BIG EDDIE FALLS FOR LIEBERMAN'S RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS

I stopped listening to Ed Schultz a long time ago. Not only did I grow weary of his lefty-Limbaugh shtick pretty fast, but when his over-sized ego gave him license to start bashing Howard Dean, it was "bye bye, Big Eddie" for me. Besides, which, I usually listen to the radio when I drive and all his inane sports and fishing talk puts me right to sleep. There's a perfectly good NPR station that comes out of the same radio speakers and I have no reason to subject myself to an anti-choice/anti-gay, ex-wing-nut who thinks he's so liberal now that he gets to bash Dean.

So, although I do my best to avoid ever listening to this horse's ass, it didn't surprise me one bit when a real smart friend of mine, RJ Eskow, called attention to the fact that Schultz has fallen back into his old habit of braying out the right-wing talking points. Some dogs will never be taught any new tricks.

Predictably, Big Eddie is a big Lieberman fan-- and bought his crap hook, line and sinker. If you've ever heard his bleating I know this will be really easy to hear in your mind: "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%?"

RJ explained it to him the way you try to explain to a 3 week old puppy its not all right to crap on the bed. "Ed, Ed, Ed. This is wrong in so many ways. First, what does the statement even mean? Is Joe saying he voted with ALL the Democrats 90% of the time? Or is he saying that when all the OTHER Democrats voted one way, he went along with them nine times out of ten? And how many times is that?... Second, even if it were true-- which 10% are we talking about? Joe's been wrong on almost all the key issues of the last five years. Who cares what percent it represents? The question is: How much harm did he cause? And the 'percentage' game leaves out all the rhetorical support Joe's been giving the GOP."


See? Didn't I tell you RJ is real smart? Smart enough to talk sense into Schultz? That wouldn't take smarts; just a bullhorn and a lot of repetition. But something in Schultz' Lieberman propaganda barrage pissed RJ off. It was the same kind of Lieberman-inspired racist crap that pissed me off a few days ago: the Lieberman camp playing the Jewish card. Schultz said "Lieberman's Jewish, so he's going to support Israel. Get over it." RJ grabbed the 3 week old hound again:

Ed, I'm Jewish (and Southern Baptist and Catholic - but I'm Bar-Mitvah'd so I'm in the club.) I take offense, pal. This is old-fashioned ethnic stereotyping.

You're not the only one to make this mistake. Lots of people think that "supporting Israel" is the same as "supporting the Israeli hard right and its aggressive anti-Palestinian policies."

I can't blame you. There are people like Alan Dershowitz and AIPAC working full-time to make you believe it. In fact, some of them will tell you anyone that opposes Likud's policies is "anti-Semitic." But we on the sane side of the political spectrum need to think more clearly than that.

Lieberman doesn't take the positions he does on Israel, or on Iraq, because he's Jewish. He does it because he's a right-winger and a neoconservative. That's why most Connecticut Jews are supporting Lamont, according to one poll.

RJ says he can't blame Schultz. I am less kind. Schultz should know better-- much better. But he's a right wing blow hard at heart-- just workin' the other side of the street now. Lieberman's his kind of Democrat and parroting Lieberman's bullshit comes natural to Ed Schultz, real natural. Understanding real progressive values and ideals, on the other hand, doesn't come with switching radio formats. And it doesn't come any more easy for Schultz than it would for Limbaugh or Hannity.