Tag Archives: the ed show

Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

Ed Schultz may have finally lost it. He has reportedly been neglected by MSNBC brass. The last straw came yesterday when Schultz found out he would not appear on MSNBC’s election night promo. He went absolutely berserk, according to people on the scene. “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. According to an unnamed source, Schutlz was dragged into a meeting with MSNBC president Phil Griffin, where Schultz was told that he would be fired if he did it again. He broke down in tears. The Post has the full scoop (h/t Treach ): A witness told us, “Ed was furious the network was running election-night promos and he wasn’t in them. He’d been arguing on the phone with marketing, then he slammed down the phone and exploded. It was like Mel Gibson had entered the newsroom.” Fuming Schultz was immediately dragged in for a meeting with NBC News President Steve Capus and MSNBC President Phil Griffin following his Aug. 12 meltdown. Our source added, “Schultz was told: ‘If you do that again, you are fired.’ He broke down crying.” Sources say the hothead was pushed over the edge by MSNBC’s catering to bullying fellow anchor Keith Olbermann and its focus on golden girl Rachel Maddow. A second MSNBC source said, “Ed never gets any attention and love, and he finally snapped.” Poor Ed. If it’s any consolation, we hope MSNBC includes Schultz in its election night coverage. With blowups like this, it’s hard to top the entertainment value.

See the original post:
Ed Schultz Threatens to ‘Torch’ 30 Rock, Then Breaks Down in Tears

Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

What’s next: Bill Clinton cutting an ad vexing David Vitter on the issue of fidelity? Of all people, Ed Schultz spent an entire segment this evening going after Chris Christie . . . about his girth. I counted no fewer than seven separate barbs that Schultz directed Christie’s way over his weight.  He began with a photo of the NJ Governor with the graphic “Battle of the Bulge.”   It got heavier from there. “This morning, Beckster [Glenn Beck] had some sizeable praise for the job-cutting governor.” “On his radio program, Laura Ingraham backed him up with this hefty endorsement .” ” Christie’s couch-potato lifestyle .” “Chris Christie is a guy who makes the middle-class, the poor and schoolkids pay for his fat-cat buddies to keep their living high on the hog lifestyle.” “To say he’d be a good president? That would be some pretty hefty Psycho Talk.” Schultz seems to have a penchant for throwing stones from deep within a glass house.  As I reported here yesterday, after Ed mocked Karl Rove for a brief stumble in giving the call-in number while guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh, Schultz proceeded to butcher the pronunciation of a guest’s name.  Tonight, the significantly un-svelte Schultz taunts Chris Christie over his weight.  Why would Ed want to highlight his own hypocrisy?  When Christie’s opponent in the NJ gubernatorial race, then-incumbent governor Jon Corzine, ran an ad taunting Christie over his avoirdupois, it famously blew up in his face .  Is Ed sure he wants to go down the same losing road?

Read more here:
Of All People: Schultz Slams Chris Christie With Fat Jokes

Tony Blankley Destroys Ed Schultz in Debate About Clinton and Gingrich

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on Monday absolutely got his head handed to him in a debate with syndicated columnist Tony Blankley. Clearly underestimating his opponent, Schultz rudely introduced the subject of a Republican proposal to not have the Congress come back for a lame duck session after November’s elections by saying, “No one knows better about shutting down Congress than someone who was right there working for Newt Gingrich when it happened before.” Not letting this stand, Blankley gave the “Ed Show” host a much-needed history lesson (video follows with transcript and commentary):   ED SCHULTZ, HOST: The GOP wants to work three weeks in four months. Got that? While railing about wasteful government spending with a straight face. I don’t know how they do it. It’s absolutely stunning. No one knows better about shutting down Congress than someone who was right there working for Newt Gingrich when it happened before. Tony Blankley was press secretary to the Speaker and he’s now a syndicated columnist. Tony, do you think, good to have you with us tonight. TONY BLANKLEY: Good to be here. SCHULTZ: You bet. Do you think it plays to the sensibilities of Americans to suggest a plan that, gosh, the Congress would only be in session to do something for the American people several weeks out of the next four months? BLANKLEY: Well, first of all, I’ve got to correct the record as I expected I would. Newt did not close down the government in ’95. The Republican Congress passed two bills and the President Clinton decided to veto them because he didn’t like what was in the bill, which was funding plus requiring to balance the budget in seven years. And by the way, if you dispute it, I do have in my hot little hands the transcript from Nightline of the night the government closed down with Cokie Roberts and President Clinton agreeing that he vetoed the bill. So, putting that aside, we didn’t want to close down the government. We wanted to balance the budget. For the record, here is that ABC “Nightline” transcript from November 13, 1995: COKIE ROBERTS, HOST: [voice-over] A political impasse over the budget- Pres. BILL CLINTON: I would be wrong to permit these kind of pressure tactics. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: It’s very sad to see the President choose this political game. COKIE ROBERTS: [voice-over] -and federal services hang in the balance. Tonight, as the clock strikes 12:00, the government shuts down. ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Substituting for Ted Koppel and reporting from Washington, Cokie Roberts. COKIE ROBERTS: It’s after midnight in Washington, so the government must be closed, right? Well, technically right, but this is Washington, after all, and nothing is quite that simple. After casting his threatened vetoes, President Clinton and congressional leaders met tonight, trying to fix the mess they had made, but the meeting broke up not long ago, with only the promise to meet again tomorrow. Each side is trying to score political points in this budget drama without getting blamed for chaos. ‘Protector of Medicare’ is President Clinton’s chosen role, and he refused to sign the bill to keep the government going because it required Medicare recipients to pay more for some premiums than they currently expect to. Republicans playing ‘protectors of the purse,’ but both sides are worried that voters will see them as game-playing politicians, and an ABC News/Washington Post poll released tonight shows that’s exactly what voters do think. Nine times in the past 14 years, the government’s officially run out of money. Four times it’s actually shut down. This is becoming a well-worn script. But the poll also shows that Republicans get more of the blame for a possible shutdown; 46 percent say they’re at fault, 27 percent blame the President. Those numbers serve as a backdrop to the events of this very long day. Nightline correspondent Michel McQueen has our report. RADIO ANNOUNCER: Federal shutdown, will it happen? Stay tuned for instant updates. MICHEL McQUEEN, ABC News: [voice-over] As the sun rose, so did the volume in a divided Washington. Vice Pres. AL GORE: [NBC] They have not done their job. Now they’re trying to make an end run around the Constitution, around the normal procedures. Rep. ROBERT LIVINGSTON, (R), Chairman, Appropriations Committee: We’ve done a lot to work our way toward the President. He has not done thing toward coming toward us. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Eight-thirty A.M., President Clinton vetoed the first of two bills at issue in the budget crisis, one that would raise the federal debt limit and require a balanced budget in seven years. Pres. BILL CLINTON: It would allow the United States to pay its debts for another month, but only at a price too high for the American people to pay. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And as federal workers headed to the office, the confrontation over the other bill – providing money to keep the government operating temporarily – cast a shadow over the workday. 1st FEDERAL WORKER: I think it’s nonsense. I’m involved in personnel, so I’m the one who’s going to be going to my office to type up furlough letters, including to myself. 2nd FEDERAL WORKER: Reality is that the Congress and the President have to get together and come to terms on exactly, you know, what needs to be done to ensure that there isn’t a shutdown. Pres. BILL CLINTON: Thank you. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Mid-morning. In a duel to seize the moral high ground, the President and House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered speeches to friendly audiences. Pres. BILL CLINTON: As long as they insist on plunging ahead with a budget that violates our values, in a process that is characterized more by pressure than constitutional practice, I will fight it. I am fighting it today, I will fight it tomorrow, I will fight it next week, and next month. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We can balance the budget, we can save the Medicare trust fund, we can reform the welfare system if we can have an honest dialogue among ourselves as a people. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] At the Senate, the first sign of movement. Republican budget leader Pete Domenici offered a compromise to freeze Medicare premiums at their current level. Sen. PETE DOMENICI: Now, of late, and I don’t know whether this is acceptable across the board, but I’ve at least discussed, after talking with my staff, I’ve discussed with the Republican leader here and with others that perhaps the solution is to freeze that at $46.10. MICHEL McQUEEN: But at noon, despite the glimmer of progress, all signs still point to a government shutdown, with no clue about how long it will last, or what the long-term impact might be. And although Washington has seen these shutdowns before, nearly everyone agrees that this one is different. NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: It has the potential of a serious disruption, and an historic change. You have a Republican Congress, especially a Republican House, bound and determined not to compromise and to push its vision of the budget and of the role of the federal government down the throat of the President of the United States, and you have a president saying, ‘I draw the line in the dust, and I won’t let this happen.’ HELEN THOMAS, United Press International: You always had the sense that it was very- it would be resolved very soon. There seems to be a different mood this time around, a real- there’s a real division of philosophy, I think, of government. It’s- it’s, I think, a real crisis. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] The real crisis for federal workers, like these in a Social Security office in Kansas City, was the fear of losing a paycheck. 3rd FEDERAL WORKER: When we go on furlough, then that means immediately we have no income, and even if it was just us, it would be one thing, but we have a child to take care of. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And at this national park in Ventura County, California, rangers were preparing for limited operation. NATIONAL PARK RANGER: The areas will be closed off to the public, but we will maintain patrols of the area and maintain a patrol staff for emergency medical services, protection of the resource, and search and rescue operations. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Back in Washington, twice as many people as usual showed up at the passport office, fearing the office would soon close. Two-thirty P.M. Presidential spokesman Mike McCurry threw cold water on a proposed compromise on Medicare and on the Congress’s overall approach to funding. MIKE McCURRY: The President is very concerned about 60 percent funding level. He has made that clear repeatedly in the statements he’s made the last two days, and that just is an unacceptable [crosstalk]. REPORTER: So that’s a veto. That means a veto, correct? MIKE McCURRY: It’s unacceptable. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And with the White House unwilling to compromise, senators said they also were not interested, and that they would send the President their original funding bill. They pointedly noted they would remain on the job. Sen. BOB DOLE: We’re prepared to act up until midnight, or after, if necessary, to prevent a shutdown of the federal government. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And the blame game continued. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We want the country to understand that the only way the government will close tomorrow is, it is President Clinton is determined to close it. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And shortly before 9:00 P.M., congressional leaders reached out. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We want to go down and talk with the President about how to keep the government open, and to try to have a discussion about how we will get to a balanced budget and keep the government open, and the- he said no preconditions, and we said no preconditions. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] It was the Republicans who asked the President for the meeting, and while the phone call got them an invitation to the White House, it could not save their funding bill. Within the hour, the President issued a veto, his second of the day, guaranteeing a government shutdown at midnight.  Got that? Just as Blankley said, the shutdown was indeed caused by Clinton’s vetoes. Not surprisingly, the facts weren’t getting in the way of Schultz’s point: SCHULTZ: Well, let me, so you don’t have history revisionism going on here, Tony, the fact is is that it was Newt Gingrich who made the decision based on the action of President Clinton that okay, that’s it, we’re just going to shut her down. The President was not advocating shutting down the Congress. Is that correct? BLANKLEY: That is not, that is not true. Newt passed, we passed, we passed the bill with the money and the debt limit raise which is what was required. By the way, I have a Congressional Research Service study that says the same thing. Republicans passed the bill. The President vetoed it. For the record, here’s what that CRS study said: The most recent shutdowns occurred in FY1996. There were two during the early part of the fiscal year. The first, November 14-19, 1995, resulted in the furlough of an estimated 800,000 federal employees. It was caused by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution (P.L. 104-31) agreed to on September 30, 1995, and by President Clinton’s veto of a second continuing resolution and a debt limit extension bill. Schultz still wasn’t giving up: SCHULTZ: Was, was… BLANKLEY: That’s the record! SCHULTZ: I don’t want to spend too much time on history… BLANKLEY: I know! SCHULTZ: …but the fact is President Clinton was not advocating shutting down the Congress… BLANKLEY: And neither, and neither were the Republicans. SCHULTZ: …nor does he have the power to do that. BLANKLEY: He did by, by vetoing the bill. SCHULTZ: Oh, okay, Because he didn’t play ball the way you guys wanted to… BLANKLEY: Exactly. SCHULTZ: …that’s how you interpret it. BLANKLEY: There was a real argument to be had and you could haggle over it. We wanted cuts in medicare spending, he didn’t. But the fact is we, we passed the legislation that would keep the government open. He vetoed it because he didn’t like the other provisions that were in it. Indeed, and no matter how much folks like Schultz want to blame that government shutdown on Gingrich and the Republican Congress, it was in fact Clinton that forced it with his vetoes. Not accepting defeat graciously, Schultz foolishly came back for more, and once again got destroyed by the astonishingly more knowledgable Blankley: SCHULTZ: Okay, so the next point is this. How did the next election go for the Republicans after that? BLANKLEY: We held onto the House for another ten years. SCHULTZ: And how many seats did you lose? BLANKLEY: ’95 to 2006 before we lost it. Talk about walking into a gunfight with a knife. For the record, despite Clinton’s re-election in 1996, he had absolutely no coat-tail that year as the Republicans did surprisingly well in the Congressional balloting losing only six seats in the House while gaining two in the Senate. As such, on this subject, Schultz was once again all wet. Of course, there’s a much larger issue here. The media are realizing that this November is going to be very bad for the Democrats they support, and they’re pulling out all the stops to lessen the damage. This of includes revising history much as Schultz attempted here to blame everything that has gone wrong in this country – even a government shutdown fifteen years ago – on the GOP. Beyond this, as Gingrich is rumored to be a presidential candidate in 2012, there’s a new movement by so-called journalists to tarnish his record irrespective of the facts. In this instance, the paltry number of people watching fortunately had Blankley there to correct the record. Sadly, on this shill network, that is rarely the case. Bravo, Tony! Bravo!

More:
Tony Blankley Destroys Ed Schultz in Debate About Clinton and Gingrich

George Stephanopoulos’s Wife On CNN: ‘Is Monogamy Killing Your Marriage?’

“Tonight – is monogamy killing marriage? If you let your spouse stray, will they stay? Rethinking wedded bliss in the 21st century.” Believe it or not, that’s how “Larry King Live” began on CNN Tuesday. Filling in for King was Ali Wentworth, comedienne, actress, and wife of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos who in February did a striptease on the set of “Good Morning America” for her husband’s 49th birthday. The topic of discussion Tuesday: “Should couples have open relationships and disclose affairs? Could letting your man sleep with another woman actually help your relationship?” In case you were wondering, the following aired at 9PM EDT (video follows with transcript and commentary): ALI WENTWORTH, GUEST HOST: Tonight – is monogamy killing marriage? If you let your spouse stray, will they stay? Rethinking wedded bliss in the 21st century. Then sharks in the water. One attacks and shreds the arm of a swimmer in Florida. Great whites are spotted off the coast of Cape Cod. They’re lurking, look out. Next, on LARRY KING LIVE. Good evening, I’m Ali Wentworth sitting in for Larry. He’s on vacation. I’m very excited about this show tonight because it’s two of my biggest fears. A great white shark attacking me or my husband cheating. Now if you’ve ever been in a relationship you’ll want to stay right here because we are talking about monogamy. It’s been a hot topic on CNN.com all day. Should couples have open relationships and disclose affairs? Could letting your man sleep with another woman actually help your relationship? Well, that’s what we’re going to ask our guests tonight. Bethenny Frankel is here. She’s a star of Bravo’s “Bethenny Getting Married.” She tied the knot in March. Congratulations. BETHENNY FRANKEL, ACTRESS, BRAVO’S “BETHENNY GETTING MARRIED”: Thank you. WENTWORTH: Holly Hill is the author of “Sugarbabe.” She says women should negotiate infidelity with their husbands. And Sarah Symonds is an author and infidelity analyst. Hello, women, and welcome to a hot topic. Infidelity. I want to — I want to first ask, have any of you been cheated on? FRANKEL: Yes. I was cheated on. His — he had a girlfriend while he was — well, he was actually sleeping with her. I was his girlfriend. And she called me in the middle of the night at about 2:00 in the morning and said, can I speak to Michael? I guess he’s going to be listening. Hi, Michael. Hi, can I speak to Michael, and I said, who is this? And she said, I’m his girlfriend. And we hung up the phone and I waited two hours and I star 69’d her so I can call her back and get all the details. WENTWORTH: And she gave you all the details? FRANKEL: And she gave me the details. You need the details. WENTWORTH: Well, you always need the details. Now, Holly — Holly Hill author of “Sugarbabe,” you actually think that’s OK. You think that if you negotiate fidelity with your spouse or lover that actually makes for a long and successful relationship. Am I right? HOLLY HILL, SAYS WOMEN SHOULD LET MEN CHEAT: Yes. Absolutely. And those details that we talk about, if you’re meeting the women that your partner is being with, you’re not building her up to be some kind of supermodel in your head. And we always want to know the details. And the best way to get the details is ask her out for coffee and be adult about what is a very educated and natural thing to be doing. FRANKEL: See, I think that was a low point in my relationship, in my life to be talking to that girl. It really had nothing to do with her. I was in the wrong relationship because I was with someone who was cheating. And I think that negotiating within your relationship about being allowed to cheat is absurd. WENTWORTH: You know, Holly, it’s one of the things that I — I’m married. And one of the things that I think of in my marriage is that, you know, I can go to my girlfriends for emotional support or my shrink, and there are other venues where I can sort of get what I want. But I feel that marriage, the one thing I have with my husband, which is sacred, is a sexual physical relationship. Otherwise, why be married? HILL: I guess the only reason it’s sacred is because it’s — there’s old-fashioned rules that we’re obeying. And if you want to have a lifetime relationship with someone — which is what we all want — it’s about negotiating things within their nature and their biology. WENTWORTH: Now, Sarah, you say that — you started a fantastic Web site, MistressesAnonymous. But you’re not saying that that’s a good thing. This is really a support group for a lot of women that have been brokenhearted because they had an affair with a married man or wanted to be with a married man. Am I right? SARAH SYMONDS, AUTHOR & INFIDELITY ANALYST: Absolutely. And first of all, hi, Ali, thanks for having me on. Hi, ladies. I can absolutely resonate with Holly, I’ve been through certain, you know, similar experiences that she has. But I have to say, if you are negotiating with somebody you probably are in the wrong relationship. Anything that needs that much negotiation probably isn’t right and you should get out of it. And that’s who my Web site is about, that’s what my support group is about. It’s called MistressesAnonymous, which is like Alcoholics Anonymous. But in my group we can drink, and trust me, you need to. It’s, you know, a 12-step program. And literally I help women get out of their toxic affairs with married men, with unavailable men, with bad boys. It’s a phenomenon that’s going over America. You know women are attracting to these wrong guys. And I hear from women every single day. It’s unbelievable. WENTWORTH: Now I want to sort of open this debate up to all three of you, which is that a lot of people say, men and women clearly are different, and we have different needs and men really biologically, physically, their urge is to spread their seed throughout the land, and ours is to kind of, you know, incubate. And when you put that in its very kind of specific scientific DNA kind of way, do we allow men because it is their physical urge to go out and have at it? FRANKEL: I think women — first of all, men are sleeping with the women. And I mean, speaking of the sharks that are going to be on the show tonight, there are a lot of women going out and preying on men. So I think it’s equal. I think a lot of women have a big sexual appetite. So, beyond the television shows, movies, music, trash novels, and magazines encouraging infidelity, a cable news network not only feels this is an appropriate subject, but also at 9PM. With all this publicizing of extra-marital relationships, how do couples manage to stay together AND raise children that honor commitment and vows? Seems to be more and more impossible, doesn’t it?  If you can take more of this, the full transcript is available here .

Read more from the original source:
George Stephanopoulos’s Wife On CNN: ‘Is Monogamy Killing Your Marriage?’

Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

How far have we come from the era of “Dissent Is Patriotic” stickers on the bumpers of your local lefties during the Bush administration?  A host on the second-highest rated cable news network has equated political dissent with . . . assassination.   On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed Schultz stated: “Now I’m putting my cards on the table tonight as I do every night. The Republican party is on a mission to politically assassinate the president’s agenda across the board.  They want to shoot down everything.” Note how Schultz reinforces the assassination theme by adding that Republicans want to “shoot down” everything.  Does political speech get much more vile than this?  Do Schultz’s MSNBC bosses approve this kind of reckless rhetoric?

View original post here:
Schultz: Republicans Want To Politically ‘Assassinate’ Pres. Obama’s Agenda

Ed Schultz Wonders If Obama Is ‘Still Alive’

Perry Cobama? One of the great comedy bits from the classic SCTV show was a skit satirizing an ultra relaxed and disengaged Perry Como singing “Still Alive” in a most lackadaisical manner. And now we have MSNBC host Ed Schultz wondering aloud on his radio show if Barack Obama is “Still Alive.” Here is a transcript of Schultz commenting on Obama’s detachment to the extent that Big Ed isn’t even sure he wants to run for president again:

‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Over the weekend, Dave Weigel resigned as WaPo’s house chronicler of conservatives after revelations of his antipathy toward the people he was covering. Tonight brings us the spectacle of Ross Douthat, an ostensibly conservative columnist at the New York Times.  Appearing on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz show, Douthat proffered precisely zero criticism of anyone or anything liberal.  But he did manage to mock Mike Huckabee as “passive-aggressive.”  For good measure, Douthat suggested that “right-wing” people who question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union. The Nation’s Chris Hayes subbed for Schultz tonight, and he didn’t have to strain to elicit criticism of conservatives from Douthat.  After playing a clip of Huckabee stating the apparent fact that he polls better than other Republicans against Obama, Douthat opined. View video here . ROSS DOUTHAT:  I think that’s classically Huckabee. It’s sort of charmingly passive-aggressive. In the clip, Huckabee criticized no one.  What’s “passive-aggressive” about observing that one’s leading in some polls? Later, Hayes invited Douthat to riff off a poll that showed 24% of Americans don’t think Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. DOUHAT: There are two ways to read it, right?  Clearly on the one hand it’s illustrative of a certain kind of paranoia among many Americans, right-wing Americans about Barack Obama. On the other hand, I really think you can overstate the importance of these polls.  There are polls every year that show 42% of Americans believe in UFOs.   HAYES: Also disturbing! DOUTHAT: Also disturbing. But I also wonder, if you took that 21% [sic] and polled them and said what percentage know that being born outside the US — HAYES: Disqualifies — DOUTHAT: Is a disqualification for the presidency. Or if you polled them and said, what percentage know that Hawaii is actually a state?  That sounds like a joke, but– that sounds like a joke — Douthat was interrupted, but his point was clear.  Right-wingers: too thick to realize that Hawaii’s a state. Ross sounds like the quintessential NYT/MSNBC “conservative”: one most interested in ingratiating himself with his liberal masters.

See the original post here:
‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Ed Schultz Tries to Blame McChrystal, Appointed by Obama, on Bush

Far-left MSNBC ranter Ed Schultz just can’t let facts get in the way of his rank partisanship and liberal propagandizing. His latest whopper, that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was “another problem [President Obama] inherited from the Bush administration,” was blatantly untrue, and just earned him a ” pants on fire ” rating from Politifact.com. Politifact, which has busted up other untruths propagated by media liberals, noted a valuable lesson for liberals and Democrats: “not everything can be blamed on President Bush.” Indeed. Not only did President Obama not “inherit” McChrystal’s command from the previous administration, he “effectively sacked the general in charge to create a vacancy that he then proceeded to fill with McChrystal as his fix-it man,” notes Politifact. We applaud the folks at Politifact for checking Schultz’s inane rantings. Welcome to our world!

More here:
Ed Schultz Tries to Blame McChrystal, Appointed by Obama, on Bush

Beck Highlights the Sharp Contrast of Two NBC Universal Products – CNBC and MSNBC Reactions over BP Oil Spill

The media reaction to the Obama administration’s handling of the BP Gulf oil spill crisis has been a mixed bag. But it hasn’t been good. Some are arguing President Barack Obama has gone too far and overstepped his legal authority and some are arguing he hasn’t gone far enough with the “boot on the throat” mentality. And on his June 17 Fox News Channel program, Glenn Beck played three separate examples of these differences you normally wouldn’t associate with one another – CNBC’s Matt Nesto, liberal flame-thrower and comedian Rosie O’Donnell and MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. “Even the people at NBC are noticing maybe something is not right,” Beck said. Beck was referring to comments made by Nesto on CNBC’s June 16 “Closing Bell,” which Nesto emphasized his concerned over the President’s action. “I’m very troubled by the fact that the President has again created his own sense of a legal system,” Nesto said. “It’s not his job to create laws. It’s his job to enforce laws.” And Beck noted that Nesto had an understanding of constitutional authority in that regard. “OK, it’s not his job to create laws but to enforce them,” Beck said. “Yes, that’s if you understand the Constitution. CNBC is noticing something is wrong.” Beck’s next example clearly doesn’t. O’Donnell, who has a radio show now, had a different take on how the office of the presidency should exercise its authority as it pertains to BP. “But the President couldn’t get these things to happen unless those who want fundamental transformation are starting to create those conditions where the President can do what he knows is right,” he continued. “We’ve already seen it. Rosie O’Donnell is calling for the government just to seize BP.” He played comments from O’Donnell’s radio show earlier this month . “Seize their assets today,” O’Donnell said. “Take over the country, I don’t care. Issue an executive order. Say, BP, guess what? Call it socialism, call it communism, call it anything you want. Let’s watch Rush Limbaugh explode on TV when he talks. Seize the assets, take over…” And along that same line, Beck pointed out how a particular MSNBC host wanted Obama to go dictatorial on the embattled oil giant. “MSNBC is the same network who said that I was crazy for saying that we are heading down a road that the world has been down before: a big government road that could eventually lead to a dictator — maybe this president, maybe not, maybe the next one or the one after that,” Beck said. “It doesn’t matter. Progressivism will always end in complete control. But listen now to MSNBC and one of their hosts.” Beck played two clips from MSNBC’s June 15 “The Ed Show,” which host Ed Schultz on two separate occasions called for the President to come down harsh on BP. “Mr. President, I want to see the boot on the neck of BP tonight. I want to see some finger-pointing, whether it’s in your personality or not,” Schultz said. “And it’s OK tonight to act kind of like a dictator and call the shots, say, and this is the way it’s going to be.” In the second clip, Schultz had made the suggestion to far-left Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. “Don’t you think this is a moment where President Obama has to make sure that he lets everybody know that he’s calling the shots?” Schultz said. “In almost in words of maybe a dictator that this is the way we’re going to do it.” And to this, Beck noted the double standard – how MSNBC will criticize him for accusing Obama of acting like a dictator versus MSNBC actually calling on him to act like a dictator. “They’re calling — he went more — they’re calling for him to actually be a dictator or acts like a dictator. No thank you. No thank you,” Beck said. “I get in hot water for showing how we are expanding government so much that if a wrong guy gets in, we will have a dictator. But MSNBC can literally demand that the president start being a dictator and there’s nothing.” The Fox News host accused of MSNBC of trying to create an environment which the White House could exercise more control. “And everyone is saying that the president is in trouble because he’s lost MSNBC, the ‘thrill up the leg’ network – yes, yes, yes,” Beck said. “It’s almost like they are creating the condition to force him to do the things that he knows are right.”

Excerpt from:
Beck Highlights the Sharp Contrast of Two NBC Universal Products – CNBC and MSNBC Reactions over BP Oil Spill