

Good Gief! And I might remind Matthews that it is HIS network that refused to carry many speeches by Black Republicans like Mia Love.

In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

Throughout this convention, Matthews has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

All of this begs the question. Was Chris Matthews crazy before his legs had their first Obamagasm? Or did all those Obamagasms make him nuttier than a truckload of fruitcakes?

It is time for another edition of “MSNBS Hosts Say the Darndest Things!”

Chris Matthews is a lunatic, seriously. He says he doubts the SCOTUS would rule against segregation

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Then you have Lawrence O’Donnell claiming that the individual mandate in Obamacare does not exist. Egads!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

OK, who did not see THIS coming? UPDATED! 38% of union voters went with Walker! UPDATE!! Ed Schultz lectures union voters who voted for Walker

Gov. Walker easily wins the Wisconsin recall vote. What will Al Sharpton do?

A-Accept defeat graciously

B- Go work on his hair


If you voted C, well, you are right!

MSNBC “PoliticsNation” host Al Sharpon was the latest of MSNBC’s on-air talent to express displeasure, or put a positive spin, on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s win in Wisconsin Tuesday night, blaming “voter-suppression schemes” for the Democrats’ loss.

“This Wisconsin recall election, I think I did my commentary from the Washington, D.C. office this morning,” Sharpton said. “It really is a wake-up call, because despite that fact that clearly money was one of the main factors, it’s not going anywhere by November. If anything, I think that it has emboldened the right wing, it has emboldened these billionaires. There was all kinds of voter-suppression schemes from ID [cards required to vote], to not letting students vote and registration.”

Sharpton told his audience that this is a sign of things to come for this fall’s general election and encouraged his listeners to “double-down and get ready to fight.”

“It almost was a test run on what they’re going to do in November,” he continued. “The question is what are we going to do about it? We can either act like it means nothing and it’s like in a fight — you got your head hit and you’re groggy and you’re going to be in denial — or you’re going to admit that somebody hit you hard, clear your head and let’s double-down and get ready to fight.”

Good Freaking Grief, these parasites are so predictable.

UPDATE! Sharpton might want to blame those damned union guys

(CNSNews.com) — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says “there’s no doubt” that union members were among those who voted to keep him in office in Tuesday’s recall election.

The network exit poll for the special election showed that Walker won the votes of 38 percent of voters who said they were a union member or lived in a household with a union member.

“I’m talking to workers here this morning, talked to a lot of manufacturers across the state over the last year and a half, but particularly the last months in this campaign, and I find that at plant after plant, there are construction workers and others in manufacturing who appreciate the fact that we turned our state around. And I think they wanted more of that in the future,” Walker told Fox & Friends Wednesday morning. “They wanted us to go forward.”

The exit poll showing that Walker got 38 percent of the vote from people living in union households was conducted by Edison Research for ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, Fox News and the Associated Press.

Walker said he’s heard voters complain for years that when politicians get into office, they’re not willing to take on the tough challenges.

UPDATE!! Of course, union butt boy Ed Schultz is furious at union members who voted for Walker! 

On Wednesday’s The Ed Show, MSNBC host Ed Schultz took a lecturing and even mocking tone toward labor union members who voted for Governor Scott Walker in Tuesday’s recall election in Wisconsin as he recounted NBC News exit poll numbers showing that a significant chunk of union voters supported the Wisconsin Republican.

The MSNBC host ended up invoking President Obama’s assertion from the 2008 campaign that people in rural areas vote for Republicans because of a tendency to “cling” to guns and religion, and suggested that Obama was correct in his diagnosis of what he viewed as a problem that some union members in rural areas vote for Republicans instead of sticking with the union line.

Hey Ed, pull your head out of the union bosses asses and hear this. This was not a union election Ed! People actually had a right to vote their conscience!

Remember how MSNBS jumped all over the Trayvon Martin story?

I know you do, but, an odd, but very predictable thing happened when the actual evidence began to come out. Suddenly, MSNBS went silent!

Via Mediaite:

In March and April, MSNBC’s primetime hosts ran with nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. They regularly suggested that the lack of national interest in the case was worthy of outrage. Last week, when an avalanche of new evidence favorable to George Zimmerman came to light, MSNBC’s primetime lineup didn’t just bury the story, they didn’t mention Martin or Zimmerman once the week that news broke according to media monitoring service TV Eyes.

On May 15, ABC’s World News broke new informationthat showed a more nuanced picture of how the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin unfolded. Their documents describe Zimmerman as having received “two black eyes” as well as a “broken nose.” They also outlined how Zimmerman was offered but refused hospitalization on the night of the incident.

MSNBC’s 8 p.m. anchor Ed Schultz led with the news that J.P. Morgan chairman Jamie Dimonwould retain his chairmanship. “The big bank casino is still open and Republicans want to keep it that way,” said Schultz.

All too predictable. Of course, do not be surprised if, in the future, MSNBS brings the case up again, if they can find a way to use it and omit the facts.

What is the difference between Ed Schultz and a pile of monkey dung?

The monkey dung likely has some legitimate purpose! Via Breitbart TV

Understand this. Ed Schultz has no idea what actually happened that night. Zimmerman might have been within his rights, we shall see when all the evidence is seen. Zimmerman has not “walked free”. He might face charges still, and yes Ed we might come to find that Zimmerman was to blame, if so, put him in jail. But, what if Martin was to blame, we have an eye-witness that supports Zimmerman’s version of the events. Why do you continue to ignore that Ed? Oh, of course, it does not fit your narrative!

Further, Ed points out that there have been 65 “deaths” since the laws’ passage. And what about those “deaths” Ed? What were the circumstances Ed? Why did you just throw out the “65 deaths” line? Could it be that those deaths were legitimate cases of self-defense? Why is telling the whole story so tough Ed? And while we are talking truth Ed, try this on for size. The fact is you could not give a damn less about that dead kid! You care about one thing Ed. Exploiting his death for all it is worth.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Actually Chris Matthews, if you really want cultists, look at the MNSNBS hosts

Chris Matthews takes the idiot cake, every last crumb of it. He, and the rest of his cohorts at MSNBS are just a week or two removed from going on TV in tin foil hats

Religious bigotry is perfectly acceptable if it comes from the left. Tingles Matthews was talking to his buddy Ed Schultz about the Republican primary, and how some voters believe President Obama is a Muslim and they are willing to “outsource” the job to Mitt Romney the Mormon. But he didn’t stop there. He went on to insult not only Mormons, but Catholics, too.

“It seems to me, if they can win — I said it’s almost like calling up India, or somewhere in the third-world to get your computer fixed. You don’t care who is fixing it, just fix the damn computer. They want to get rid of Obama so they’re willing to vote for a guy they don’t like or trust his religion. But they have no choice,” Matthews said during MSNBC’s primetime coverage of primary results on Tuesday night.

“They have three, or two RCs — Roman Catholics running and a Mormon so the three cultists running. I have to pick one of the three cultists as they see them. This isn’t as funny as I’m making it, but it’s ridiculous to pick a guy they really think is the other, the heretic, the Muslim, what a strangest of religious prejudice is at work here, they pick the guy they don’t like to pick a guy they hate worse,” he finished.

Some pass the Reynolds Wrap

So, why IS Ed Schultz so gung ho for the unions?

Choice number 1 is that Schultz just loves the hard working Americans in unions

Choice number 2 is that Ed REALLY is a man of the people

Choice number 3 is actually choice $200,000

Jack Coleman at NewsBusters has what could be a pretty big media story. He spent some time digging through union disclosure forms at the Dept. of Labor and found that Ed Schultz has been collecting quite a sum from various unions while working at MSNBC:

In fiscal 2011, Schultz received $190,000 from the Communications Workers of America for what the U.S. Department of Labor categorized as “representational activities.”

For swag like that, you’d think Schultz could at least get it right about the CWA name. Instead, he invariably refers to it as the “Communication” Workers of America when its president, Larry Cohen, is a guest on Schultz’s radio show, as Cohen often is.

Coleman wondered if this could be another Ed Schultz, but no apparently not:

A Labor Department spokesman confirmed to NewsBusters that Schultz received $190,000 from CWA  in fiscal 2011, far from than the $7,500 he was paid by the union a year earlier. The spokesman said unions are mandated to report such payments as required by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

The smart money is on option three I would say