If someone who goes to a “Tea Party” is a “Tea Bagger”, then shouldn’t fans of Ed Schultz be called “scum baggers?”
Apropos not much.
———-
Well, it was apropos not much, until I caught this bit of late-breaking news; according to the HuffPo, Fast Eddie Schultz is thinking about running for North Dakota’s newly-open Senate Seat.
MSNBC talk show host and liberal firebrand Ed Schultz is considering a run for Senate in his home state of North Dakota following the abrupt resignation of Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) on Tuesday evening.
The longtime talk show host, who was until recently based out of Fargo, North Dakota, told the Huffington Post that “there is a lot to think about” after he was approached by Democratic leaders in the state about a possible run. But the possibility is there, even if a decision is far off.
A brief tangent:
Dear Lord: If I say my prayers and eat my vegetables, can I please please please please please watch Fast Eddie Schultz flame out against John Hoeven? Just once in my life?
The MSNBC host, who has lengthy ties to the state, said he was called last night by Dorgan who, in a rather suggestive question, asked Schultz how old he was. Hours later Boucher was on the phone asking Schultz to consider a run for the Senate seat.
“I asked him very point-blank if this was an official ask.” Schultz said. “He said, ‘Yes it is’. I’m flattered. I’m honored.”
His “ties to the state” include time as a legendarily peevish sportscaster and, later, cut-rate Limbaugh clone who flipped his political allegiances about eight years ago, to the relief of conservatives everywhere.
I MCed a “Debate” between him and Michael Medved almost two years ago. In it, he showed that if he weren’t allowed to bellow, bluster and wave his hands like a puffy, red-faced pocked Mussolini, he’d be overmatched in a battle of wits with Jessica Simpson.
Oh, yeah. And he’s a dick. After my turn at MCing his “debate” appearance, during which I (like my co-host Matt Entenza) questioned both Medved and Schultz aggressively but civilly, he called me “Mitch Craig” on the air, and referred to me as an “a-hole”. Not that being called names fazes me – puhleeze, I get worse from my own family – but it just shows you what a class act that intellectual flyweight Schultz really is.
For the record: Fast Eddie Schultz is an ignorant, moronic blowhard; if intelligence and wit were gasoline he’d run out of gas halfway around the inside of a Cheerio. He actually is as dumb, knee-jerk and hate-choked as the lefty cliche about talk radio would have you believe about his competition.
Run, Eddie. Run. I dare you.
I think Rachel Maddow should run in North Dakota.
At first I way the same thing Mitch, but then again 2 years ago we were begging the DFL to nominate Al Franken so we would be able to crush him. As a native North Dakotan do you feel that this could repeat? The far lefties might be crazy and you only need 200,000 votes to win a Senate seat up there. Be careful what we wish for, it might just come true.
Fast Eddie Schultz is an ignorant, moronic blowhard; if intelligence and wit were gasoline he’d run out of gas halfway around the inside of a Cheerio. He actually is as dumb, knee-jerk and hate-choked as the lefty cliche about talk radio would have you believe about his competition.
once again, replace Fast Eddie Schultz with crazy Al Franken there and it would still be accurate.
At first I way the same thing Mitch, but then again 2 years ago we were begging the DFL to nominate Al Franken so we would be able to crush him. As a native North Dakotan do you feel that this could repeat?
Anything is possible. But having a liberal win a squeaker in a liberal state during a generational, transformational house-cleaning year is very different than a liberal with MASSIVE negatives running in a state where even against the Obama tide McCain won and won huge (Mac’s best margin outside of Utah), with the added benefit of not only the first-term mid-term backlash but the whole townhall/teaparty movement?
It’s a lot less plausible in this case.
The far lefties might be crazy and you only need 200,000 votes to win a Senate seat up there.
More like 150,000, and that’s fine, because the “far left” in North Dakota is vastly smaller than in MN, even in proportion to the relative sizes of the states. (Minnesota has eight times more people, but I’ll wager twenty times as many “far lefties”).
I doubt Schultz will do it; there’s no upside, and lots of downside; he’s got a ton of negatives, he’s not all that well-liked even in North Dakota, and leaving his talk show and MSNBC gig would be a HUGE financial comedown.
Be careful what we wish for, it might just come true.
Noithign ventured, nothing gained.
At first I way the same thing Mitch, but then again 2 years ago we were begging the DFL to nominate Al Franken so we would be able to crush him.
Totally different scenario. And Mitch is right; Schultz wouldn’t give up his MSNBC gig. His 375 or so audience members would miss him terribly.
Mitch,
Ed Schultz running in ND is like, oh, Ann Richards running in the modern day Texas – I don’t think Jesus Christ could get elected as a Democrat in North Dakota at this point. Byron Dorgan would win if he ran again, but only because he’s an incumbent – It’s not as conserservative a state as Idaho, but it ain’t far off it.
So, it’s not exactly a logical hurdle or a massive claim to fame that really almost ANY Democrat will lose to Hoeven.
As for FAR left or FAR right, I agree there are fewer people to the left as a percentage in ND than in MN. That said, while there might be eight times few (as a percentage and that’s undoubtedly UNTRUE if you are talking about percentage of Democrats), claiming it is eight-times fewer is easy because it is unprovable how many there are or aren’t, and therefore can’t be challenged. So once again, don’t stretch yourself too much with the ‘gutsy’ claims Mitch – but, I’ll go you one better, while there might be eight times fewer far-lefties, there are without doubt eight-times as many far-righties. The irony of course being that ND gets more federal money (in the form of DoD jobs, both direct and contractor) as a percentage of incomes, than MN – so while they’re happy to bitch about the gov’mint, the sure as hell won’t don’t object to getting the fruits of the taxes paid by others.
I hear ACORN has just opened a large office in Jamestown. Watch for the Senate vote to exceed the 2010 census.
Ed Schultz running in ND is like, oh, Ann Richards running in the modern day Texas – I don’t think Jesus Christ could get elected as a Democrat in North Dakota at this point.
Pen, with all due respect, not only do you not know a lot about NoDak politics (not really a big knock on anyone who’s not from NoDak) but you haven’t read anything on the subject this past few days, including stuff I’ve written.
How DO you suppose the state you just described happens to not only have an all-D/NPL Congressional delegation, but had it since 1987?
Your preconceptions are, I’ll be charitable, leading you astray.
Byron Dorgan would win if he ran again, but only because he’s an incumbent – It’s not as conserservative a state as Idaho, but it ain’t far off it.
Well, actually, that’s the big question; would he win against Hoeven? Arguably not. Given that up until the holidays Dorgan was making noises about running, acting like he was campaigning, and raising money for a 2010 re-election campaign, it would seem that the realization is breaking late.
So, it’s not exactly a logical hurdle or a massive claim to fame that really almost ANY Democrat will lose to Hoeven.
Either you meant “ANY OTHER Democrat than Dorgan”, or you contradicted yourself.
As for FAR left or FAR right, I agree there are fewer people to the left as a percentage in ND than in MN. That said, while there might be eight times few (as a percentage and that’s undoubtedly UNTRUE if you are talking about percentage of Democrats),
I’m not sure what you’re getting at – fortunately, I suspect, either are you.
The “one-eighth” is a reference to the disparity in population; there are roughly eight times as many Minnesotans as there are North Dakotans (5 million to about 620,000). And that presumes that the ND D/NPL is as far to the left as the MN DFL, which is qualitative but, as one who qualifies these things, I think dubious. Do you wanna say Byron Dorgan or Earl Pomeroy are as left-of-center as Amy Klobuchar or Keith Ellison? Good luck!
claiming it is eight-times fewer is easy because it is unprovable how many there are or aren’t, and therefore can’t be challenged.
It’s provable, and fairly easily so.
1) Count the number of DFLers in Minnesota.
2) Count the numberr of D/NPL members in NoDak.
3) Divide 1 by 2.
4) Divide the population of Minnesota by the population of North Dakota.
5) If (result of 4) > (result of 3), I’m right.
I’m not especially invested in it, since it’s a fairly qualitative observation; Minnesta’s DFL is largely to the left of North Dakota’s D/NPL.
So once again, don’t stretch yourself too much with the ‘gutsy’ claims Mitch – but, I’ll go you one better, while there might be eight times fewer far-lefties, there are without doubt eight-times as many far-righties.
“Without a doubt?” really? Do tell. While I’ve made a fairly simple quantitative prediction, you have made a fairly inflammatory observation. Feel free to explain.
The irony of course being that ND gets more federal money (in the form of DoD jobs, both direct and contractor) as a percentage of incomes, than MN – so while they’re happy to bitch about the gov’mint, the sure as hell won’t don’t object to getting the fruits of the taxes paid by others.
Oh, I’ll do you one better: North Dakota, like ALL sparsely-populated Plains states, “gets a whole lot more money back” than Minnesota does. Of course, it’s because…:
a) The population density is about 1/4 that of Minnesota overall, and vastly lower than even that outside the eight largest cities, which account for half the population.
b) the fact that so much of NoDak is federal land, both Park Service and Military.
c) the state’s largest industry, agriculture, is heavily subsidized. I oppose this.
d) the military accounts for a vastly disporoportionate share of the state’s tax “income” – although surely you recognize that having twenty billion dollars worth of B-1s parked on runways at Minot doesn’t bring twenty billion dollars of direct benefit to NoDak taxpayers – don’t you?
e) Per-capita incomes in North Dakota are much lower in North Dakota (commensurate with the equally-lower cost of living).
Not sure what you were getting at with that, since it actually also contradicts your original point (although I doubt you know how 🙂 but the upshot is that you really need to ignore Paul Krugman on all things. Seriously.
Kermit beat me to it.
With ACORN on the scene anything is possible….expect a record number of absentee ballots. Hey, cows got a right to travel too, you know.
Pen,
I had to return to this bit here:
Ed Schultz running in ND is like, oh, Ann Richards running in the modern day Texas
Perhaps, but not in the way you’re thinking.
Texas and North Dakota are two different approaches to smaller, more conservative government. North Dakota has a long “progressive” tradition – hence the state’s bank and mill/elevator, the only two institutions of their type in the country. And for all of its putative conservatism, its schools are every bit as good as, and by some measured better than, Minnesota’s vaunted public system, for a lot less money (although ND spends more per capita than, say, South Dakota – and they BOTH get vastly better results than most of the country).
The left uses “texas” as a code word for “backward, benighted and mean”, and you’re trying to lump North Dakota in with the same definition. Both are myopic views that say more about the left’s conceits than about how government actually works in either state.
“Either you meant “ANY OTHER Democrat than Dorgan”, or you contradicted yourself.”
Pedantic much Mitch? Jeezus, YES Mitch any OTHER, because after all DORGAN ain’t running.
And then there’s this…
For the record: Fast Eddie Schultz is an ignorant, moronic blowhard. Which is probably right, but..
Substitute Michelle Bachmann for Eddie Schultz, and you’d be right again.
Yet, you hate one, and love the other – partisan myopia, they name is Craig….err Berg.
Also, Mitch,
You’re of course correct that they have Dems as their Congressional Reps at this time, but, and you seem to have side-stepped this,
Demographics change.
The SHORTEST term for any of their current Reps I believe is 18 years – I wonder, whether from 1992 to now things have become just a wee bit more polarized.
And Mitch, I didn’t say anything about backward, that’s your own insecurity speaking. Whether the left uses it that way is your own perception principally, but if so, how is it different than how you all talk about ‘East Coast liberals’ to convey a sense of elitism, money, and sneering bourgiousie?
Pot=kettle, except that, I meant NOTHING other than that Texas is highly conservative, and WAS a state which at one time elected Ann Richards Governor, but would not do so today. That’s all.
“If someone who goes to a “Tea Party” is a “Tea Bagger”, then shouldn’t fans of Ed Schultz be called “scum baggers?””
Maybe, but I have dibs on “Gonzoing.”
It’ll be a thing.
The SHORTEST term for any of their current Reps I believe is 18 years
Well, no – Pomeroy’s a lot more recent than that. And he has to get re-elected every two years.
Conrad and Dorgan have both been in the Senate for 18 years (d/t the untimely death of Quentin Burdick). Each has been re-elected several times.
Oops – Pomeroy was elected in ’92 as well, succeeding Dorgan in the seat.
shouldn’t fans of Ed Schultz be called “scum baggers?
No, just not terribly bright. Kinda like the intellectual paupers who simply have to bring Michele Bachmann into every discussion.
Or cite Rachel Madcow or Keith Olberdouche as credible sources
I simply can’t believe Peev hasn’t figured out how to do an Italic tag. It’s really not that tough.
Though I suppose I should extend props that he doesn’t ramble on for decades at a time. Progress.
correction:
…ramble off topic for decades at a time. 8)