Ahh. It just seems like yesterday Ed Schultz was being defended across the progressive blogosphere for trying to get on Armed Forces Radio. See here , here , and here for a few examples. Ed Schultz is even listed on a Michael Moore fan site. So what could Schultz have done to make the nutroots get on him like white on rice? He’s defended Joe Lieberman!
According to some sources, Ed made the horrible mistake of questioning the blogosphere’s insistence on ideological purity. To be specific, he said, “Joe Lieberman says he’s voted with the Democrats 90% of the time. If that’s true, why isn’t that enough? What is enough? 95%? 98%?”
Schultz then responded to a piece in the HuffingtonPost critical of his words on Lieberman. He opened last Monday’s show by stating that hasn’t endorsed either candidate in the Lieberman/Lamont race, and that while he supports Lamont’s views on redeployment, censure and North Korea, he thinks Lieberman won last week’s debate – blasphmey in the blogosphere. Schultz also questioned the nutroots’ motivation behind their widespread support for Lamont.
“This is all about Iowa and Howard Dean and how Joe Lieberman really, relentlessly went after Dean and the bloggers have never forgotten it,” Schultz said. “He was aggressive. He went after Dean on every position. And the blogosphere obviously mounted the attack and the support of Howard Dean, obviously because he’s a grassroots guy and he represents what he claims to be the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. … But I think there’s a little angst in all of those on the far left in dealing with the blogs and I believe it has morphed into something even bigger than that, to the point where ‘It’s all about Lieberman and we’re going to prove it and we’re going to do a get-back.’ This seems to me to be a 100 percent get-back.”
So here we have Schultz committing two unpardonable sins – not supporting Ned Lamont and criticizing the “Dean movement.” And like stepping on an anthill, the nutroots are streaming out and are they pissed! But, typically, they’re a bit irrational as well. Consider an exchange I had with two of them on a popular “progressive” message board. I’m the moderate, by the way:
Progressive: Who cares what dlcentrist radio has to say anyway!
Moderate: well, among talk radio listeners, plenty care. More so than the most on the Air America line-up. Schultz is No. 13 overall in Talkers magazine’s Heavy 100 list of national and local talk-show hosts based on ratings as well as talent, buzz and influence. Howard Stern was No. 1 and Rush Limbaugh No. 2. Randy Rhodes is No. 10. Al Franken came in at No. 18. Thom Hartman, No. 62. Rachel Maddow, No. 71.
Progressive: Surely you must mean among Talkers Mag staffers right? Since they do the rating.
Moderate: no… “ratings”… as in Arbitron. When the radio industry talks ratings, they mean Arbitron.
Progressive: Really? Not according to you. Don’t post numbers from talkermag’s latest talkers 250 ratings, then try to say arbitron had anything to do with it.
Moderate: Yes really. If you’ll read the piece from Talkers Magazine, they base their ranking on, among other things, RATINGS – which refers to ARBITRON. Quote: Schultz is No. 13 overall in Talkers magazine’s Heavy 100 list of national and local talk-show hosts based on ratings as well as talent, buzz and influence.
In radio, RATINGS refers to ARBITRON.
Here are other examples:
A number of the stations airing Schultz’ program have seen dramatic Arbitron ratings increases in the few months.
Air America is a liberal network, period. The minute AFR puts it on they will get flack they cannot afford. Schultz is a progressive, but he also comes with bona fide Arbitron ratings that stand him apart from the Air America crowd, who are wonderful, but reach a fraction of the standard radio audience. Besides, with Schultz’s ratings no one can argue he hasn’t earned the right to be on AFR along with the other big boys, plus Dr. Laura.
Progressive: True to form, you run from your own original words. It’s become too much like shooting fish in a barrel anymore.
At this point, another “progressive” jumps in and responds to my first post above.
Progressive: That SURELY does not mean I ought to like him? Or fail to say what I think of him? He is only in this for the MONEY.
Moderate: That is certainly up to you, but the fact remains, he gets ratings, so clearly many care what he has to say, contrary to the post that started this discussion.
Progressive: Rush Limbaugh gets ratings and I almost respect him more than Big Eddie, because at least Rush is honest about what he is.
Moderate: Irrelevant. In post #6, the post that started this, it was said, “Who cares what dlcentrist radio has to say anyway!” Obviously millions of people DO care or they wouldn’t listen.
Progressive: Millions of people have no other choices in their market at that hour. So this is like saying; Millions of people eat meals made of only cold white rice made by soaking without cooking in untreated water every day, so they must love that!
Moderate: Name me one market Schultz is in that only has one radio station.
Progressive: Most have only ONE Air America station. And that is the station that carries Ed Schultz instead of the MUCH better Randi Rhodes. When that happens, there just is not a choice for listeners. Chicago is such a market.
Moderate: but Chicago has more than ONE station. People can choose what they listen to. But this has ZERO to do with how much ratings Schultz has. They don’t HAVE to listen to Schultz. But they do.
Just a prime example of how the nutroots deny reality (in this case, that Schultz has ratings) to justify their hate. Say… that sounds like what the RIGHTwing does! As far as I know, they’re still over there trying somehow prove “ratings” don’t mean “ratings.”