Union money, liberal big donor start-up spiced by a bad case of Hannity-envy.
(Page 2 of 4)
Let’s start here.
Forget all the business about lights, camera, action, microphones. Forget even — for a moment — political philosophy.
Never, ever underestimate the capacity of the green-eyed monster to fuel all manner of otherwise jaw-dropping behavior.
Schultz’s endless blustery fits of screaming attacks on Hannity that amount to a perpetual ear splitting rendition of “mine is bigger than yours” is apparently driven by nothing more difficult to understand than that Schultz suffers a permanent, raging case of talk-show jealousy.
This — perhaps infinitely more than plain old fashioned political differences — is what appears to be behind Schultz’s well-advertised contempt not only for Hannity but Rush Limbaugh as well. A few years back Mark Levin called out Schultz’s apparent whining self-pity about no one giving him a chance. But at bottom? Every time Schultz feels the need to go off on some toot about Hannity, as even GQ had the wit to understand, it’s one more sign of Schultz’s inconsequence.
So let’s get on to the philosophy here.
What brought Schultz’s inconsequence to attention was the publicity surrounding Schultz’s latest Hannity assault — this one on hunger. Doubtlessly fed to him by his script writers over at Media Matters. But here’s the kicker: in attacking Hannity’s observations about hunger in America Schultz showed yet again why even left-wing publications like GQ think he’s a few transmitters short of a radio tower.
Listen carefully to this Schultz jewel on hunger. Or at least it was supposed to be about hunger but was really — yet again — about Hannity. What is Schultz saying?
“More kids go to bed hungry in this country today than they did last year, is that correct?”
Schultz’s guest, the President of Feeding America, Vickie Escarra, agrees, saying: “More than ever before.”
In other words, in the age of Obama, as Schultz says without a hint of understanding, “more kids go to bed hungry in this country today.” Hunger in America has gotten worse in the Obama era, not better. Worse than “ever before” says his own guest.
Hello? Worse than the Reagan years? Yes. Worse than the Bush 41 years? Yes. Worse than the Clinton years? Yes. Worse than the Bush 43 years. Yes. Worse than all those years between 1981 and 2009 when the free market economics of the Reagan Revolution was on fire with job production (some 50 million) and economic abundance.
The point here is not that Schultz’s bluster backfires, as humorous as that may be. The real point is that there is something about Schultz and his jealous foaming about Hannity or Rush that tells his audience there is something slightly askew here. To the point that in his obsessive zeal to get Hannity, Ed Schultz winds up getting — himself.
Why else would he shriek that Laura Ingraham is a “slut” or that Hadassah Lieberman (wife of Connecticut Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman) is a “whore”? Why else scream that “you’re damn right” former Vice President Dick Cheney should have his heart ripped out so it could be kicked around and stuffed back in him?
Curiously enough, the answer for this routine rating-less ranting may be found here in an anonymous but clearly informed post by a source who had an interesting Ed Schultz story.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?