RELATED: Dana Perino Outraged That M.I.A., ‘Not Even An American,’ Performed At Super Bowl

Yep, only three hours later, Schultz had a run down on the big game and, after taking on Gisele Bundchen’s potty mouth and Rush Limbaugh’s NoseGate 2012, Schultz went after Perino and her channel:

“So, according to Dana Perino, you can`t deliver a message about world peace unless you`re an American. The super bowl set a new record for viewership, Fox News continues to set the record for the most
ridiculous things ever said on television.”

I didn’t get a chance to watch the entirety of The Ed Show last night but I hope Schultz didn’t say anything foolish himself. As we all know, that would have led to him being mocked by Sean Hannity who would have been mocked by Anderson Cooper who would have been mocked by Joe Scarborough who would have been mocked by Greg Gutfeld who would have been…

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi Says Newt Gingrich Will Never Be President: ‘There’s Something I Know’

Pelosi also responded to the flak Gingrich has received over the global warming ad she shot with him.

“It’s so funny. Everybody makes it like, oh, you sat on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi!” Pelosi exclaimed. “The point is we came together to talk about the climate crisis, which I thought he had an interest in. I wasn’t particularly interested in sitting on the sofa with him, either. But the bigger issue of climate change brought us together. And Al Gore bringing people who had been on opposite sides of different issues coming together. I thought it was a powerful — it was worth it.”

Watch Pelosi’s interview below via MSNBC:

Schultz began the segment with a clip of Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) telling CNN, “Newt Gingrich is throwing red meat to the base, saying little words and phrases that we are very familiar here in the South. I’m saying he’s appealing to an element in this party that will see President Obama as different from all other presidents that we have had.”

Gingrich responded to that generous critique (it’s really not coded at all) by saying “It’s unfornate that liberal leaders, whatever their ethnic background, can’t have an honest open debate about policies that fail. The fact is far more whites than blacks are on food stamps, and liberals shouldn’t get away with hiding the consequence of their bad policies by yelling racism.”

This is a strange statement by Gingrich, because he appears to be correcting himself. It wasn’t “liberal leaders” who singled out black people as being “satisfied with food stamps,” it was Newton Leroy Gingrich. It wasn’t “liberal leaders” who singled out urban poor kids to become 9 year-old janitors, it was Gingrich. He appears to want it both ways, to be a “teller of uncomfortable truths” about race to his base, while whitewashing his rhetoric for the CNNs of the world.

Panelist Martin Bashir tried to correct Gingrich, telling Schultz “We know today that more people were collecting food stamps under George W. Bush than are under President Obama. Something like a difference of half a million people.”

Bashir misstates the case somewhat, but he’s referring to the fact that Gingrich’s assertion that more people have been added to the food stamp rolls under President Obama than any other president is false. Under Bush, the number of food stamp recipients rose by 14.7. Under President Obama, 14.2 million have been added, but the number actually declined in the most recent month available.

Walsh then tied Gingrich’s race-baiting to Mitt Romney‘s economic opportunism, telling Ed “We have a really interesting case study in the Republican party in these two candidates because Mitt is the candidate, a vulture capitalist that hollowed out the middle class and represented and enriched the top 1%. Newt is the face of the politics of resentment and racism and angry white male rage that let guys like Mitt do that to the economy. They work hand-in-hand.”

Unfortunately, they will continue to work hand-in-hand as long as the mainstream media continues to let Gingrich skate on his explicit uses of race to stir up the base. When he gets in the polite company of mainstream journalists, he claims he was talking about all people, and far too few of those mainstreamers have the stomach for this fight, for simply saying, “No, that’s not what you said.”

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

Interviewing Ed Schultz presents a set of unique challenges, the first of which is the fact that the guy does three hours of radio a day, and another hour of The Ed Show on MSNBC. With 20 hours of Ed per week, what’s left to find out?

Compounding that is Schultz’s utter guilelessness onscreen. His appeal rests largely on his live-wire authenticity; what you see is what you get. Love him or hate him, when you tune in to an Ed Schultz show, you’re getting the real Ed.

Luckily, he doesn’t spend a lot of time on his shows talking about himself. In this preview of our exclusive interview, Ed shares how he gets his news, and answers some lighter questions, like what he watches for fun, what his last meal would be, and whether he’s ever indulged in recreational herbage:

RELATED: The Beagle Has Landed: Ed Schultz Introduces The World To Rex The ‘Republican-Hating’ Dog

“There were three little capitalist cronies and a bowl full of pious baloney and a quiet old lady who was whispering ‘don’t privatize Social Security!’” Schultz continued. “Good night to unions, good night jobs, good night clean air, good night public education, good night immigration, good night Wall Street regulation, good night middle class, good night auto czar, good night dog on the roof of the car.”

“Good night, Roe v Wade, good nightmare range equality, good night to the old lady whispering ‘don’t privatize Social Security!’ Good night Medicaid, good night Medicare, good night American dreams everywhere. Sweet dreams, T-paw, sleep just as good as your presidential campaign. Nighty-night!”

Watch Schultz’s bedtime story to Tim Pawlenty below:

Since then, I’ve been joined on this lonely island by The Plumline‘s Greg Sargent, and now, The Young Turks‘ Jayar Jackson, who explained, last night, that he didn’t think Santorum said “black people,” but more importantly, that the issue is somewhat moot. Host Cenk Uygur, for his part, still wasn’t buying it.

“I remember…when this first came out, it seemed like it was a bit of a stumble,” Jayar said, adding, “I feel like you didn’t hear the full word.”

“You’re crazy, man, you’re crazy!” Cenk exclaimed. “You just saw the tape!”

Now, hopefully, this is the last time I have to get inside Rick Santorum’s head, but it seems clear to me that he did stumble, that he got ahead of himself and started to say “make lives better,” but in mid-word, tried to correct it to “make people’s lives better,” and it came out as “make mmbligh people’s lives better.”

Here’s the TYT clip, which loops Santorum’s remarks together a few times. I’m hearing a long “I” sound, and no hard “K” sound:

It doesn’t really matter how many, or few, people agree with me, I’m either right or I’m wrong. I mention Jayar and Greg Sargent simply as a way to dispel, for anyone who doesn’t know me, the notion that I have any interest in defending Rick Santorum for any reason other than the merits.

By the same token, I don’t think Joan Walsh, or Keith Olbermann, or CBS News and NPR, are acting in bad faith when they report Santorum’s remark as “black people,” because yeah, that’s what it sounds like. Additionally, Santorum really didn’t help matters by waiting three days to explain himself. I contacted his campaign multiple times over that period with a link to the video, and it is fair to ask why, the first few times he was asked about it, he hadn’t seen the clip yet. Most people, upon being asked about a racist comment they might have made, would immediately check the video.

This demonstrates, at best, a disturbing apathy on Santorum’s part, that he didn’t care enough to take 30 seconds to watch the video I sent him four times (and was also forwarded to him by a conservative colleague). Furthermore, I sympathize with liberals who think his days-late explanation sounds like bullshit, exactly because it so closely matches the explanation in the column I sent him four times.

That doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say “black people,” and the fact that he didn’t say “black people” (as Jayar alludes), doesn’t mean that Santorum isn’t a hateful bigot. It matters because it’s the truth.

It also matters because the Santorum quote is now obscuring the fact that Newt Gingrich actually did make a bona fide, undeniably racist statement yesterday, a far more significant one in that it exposed the inherent race-baiting in his constant references to President Obama as the “food stamp president.”

What I would like to see now, then, is for all of the conservatives who congratulated me for my honesty about Santorum to show similar honesty, and call Gingrich out for his neo-Southern Strategizing, which he has been doing for a long time.

As it happens, Joan Walsh appeared on The Ed Show last night to discuss Santorum’s remarks (Schultz, while he isn’t convinced by Santorum’s explanation, creditably left the question open), and she’s still not buying it. Fair enough. However, Schultz played yet a third version of the remarks, taken from a closer position, with even clearer audio. Honestly, check it out, and tell me there’s no way he was saying “mmbligh.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

…ok, there are a few big differences between the two. But, for the sake of this post, lets focus on one. Whereas Clarkson attempted to make peace with her Twitter attackers, Schultz recorded a video for his critics with one simple message; “Shut up!”

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly Grills Rick Santorum On Social Issues, ‘Black People’ Comment

Schultz had watched Santorum work the crowds in Iowa and was impressed with the GOP candidate’s technique. During his Iowa coverage on The Ed Show, Schultz praised Santorum’s ability to “look right at people” as he’s talking and predicted he would win the caucus. This apparently was tantamount to treason in the eyes of some, forcing Schultz to make the video angrily explaining how one can think somebody talks nice without, y’know, actually liking them.

“Are we at the point now where, on The Ed Show, that I can’t go out and do an objective story because there might be some people out there that think ‘Oooh, Ed’s a turncoat’? Y’know, come on. Is it under my skin? No. But I just want to set the record straight that you’re totally wrong to the point where it’s almost comical.”

Schultz went on to argue that the ensuing fight between Santorum and Mitt Romney (with Newt Gingrich taking shots from the side), is “the best thing to happen to Barack Obama.”

Watch the video below:

(h/t HuffPo)

The exchange was heated, but brief, as co-anchor Rachel Maddow comically saved the day with the cheery declatarion, “Look! It’s Rick Perry!”

Rev. Al Sharpton began by observing that, rather than heading into New Hampshire with a focus on President Obama, Mitt Romney now “has got to run against Santorum, and the longer that narrative plays, the better it is for the President.”

Sizing up the danger that Santorum presents to Romney, Schultz said “I’ve seen him on the stump. He does talk about manufacturing. He talks about repatriating money coming back into the United States. Zero percent when it comes to corporate tax. I mean, he does have a manufacturing plan, which is going to play well in New Hampshire.”

“That is not a manufacturing plan,” O’Donnell cut in. “That is a big corporate tax break that produces absolutely…”

“That is his pitch, Lawrence,” Schultz replied. “I’ve seen it. I was there.”

After a few more seconds of heated back-and-forth, just when it started to get good, The Rachel Maddow Show‘s Rachel Maddow cut through the tension by cheerily exclaiming, “Look! It’s Rick Perry!”

The segment resembled nothing so much as a heated Thanksgiving dinner that ends with mom piping up “Who wants pie?!?”

To many liberals, it may seem as if Schultz is getting carried away with Rick Santorum, whom he has compared favorably with President Obama, and whose retail politicking earned raves from Schultz last week. Santorum is so despised by liberals that they tend to dismiss him, as Maddow does, but if you’re going to cover a Republican primary, you can’t think like a liberal. The things that make Santorum repugnant to liberals are the very keys to his success in GOP primaries, particularly Iowa.

Schultz’s point, I believe, wasn’t about the merits of Santorum’s plan, but about the appeal of manufacturing rhetoric, while O’Donnell was having a different conversation entirely. The plan calls for tax-free repatriation of profits, as long as the funds are used to purchase manufacturing equipment. Santorum says this will spur manufacturing, but critics say it’s just a giveaway to corporations that will be used for purchases they were going to make anyway.

Ed’s assessment of Santorum’s retail skills is dead-on, and he’s right about how Santorum’s plan will play with voters, but it is also necessary to go over the substance of the issue. I’d have been interested to see if Schultz would have done that, had O’Donnell given him the chance. It’s also worth considering whether O’Donnell jumped all over Schultz out of anti-Santorum zeal, or because of some sour-grapey unresolved resentment over Schultz’s takeover of O’Donnell’s 8pm time slot. Maybe it was a bit of each.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

Sen. Santorum has come on strong in Iowa polls this week, and in a volatile Republican field, is well within striking distance of the lead. His surge is particularly well-timed, with scant days to go before the Iowa caucuses, and lots of social conservative support up for grabs. It’s that harshly-expressed social conservatism, though, that makes Santorum a primo bogeyman to the left, which is what made Schultz’s interview with, and assessment of, Santorum so impressive.

Conservatives could be forgiven an eyeroll when Schultz told his audience, “You know my political persuasion, but I bring this story to you tonight completely objective from Iowa,” but his assessment of Santorum was dead-on. “On the stump, Rick Santorum is impressive,” Schultz said. “He is well versed, schooled up, and very strong in his conviction.”

Schultz even went so far as to say, of Santorum, that “there are few on the stump who do a better job of retail politics.”

He followed up his qualified praise of Santorum by conducting a good, fair interview with the candidate, and in his trademark nightly poll, asked viewers if they thought “the other Rick” could pull off an upset in Iowa (they didn’t, but Santorum fared better than most Ed Show poll answers).

Even more surprising, perhaps, is the fact that I agree 100% with Schultz. Although I would sooner vote for a roll of Bounty™, the things I dislike about Santorum should actually help him with conservatives, and he has several key advantages over his chief rivals for the powerful social conservative vote in Iowa. Unlike Rick Perry, Santorum has been an unsung success at this year’s GOP debates, often making sense when others don’t, and making the most of his limited screen time.

In their zeal to dismiss Santorum as a joke, many liberals miss his appeal as a conservative candidate. To people who don’t mind a gay-hostile, vehemently anti-choice candidate, Santorum possesses an essential likability that his rivals lack. I interviewed Santorum in February (where, again, he surprisingly agreed to be interviewed by a volcanically flaming liberal), and there were two things that struck me about him, that set him apart from the other candidates I’ve met. First of all, I was a little bit annoyed that I liked the guy, but more than that, I believed what he was telling me. Santorum doesn’t speak in canned talking points.

Santorum’s biggest obstacle is the fact that he has no shot to beat Barack Obama, but that’s not such a problem in Iowa. Given the seismic shifts this race has already seen, I wouldn’t count Santorum out.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s The Ed Show:

RELATED: Rachel Maddow Ridicules Sarah Palin’s Outrage Over White House Christmas Card

The great part, though, was Rex’s reaction after Schultz returned from a clips package. The perturbed pooch steadily barked and howled at a stage-right monitor for the rest of the segment, as Ed tried to console him by saying, “The Republicans are gone.”

Obviously, Rex was reacting to clips of other dogs onscreen (as any dog-owner will tell you), but it was a funny bit of ad-libbing on Schultz’s part, and a winning performance by Rex. It’s hard to tell from the audio, but I think Rex was saying that people ought to just keep Christmas in their own way, and let others keep it in theirs. Also, “Squirrel!”

The upshot to the segment is that Rex needs a home. At the end of the clip, Schultz displays the contact info for the shelter where Rex now resides, which should result in a new home for Rex and several of his friends. For our many conservative readers, don’t be concerned, I’m sure Rex loves Republicans and Democrats equally. Either way, somebody should scoop Rex up before Phil Griffin gives him his own show.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s The Ed Show:

Ms. Taylor made a raft of dead-on observations about Cain, but it was her shot at Newt Gingrich that really resonated.

Host Ed Schultz began by asking Taylor if Cain’s endorsement might actually hurt its recipient. She responded in very practical terms, explaining that a Cain endorsement “helps nobody.”

“He doesn’t tell his volunteers where to go,” Taylor continued. “He doesn’t tell his donors where to go. Other candidates can get those volunteers, get those donors, get whatever organization he had without saying nary a word.”

She compared Cain and current frontrunner Newt Gingrich to “the tent preacher who used to come to my town…when I was a kid and rub oil on people’s head and say they were healed.”

Taylor then cut through all the gaffes, scandals, and horse-race drama of this campaign to express the true, under-reported problem with these candidates: their bad ideas. “You gotta be sick and damn tired of people who want to cut Pell Grants, childhood basic education, Head Start, and programs that really break the cycle of poverty, and then turn around and say they want to put kids to work on the factory floor.”

Schultz also asked if a Cain endorsement would hurt a candidate in the eyes of women voters. Ms. Taylor didn’t think so, telling Schultz, “The guy who’s taken the front-runner position in the race, Newt Gingrich, he’s got his own checkered past when it comes to women and marriages. So I’m not sure if this Republican base really cares about how people handle themselves morally in their personal lives.”

While I agree with much of what Goldie Taylor said, I would only point out that accusing Herman Cain of bastardizing our politics is kinda like accusing Ron Jeremy of dumbing down pornography. The bar was pretty damn low already, and many political observers ironically credit much of that to Cain successor Newt Gingrich.

Luntz told a meeting of the Republican Governors Association, earlier this week, that he’s ”…so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

RELATED: Winning the Budget Conversation: A ‘Luntz Memo’ For President Obama

He’s so scared, in fact, that he’s had the “capitalism” scared right out of him. “They should occupy a job and take a bath,” Luntz said. “I get that joke. But man, they’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism. And so I’m trying to get that word removed and replace it with either economic freedom or free market.”

He then laid out some suggestions on how Republicans could Orwellize their language surrounding the Occupy Movement, which Schultz went over with some bitter mockery.  One of the more telling items on the list is Luntz’s marching orders on the phrase “middle class.” As Ed puts it, “Number three, Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the middle class. Don’t ever use the term middle class. Refer to them as hard-working taxpayers. Have you noticed on this program I’ve told you that the Republicans never use the term ‘middle class’ in any kind of interview? Now you’re going to hear hard-working taxpayers a lot.”

Ed’s interpretation of Luntz’s suggestions is dead on, and I doubt even Luntz would disagree with them. Schultz is then joined by former Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), and while their mockery of Luntz’s simple tricks is warranted, they conclude that those tricks won’t work this time:

Here’s the thing. There is no earthly reason Frank Luntz’s tricks should ever work, because he does them right out in the open. It’s like Obi-Wan Kenobi going on TNN (Tatooine News Network) and saying, “Y’know, all you really have to do is say, ‘These aren’t the ‘droids you’re looking for,’ and the cops’ll let you go!”

It’s public knowledge that his entire job is to fool idiots, and he is a genius at it. The idiots still fall for it every time, or at least the idiots who decide every election (the media call them “independents”). Exposing Luntz’s tricks doesn’t do any good; he’s not hiding them.

This is where I break with a lot of liberals, Ed included. They always think that the answer is to smarten people up. In Ed’s case, I think it’s because he has a real emotional investment in the working people, he cares. I care, too, but at a certain point, I throw up my hands and say, “You’re getting the government you deserve.”

Whereas Ed admirably, and doggedly, covered the protests in Wisconsin earlier this year, the first rumblings of the unrest to follow, my visceral reaction was to wonder where these people were during the 2010 mid-terms. It’s great that Wisconsin is working to undo what Scott Walker has done, but what did these people think he was going to do when they voted for him?

So, while Ed and Grayson are confident Luntz’s wordplay won’t work this time, I renew my call for Democrats to find their own evil genius. Stop being so self-conscious, and start Luntzinizing your speech, no matter how stupid it feels. For example, President Obama, stop “asking the wealthy to pay a little more,” and start demanding that they fulfill their responsibility to the country that made them so successful.

The Luntz effect is all around us, even when  he’s not involved, because our media is attenuated to pro-corporate language. Ever wonder why use of the term “job creation” is so heavily favored over “job growth” by our news media? The only difference is that one is accurate, while the other is corporate propaganda. Guess which one is favored by more than two-to-one?

The 99% need their own Frank Luntz, because being right just isn’t enough.

RELATED: Ed Schultz On Being Named One Of The ‘Least Influential People Alive’: ‘Kiss My Ass, GQ’

Speaking of the 99%, I noted with some amusement that GQ magazine recently named both Ed Schultz and President Obama to their “Least Influential” list, which both men should take as a badge of honor. It’s like having Marie Antoinette name you “Worst Cake-Eater”; their idea of influence is steering you toward the right $500 necktie.

While others get credit for the Occupy Wall Street movement, it was Ed Schultz who blanketed the midwest with coverage of workers’ protests there last winter, lending his voice to what was arguably the first wave of this populist uprising, and who was the first mainstream media figure to embed himself with the OWS protesters. That might not be the kind of influence GQ can feel, but lots of other people can.

IndyBay.org asked Olsen if he could remember anything from the night he was knocked out. Olsen said he had his phone out and was texting a friend when he was hit in the head with a projectile. “Next thing I know, I’m down and on the ground, and there are people above me trying to help me, and they ended up carrying me away.”

Olsen’s speech is a little slurred, and he still has some trouble pronouncing and even recalling some words. He says that the rehabilitation process has improved his speech markedly.

“Initially, I couldn’t form any words, I couldn’t make any words. My brain was pretty much all there. Mentally, I was there. I just couldn’t spit these things out of my mouth.”

Later, on The Ed Show, Olsen told Schultz that while it was “kind of weird” and “a bit overwhelming” to be a national figure, he’s happy to be somebody, “to look up to for some people.” Schultz then asked him why he was in the protests, and why he says he will return to them.

“I’m there protecting the rights that we have,” he said. “When I took the enlistment oath, when I joined the Marines, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. And I’m continuing to do that.”

The IndyBay video can be found here, or watch Olsen’s interview with Schultz below, courtesy of MSNBC:

The film is built around the narratives of six of the survivors (including Mario Sepulveda, the unofficial “made for TV” spokesman of the group), telling their stories for the fist time here, and features reenactments of the time they spent in the mine before their whereabouts were discovered. According to the film’s promotional materials, the miners “swore to one another never to reveal what took place so many feet below the Earth’s surface during what they called ‘The Dark Days’ – the 17 days that passed when they didn’t yet know whether or not they would ever be rescued,” and that they “have stayed true to that pact never to tell what took place those first 17 days – until now.”

Schultz explains that “one of the reasons why they stayed quiet to this point, and got together to tell this story, was because they wanted to make sure the story was done properly, and their story about workers was explicitly told, which is a very courageous move on their part.”

It’s a hell of a story, and although Schultz touches on issues like mine safety and disaster preparedness, he wisely stays mostly out of the way, letting the miners’ narratives, and the viscerally effective reenactments, tell the tale. “I think this is a stark reminder that there’s a lot of workers who are in dangerous jobs that don’t have the protections that they need,” Schultz told me, “and often times we see responsibilities are not lived up to, and I think that the big picture is it’s an eye-opener to how workers are treated. We just cant put profit over safety and people, and I think in this case you can certainly point to it.”

The story’s relevance to workplaces here, and elsewhere, is part of what attracted Schultz to the project. “I was attracted to the project because I think its a workers issue,” he told me,  ”and thats one of the themes of The Ed Show, who’s to say that couldn’t happen in America? We put profit ahead of people, often times in our culture, and I think this story needed to be told.”

At its heart, though, Schultz says “It’s a gut wrenching, very compelling story about workers who are facing death. It displays a wide range of emotions of the workers and it’s very emotional.”

While the story is incredibly moving, the film avoids heart-tugging manipulation. The interviews with the miners are mostly clear-eyed, woven with gratitude at being alive, which makes the few emotional moments pack an authentic punch.

Schultz says he found the loyalty of the miners particularly affecting. “They had to have loyalty to one another if they were going to survive,” he said, “and its a real testimony to leadership and the human spirit.”

“I think when you watch this documentary, you put your self in their position, and that’s how it should be viewed.” he continued. “You come away with just amazement with how they did it.”

The film also follows the concurrent struggle of the families, particularly of Lilly Gomez, wife of miner Mario Gomez, and the rallying of the community to a sense of urgency. “Had it not been for their protest, had it not been for their concern in the community,” Schultz says, “who knows if they’d ever been rescued.”

Here’s a clip from the documentary, which airs tomorrow night at 10 pm:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(F) Notwithstanding division (C) of this section, equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.

That provision is an exception to the portion of the bill that gives the employer sole discretion over the following areas: (emphasis mine)

(4) Determine the starting and quitting time and the number of hours to be worked by its employees;
(5) Make any and all reasonable rules and regulations;
(6) Determine the work assignments of its employees;
(7) Determine the basis for selection, retention, and promotion of employees;
(8) Determine the type of equipment used and the sequence of work processes, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
(9) Determine the making of technological alterations by revising either process or equipment or both, except as provided in division (F) of this section;
(10) Determine work standards and the quality and quantity of work to be produced

All of these areas are ones that could reasonable affect the safety of firefighters, and although some of those are subject to that exception, the language of that exception, as Schultz’s guest later explains, is subjective and narrow.

Schultz points to a section of the bill, which is scheduled for a voter referendum as “Issue 2″ in November, that settles disputes over all collective bargaining issues, including safety, by a vote of the “legislative body.”

According to Schultz, this means that if “the lawmakers” decide they don’t like something, they get their way. It’s actually much worse than that, since the makeup of the legislature can change over time. SB 5 defines “legislative body” as the board of whatever department or institution is in question, the “management” side of the labor/management equation:

(3) As used in division (D) of this section, “legislative body” means any of the following:
(a) With respect to the state or any agency, authority, commission, or board of the state, the controlling board;
(b) With respect to a state institution of higher education, the board of trustees of the institution;
(c) With respect to public employees who are members of an exclusive nurses unit and who are employed by a hospital, the board of trustees of the hospital.

The bill describes a labyrinthine dispute resolution process, controlled by the State Employment Relations Board, that involves appointing a mediator, a fact-finder, serving all kinds of notices, but the really important part is where it all ends up. If there’s still a dispute after all of that rigmarole, both sides present their “last best offer,” and here’s what happens:

After receiving the submissions required under division (D)(1) of this section, the legislative body or a duly authorized committee of the legislative body shall conduct a hearing, within fifteen days after the date the collective bargaining agreement expires, at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the report of the fact-finder. After receipt of the submissions and prior to the hearing, the legislative body shall have the chief financial officer of the legislative body determine which last best offer costs more. The chief financial officer shall certify the results of the determination to the legislative body. The legislative body shall hold the hearing open to the public and shall not deem the hearing an executive session of the legislative body. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative body shall vote, within fifteen days after the date the collective bargaining agreement expires, to accept either the last best offer of the exclusive representative or the last best offer of the public employer.

That’s kind of like having your mom grade your homework. If a public employer knows that this is where disputes end up, how good do you think their “last best offer” is going to be?

Schultz also interviewed firefighter’s union leader Jack Reall, who appears in Hartsock’s video, and Reall pointed out another error in the BreitbartTV clip. Reall criticizes Hartsock for selectively editing a clip in which Reall talks to firefighters, telling them “The lieutenant sitting next to you, going into the fire with you, has no right to bargain for his safety, his staffing, his safety equipment, and that is bullshit.”

Hartsock rebuts Reall’s assertion with that same “equipment issues directly related to personal safety” clause, but as Reall points out, the bill specifically excludes firefighters above the rank of lieutenant from collective bargaining:

(C) In addition, in determining the appropriate unit, the board shall not:

…(6) With respect to members of a police department, designate as appropriate a unit that includes rank and file members of the department with members who are of the rank of sergeant or above, or with respect to members of a fire department, designate as appropriate a unit that includes rank and file members of the department with members who are of the rank of lieutenant or above;

Christian Hartsock, it should be noted, was courteous with Schultz in the portion of the interview that he published. However, he has a history of this sort of thing. He tracked me down outside a karaoke bar once, to defend the honor of his “very good friend” James O’Keefe. When he got his ass handed to him, he simply cut out the parts of the video that he didn’t like.

It’s one thing to bring your point of view to bear on a set of facts, as Ed Schultz does routinely, and with great success. It’s quite another to twist, omit, or fabricate facts to fit your point of view. That’s Hartsock’s game, but in this case, Schultz dealt  him a loss.

Here’s the clip, from The Ed Show:

Limbaugh, on his August 8 broadcast, did, indeed, claim that President Obama inherited “an unemployment rate of five point seven-some-odd percent,” and a review of the full five minute segment shows that he didn’t go back and correct himself, or qualify that figure. Here’s the quote, with a little bit extra:

Sean Hannity claimed, on his August 16 show, that President Obama “inherited unemployment at 5.6%,” and a review of the context of Hannity’s remarks similarly demonstrates that there was nothing in the accompanying context that changes the meaning of what he said:

The fact is that, by any measure, these claims are grossly inaccurate. The unemployment rate was at 7.8% in January, 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, and as he has pointed out many times, soared to 9% before a single policy of his was enacted (such as the stimulus package that helped Rick Perry to create all those public sector jobs he’s bragging about). Even if you measure the hand-off from Election Day 2008, they’re each off by a full percentage point.

Limbaugh’s detractors might assume that asking him for a correction is a fool’s errand, but he has actually demonstrated a willingness to do so fairly recently, apologizing to Mediaite in April for a much less significant error. There’s no reason to believe he won’t correct this mistake.

As for Sean Hannity, if Ed Schultz is willing to apologize when he makes a mistake, surely Hannity’s viewers will expect no less from him, and will hold him to the same standard that MSNBC’s executives have set, even for opinion hosts.

As it turns out, Perry’s remark was much more specific. While he did use the phrase “big black cloud,” he was referring explicitly to the debt, as the full video of Perry’s remark reveals.

Update: ABC News Deputy Political Director Michael Falcone responds.

BreitbartTV’s Larry O’Connor tracked down the full video of Perry’s remarks (which Mediaite also requested of ABC News prior to our post on the subject), and compared it with an edited version that aired on Monday night’s The Ed Show.

Here’s the clip that ran on Fox affiliate KAYU in Spokane:

BreitbartTV compared that clip with the one that ran on The Ed Show:

Now, Schultz could have aired the entire clip, and still tried to make the case that Perry’s remark was poorly chosen. Chopping the clip the way he did was dishonest and, at best, an oversell by a zealous partisan commentator.

But there is no excuse for ABC News’ reporters abridging Perry’s remark in that fashion. It was their reporting upon which April Ryan, and others, relied in forming their strong reactions to the quote, and not Schultz’s edited clip. It was the truncated, oddly-paraphrased fashion in which ABC reported his remark (“Perry warned that a ‘big black cloud’ hangs over the country”) which made me contact them (and Perry’s campaign) to check on the quote in the first place.

We also performed several searches for video of Perry’s remarks before publication, but found nothing.

Whatever your opinion of Governor Perry, politically or otherwise, he deserves to be quoted as fairly and completely as any other figure. Not to do so is inexcusable.

Update: Salon’s Joan Walsh points out that The Ed Show didn’t completely edit out Perry’s comments about the debt

Quick, before they doctor it! http://t.co/PjgeCiN The Ed clip Breitbots claim leaves out Perry’s deficit reference — which doesn’t

They play his lead-in comment, “Being able to pay off 14 and a half, 16 trillion dollars worth of debt. That big black cloud that hangs over America.”

The clip did cut off Perry’s next remark, which would have been “That big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous…”

That’s an important bit of context, and contrary to Walsh’s tweet, BreitbartTV’s clip (which included the full Ed Show lead-in) made the correct claim that an important reference to the debt was edited. Walsh has a point, though, that Ed can make the case that he left in sufficient context, and that critics’ real problem is with the opinion he offered.

The same cannot be said of ABC News’ The Note, who truncated and paraphrased Perry’s quote at both ends, completely removing any reference to the debt.

Update: ABC News Deputy Political Director Michael Falcone responds by telling Mediaite, “Perry was speaking about the economy when he said that. We stand by the accuracy of our quote.”

In the original ABC piece, the “big black clouds” quote was preceded by several quotes that were directed at President Obama, but were also about economic issues. Including the part of the quote that dealt with the debt would have greatly clarified Perry’s meaning. In fairness to Falcone, that doesn’t mean the omission was anything but an innocent editorial decision.

Update II: On his program tonight, Ed Schultz apologized for taking the clip out of context and played it in full.

*This post has been updated to more accurately reflect Joan Walsh’s tweets.

Schultz spoke to John Becker of the group Truth Wins Out, who said he “put myself back into the mental place that I was in as a teenager” in order to act as if he wanted to receive therapy to become straight. According to Becker, none of what he saw (that he could determine) was illegal, but certainly unethical– for example, he did not receive consent forms. And he did confirm that “absolutely, without a doubt, the treatment and advice that I was given meets the bar for [reparative therapy].”

Ultimately for Becker, who had never participated in any such undercover operations before, he said the experiment was eye-opening for him because “we live in the 21st century its difficult to imagine that there is a large segment of our society that still believes that homosexuality can be removed.” He also noted that, from what he saw there, he would classify Rep. Bachmann’s views as “dangerously archaic” and redefining of how the federal government interacts with the LGBT community should she win the presidency.

The segment via MSNBC below:

The establishment of Current TV as a destination for liberal news programming doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing for MSNBC. There are, apparently, millions of liberals who aren’t watching cable news, and this represents an opportunity for both channels to attract a new audience.

Given the details of their split, it’s not surprising that Olbermann would express some (relatively mild) bitterness in the aftermath of his exit, but in recent weeks, his shots have been more directly aimed at some of his former colleagues, plus more intent on poaching the network’s audience…and their talent?

At first, Olbermann confined his disapproval of his former network to sporadic, mildly passive-aggressive tweets about not watching the network anymore, and grammar-copping former colleagues. About a month ago, though, Olbermann ripped MSNBC host Ed Schultz for daring to disagree with (Current TV/Countdown contributor) Michael Moore, calling Schultz a “supposedly liberal commentator, on a supposedly liberal network.”

Just last night, he suggested that his former election coverage partner, Chris Matthews, is a serial credit thief.

He later sought to draw a none-too-subtle contrast between his upcoming Current regime, and MSNBC, tweeting with characteristic passive-aggressiveness, “Presented without comment: Michael Moore named contributor to @Current Michael Steele named contributor to MSNBC.”

In later comments to The Hollywood Reporter, however, Olbermann removed any doubt that this shot was aimed squarely at former colleague Rachel Maddow, whose obvious respect and admiration for Steele must have played a role in his hiring. “There were lots of people who were forced to choose sides,” he told The Hollywood Reporter, “And particularly in Rachel’s case, I didn’t want to add to the pressure on her already. The last thing I need to do is be calling her up and saying, ‘How’s that Michael Steele working out for you?’”

For a guy who doesn’t want to add to the pressure on Rachel Maddow, Olbermann sure has a funny way of showing it. In a recent interview with the Associated Press‘ Frazier Moore, Olbermann openly suggested that he would poach Maddow away from MSNBC at the first opportunity (a suggestion that also turned up in a recent Rolling Stone article):

Maybe Olbermann will find himself another Rachel Maddow, the liberal host who clicked with viewers on MSNBC after Olbermann brought her aboard for a companion show to his at that network.

Sure, nods Olbermann. “Or conceivably,” he says suggestively, “I might just find the SAME Rachel Maddow. You never know.”

While I’m sure there’s a passage in The Art of War dedicated to just this sort of mind game, such a statement is surely not designed to make things more comfortable for Maddow at MSNBC.

There has been pop-psych speculation about an All About Eve dynamic between Olbermann and Maddow, as the student rapidly eclipsed the master. While this doesn’t quite equal a shove down the staircase, Maddow might not appreciate being made a pawn in this game. True to gracious form, she hasn’t commented about this, but Olbermann’s revelation that they haven’t spoken since his exit speaks volumes. “Send to voicemail” goes both ways.

The contrast between Olbermann and Rachel Maddow seems to be at the heart of the two networks’ branding efforts. While Olbermann clearly sees himself as the curmudgeonly mentor here, Maddow’s star has risen on the strength of her willingness to engage the other side, a trait for which Olbermann slams her, but one which has earned her the respect and admiration of centrists on both sides of the political spectrum. That sensibility runs through most of MSNBC’s opinion programming.

Joe Scarborough, host of the influential Morning Joe, usually stakes out center-right territory, while engaging a variety of panelists and guests from across the ideological spectrum. The Last Word‘s Lawrence O’Donnell has a decidedly farther-left point of view, and a more confrontational style, but he also frequently features guests and panelists from the right (O’Donnell’s warm sentiments for Olbermann, alas, have only garnered him a chilly mention as “my replacement” in that Rolling Stone interview). Even liberal firebreather Cenk Uygur engages the right on his 6pm show, and while Ed Schultz‘s The Ed Show has the vibe of a Drinking Liberally meeting, his sensibility is more rooted in an affinity with working-class liberals than in a smug contempt for “the enemy.”

Olbermann, on the other hand, disdains engagement with conservatives, or anyone with whom he strongly disagrees. While he claims such engagement isn’t “illuminating,” his critics paint this refusal as an acknowledgement that the result would be Olbermann’s transformation into a Swiffer Wet Jet™.

As Patrick Gavin‘s review of Olbermann’s Twitter feed indicates, those critics might be on to something. While Olbermann is an undeniably gifted writer, his sub-playground exchanges with Twitter critics display a weakness for real-time debate, and a skin so thin it makes Sarah Palin look like an armadillo.

There’s nothing wrong with knowing your own strengths (Countdown never suffered from its lack of divergent viewpoints) and weaknesses, but attacking a group of people who still profess respect and admiration for you is a risky strategy that could alienate viewers, and industry allies. Countdown will surely improve upon Current TV‘s 50,000 or so average prime-time viewers, but if the linchpin in Olbermann’s strategy is to vanquish an MSNBC lineup that has barely skipped a beat since his departure, Current‘s prospects look to be severely limited. Essentially, the strategy seems to be “the friends of my enemy will become my friends.”

MSNBC, on the other hand, seems well-positioned to weather the challenge. The network is no stranger to negative attacks by competitors. Their “Lean Forward” ad campaign prompted responses (from both Fox News and CNN) that only served to underscore the campaign’s impact. They played hardball with Current TV new-hire David Shuster when they got wind he might be looking to greener pastures at CNN. As far as Olbermann’s impending debut goes, the network has remained tight-lipped. When asked about possible audience defection, MSNBC’s Vice President of Prime Time Programming Bill Wolff would say only, “Our goal remains the same – focus on being awesome at what we’re doing.”

There is a clear path to success for Current, but it doesn’t figure to involve trading body blows with MSNBC. With Countdown as its anchor, there is plenty of camera-ready liberal talent out there (Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder, Bill Press, and for late-late nights, Mike Malloy) who would fit in well with Olbermann’s leftier-than-thou ethos, and an opportunity to build an audience that’s currently not swimming in the cable news waters. I think most liberals would agree that two healthy liberal networks are better than one.

Re. the crude comments made about me by Ed Schultz on his radio program: First, I was surprised to learn that Ed Schultz actually hosted a radio show.  Is it only available online?  Second, I have to get back to recording the audio edition of my new book “Of Thee I Zing.” Now I’m tempted to insert one additional zing–about men who preach civility but practice misogyny.

In Schultz’s defense, I don’t recall him ever “preaching civility,” as he complained loudly over the temporary retirement of his “Psycho Talk” segment in the wake of the Tucson tragedy. Then again, scant hours after calling Ingraham a “slut,” Schultz was lecturing FBN’s Eric Bolling over remarks about President Obama “chugging forties.”

Ingraham also reacted to Schultz’s suspension with a quip, this time on Twitter:

MSNBC suspends Schultz. Oh great, now his ratings will go up.

Schultz’s apology was as full and heartfelt as any I have ever seen from a media figure (as it should have been). He rightly called his comments “vile,” and revealed that he tried to reach Ingraham by telephone to apologize personally, but was only able to leave a message. More than anything, Schultz seemed to grasp the gravity of what he had said, and his shame and embarrassment were palpable as he asked Ingraham for forgiveness.

Here’s the video of Schultz’s apology (after which fill-in Thomas Roberts took over the show), from MSNBC:

As Mediaite’s Jon Bershad has already noted, Schultz’s remarks were completely unacceptable. Even if you grant that he meant, all along, to use the slightly walked-back “talk slut” to metaphorically convey that Ingraham will say anything to get attention (a notion that even some of my conservative friends generously allow), it is still a hostile, misogynist metaphor, and an attack on all women. Schultz demonstrates his comprehension of this when he includes his wife in his apology.

While I generally don’t favor dismissals over (even extremely objectionable) speech, MSNBC sends the right message with its suspension of Schultz. While they could have ducked behind the fact that Schultz’s remarks were made on his radio show, and not the network, they chose to discipline Schultz anyway. To his credit, Schultz (according to MSNBC) offered the one week suspension at a disciplinary meeting. While the suspension is considerably longer than those meted out to Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough for other offenses, it is still shorter than the term served by David Shuster when he remarked that the Hillary Clinton campaign was “pimping out” daughter Chelsea. Now that it has been defined as “indefinite,” it remains to be seen just how long Schultz is absent.

Schultz’s remarks were more overt than other examples of misogyny in the political media, but by the same token, his apology and self-imposed exile are also an anomaly. Credit Schultz for having the courage to really take responsibility for his actions, unlike so many others.

Grayson was responding to a New York Daily News report that said, quoting an unnamed “highly placed source,” that Bush “felt his administration wasn’t getting enough credit for the decade-long hunt for Bin Laden.”

The attribution on this story is beyond weak (a “highly-placed source” could be Cheech and/or Chong), and by all accounts, the former President has handled the bin Laden killing with grace and humility. While others seem eager to re-litigate things like waterboarding and pre-Iraq War intelligence, Bush has been doing the right thing. Repeating this poorly-sourced report seems misplaced and unfair.

Grayson’s personal attack about Bush’s drinking problem is not a new thing, but given how deferential Bush has been, it came off as exceedingly dickish. I’ve never understood this line of attack in the first place. Most people, regardless of politics, have loved ones who have struggled with alcohol or substance abuse. Bush’s decision to abstain is admirable, and whatever his personal struggles with the issue, most people can relate to that.

There are important questions raised by the bin Laden killing, and as unseemly as squabbling over credit seems, it has important implications to future policies. As such, there’s nothing wrong with making your case, based on the facts (some more compelling than others), the way Schultz did earlier in the segment. While many commentators with no ax to grind have been willing to grant Bush a measure of credit, it is fair to ask if the cost of his detour into Iraq wipes out that credit, or if he deserves credit simply for doing his job. Do you pat your auto mechanic on the head just because he managed to pop the hood?

Either way, Grayson should have stuck to the facts, if for no other reason than that nastiness like this only serves to undercut whatever legitimate point you may have.

Here’s the full segment, from MSNBC:

On his program, Schultz kept that discussion going. He noted recent poll statistics showing that 45 percent of Republicans believe President Barack Obama was born in another country, with 22 percent claiming they “don’t know” where on earth the man was born. Schultz then pointed to Obama’s certificate of live birth, driving home that the document has been verified, continuously… despite what some people, like ohhh Mr. Donald Trump, might be preaching. How is it, wondered Schultz, that people like Trump can distract from “what’s real” by relentlessly focusing on the “birther issue”? The thought of Schultz and Karl Rove – who has said pretty much the exact same thing – discussing this very matter over endless salad and breadsticks at Olive Garden amuses us greatly. But, just as fun for us, really, Schultz brought on Steele.

“You’re a good sport for coming on, and I appreciate it,” said Schultz. “We had a fun time the other night on Bill Maher’s show.” Steele heartily agreed:

We did, we really did. It was a good exchange; I love the back-and-forth, you know. What I loved about it was two guys showing their real passion for the issues of the day and to me was exciting.

Yay, you guys! But what does Steele think about the fact that a majority of Republicans apparently don’t believe Obama is a citizen? Well, it’s not really an issue for Steele, who thinks Americans would do well to focus on other issues – like the economy. And it was like Schultz wanted to reach across the split screen and give Steele a hug, or a coupon for free hugs.

Steele then brought up that he knows of some conservative Democrats who also aren’t sure about Obama’s place of birth. “Not 67 percent!” responded Schultz, before asking what (we think) is an extremely important question for all Republicans to think about right now: Is this issue hurting the Republican party? Steele gave an extremely adamant “yes.” For one, he notes, it “puts a drag” on other discussions, such as that on the budget.

Now, enough with all this “agreeing on things”… thing. Back to the proposed Medicare voucher system! Asked Schultz:

Mr. Steele, do you agree or disagree with the American people? Because the Republicans have voted on exactly the opposite of where the American people are.

When Steele mentioned seeing polling going the other way, Schultz asked if he thought the American people want a voucher for Medicare. The two then argued over… that. And job creation. But it was civil – if heated! And not so loud that it was all completely unintelligible!

Gonna say it: These two have amazing chemistry, and we’d listen to them discuss microwaving Peeps.

Take a look at the segment for yourselves, courtesy MSNBC:

“Where are you?” Schultz asked the president during his program on Friday, noting that his following monologue was directed at “the liberal locker room,” where he needed to wake the President from his apparently slumber. “It is day 11 of the protests in Madison and there’s still no deal between the Wisconsin 14 and [Governor] Scott Walker,” Schultz noted, but the White House has been “lukewarm.” “The President has been virtually silent about all of this,” he continued, noting that union workers are “the people who voted for President Obama” and that Senator Obama had promised much more full-throated solidarity than what he is providing. He played a clip from the 2008 campaign trail in which Obama promised to “put on a pair of comfortable shoes” and go on strike with the unions wherever they may protest, followed by a clip of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responding to that clip by saying the President stood with the workers. “This Carney guy, maybe he just didn’t get the memo,” Schultz quipped.

Schultz  then took a detour to slam Sen. Lindsey Graham for saying further involvement in state issue by the President would be “inappropriate”– “they [Republicans] hate the American workers,” he noted as he implored the President to ignore them and go on a “road trip.”

Schultz believes the President is deliberately ignoring the unions– after all, what other pressing issues could be occupying the President’s time that are more important than a ragtag group of state senators shacking up in a hotel somewhere? Surely there can’t be anything going on in the Middle East right now that would require much time and effort from the executive– it’s not like northern Africa is experiencing a series of historic revolutions that have left hundreds dead and threaten to swallow up the world’s most oil-rich nations. Nor would the President be hampered domestically by the federal financial situation and the fact that Republicans keep threatening to shut down the entire federal government. Surely President Obama must be twiddling his thumbs while Wisconsin burns, if by “burns” you mean “experiences a series of peaceful protests in which union members walk around in circles for a while and the governor gets prank-called by shock jock talk radio hosts.”

Schultz addresses all of these possible critiques by merely mentioning that “Libya is going to hell in a handbasket,” but then adding that Wisconsin is, too. It’s a weak retort to the possible response. But all in all Schultz’s attempt at shaking the President out of what he perceives to be political slumber is earnest and attention-grabbing, and sure to be a hit among people who find Schultz’s “working class” style to be approachable, if not preferable in small doses.

Schultz’s union monologue via MSNBC below:

Schultz, reporting live from a rock concert ground zero of the Wisconsin union protests, couldn’t have expressed more pleasure at having the raucous, picketing mass behind him as he explained the tax policies of former Democratic governor and how they compared to current governor Scott Walker‘s, the crowd cheering wildly at the previous surplus but falling silent at the mention of Walker’s three tax cuts.

Special guest Jesse Jackson then joined the fray to much jubilation (and something that sounded suspiciously like a vuvuzela) and praised the protests for “going viral” and embracing the “Egypt spirit” (?). He then sent his congratulations to the Democratic state senators that fled the state and clarified that, to him, “this isn’t about money– this is about union-busting.”

Schultz also brings up tomorrow’s Tea Party-organized rally in favor of the governor’s cuts, and noted to Jackson (a South Carolina native) that the crowd would have to contend with tons of “outside influence” from places like Virginia tomorrow. Jackson gave the crowd only one piece of advice: “don’t get in a shouting match and become a distraction,” to which the crowd replied with a series of exuberant, distracting shouts.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Turner appeared on The Ed Show Monday night to discuss what she considered a racially-charged remark, despite Kasich’s protestations that he was referring to “Democrats” when he said “your people.”

Host Ed Schultz, to his credit, did include Kasich’s response that he was referring to “Democrats,” but dismissed the explanation with a wink, before coming out and asking Turner, point-blank, if Kasich is a racist. Ironically, Schultz’s mistake is in believing that there’s always a black-and-white answer to that question: (from MSNBC)

Schultz’s framing misses the point that racism is a spectrum disorder. It’s not a choice between hooded klansman or Rainbow Coalitioner. Everyone has some degree of racial prejudice to overcome, and Turner’s diagnosis of “insensitivity” is one of the more insidious varieties.

Many white people have this idea that being “colorblind” is the racial ideal (an easy position to take if your own skin color is never a detriment to you), but they fail to realize that “colorblindness” in an unequal society is de facto racism. If you live in a society that still enforces forms of racial separation, “colorblindness” will support that status quo.

In Kasich’s case, the situation is a bit more complicated. Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols told Politico:

Kasich had not yet appointed any African-Americans to his cabinet, but that’s not for lack of trying, Nichols said. “We have reached out to two African-Americans for two different cabinet-level positions, and they passed on the opportunity.”

This is a sort of chicken-or-egg equation. Did Kasich’s apparent contempt for diversity cause those two applicants to turn him down, or did their rebuffs cause that contempt? Or is there something about Kasich’s hiring criteria that naturally weeds out qualified black applicants? Kasich’s spokesman also said that the Governor’s “your people” remark referred to “partisan Democrats who don’t agree with reducing taxes and reducing spending.”

As Turner points out, there are administrative posts that are apolitical, so can’t Kasich find any qualified black candidates for those positions? Well, by his spokesman’s own admission, qualifications are as secondary as diversity to the new Governor:

“Diversity is something we will seek and something we will work toward, but it’s not more important than finding people who share the governor’s positions,” he said.

Giving Kasich the benefit of the doubt, then, he’s just a guy who can’t find people from a disproportionately hard-hit community who want to slash essential services. That makes him blind to more than just color.

Here’s an interesting sidenote, as well. Schultz struggles with the pronunciation (Kay-shits, Kay-sitch) of Kasich’s name (KAY-sick), and identifies him as a “former Fox News host.” I was a bit surprised, then, to find that Schultz actually appeared on The O’Reilly Factor when Kasich was the guest-host. What a difference a few years make.

When the shooting began in Tucson, Joe Zamudio was there, in a store buying cigarettes. He heard the shots, and decided to act. Also, he was armed are ready to use his weapon to try and save lives.

On MSNBC’s The Ed Show, Zamudio told host Ed Schultz he had no hesitation whatsoever about using the weapon he carries every day. “I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off and I was ready to kill him.”

Asked again by Schultz if he would’ve shot to kill, Zamudio was blunt:

You’re damn right. This is my country, this is my town, you don’t get to walk around hurting people, killing innocents, and little girls. It’s not right, man.

Asked by Schultz about Arizona’s gun laws–and whether tougher legislation could’ve kept the shooting spree from happening–Zamudio said no. “There’s no shortage of firearms. That’s not the solution.”

Watch it here, from MSNBC:

Schultz analyzed remarks Perino made on a recent episode of Fox and Friends, where he described her role as “run[ning] her mouth on the latest righty talking points.” He added that she “does a pretty good job of it,” which is the definition of “damning with faint praise” if we’ve ever heard it. Perino said on the program that she “started panicking” at an energy bill (signed by President George W. Bush) because it “included a ban on incandescent lightbulbs.” Schultz decried this as “completely wrong,” and that the bill “eliminates inefficient lightbulbs. Light goin’ on?*”

Schultz also railed against Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), for decrying the higher price of the “pig-tailed” CFL bulbs without noting that, in Schultz’s words, “last a hell of a lot longer.” We might be mercifully past last week’s near-dead-period for news, but devoting even this two-plus-minute segment to lightbulbs proves we’re not yet completely out of the dark**. Video of the segment, via MSNBC, below.

*Other light-related puns: the subtitle of the segment being “Not That Bright,” Schultz calling Perino’s assertion about incandescent bulbs “worse than a shot in the dark.”

**This line constitutes my audition to write the punny text for cable news graphics.

The self-described centrist, Spector’s came off as an angry and somewhat bitter guy after not getting re-elected in the Democratic primary earlier this year. Still, his harshest words were for his former Republican party:

President Reagan’s big tent has frequently been abandoned by the Republican party. Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary in Alaska. Senator Mike Castle was rejected in Delaware’s Republican primary in favor of a candidate who fought thought in necessary to defend herself as not being a witch. Republican Senators contribute to the primary defeats of Bennet, Murkowski and Castle. Cating or defeating your own is a form of sophisticated cannibalism.

Spector later appeared on The Ed Show where Ed Schultz interviewed and praised the outgoing Senator for what he saw as a frank and candid assessment. Watch the interview from MSNBC below:

How to describe Ron Christie? He’s an MSNBC regular, a Republican, and he’s, well–he’s not a shouter, let’s put it that way. He’s the schoolkid who enjoys class much more than recess.

So why do the producers of Ed Schultz‘s show seem to delight in pitting Christie against the most over the top Democratic characters they can find?

On Monday night’s show, the producers paired up Christie with radio host Joe Madison to talk about the Bush tax cuts. Result? Christie was quiet and thoughtful, (“I think it’s an American people victory”) and Madison suggested Democrats should, well, turn the damn town upside down:

We ought to be in the streets. We ought to be jumping on these greedy Republicans who have the audacity to try to keep going what they had going on for the last ten years. Here’s what I would tell Republicans: okay, baby, it’s in your court right now. Create the jobs. And you’ve got 13 months to get these people off unemployment that you’ve held hostage…Ron is full of it. This is an attempt to just allow rich people to maintain their hundred thousand three hundred thousand four hundred thousand. Create jobs or shut the hell up.

The debate diverts quickly from the issue to name calling, and Christie’s set up as the kid who can’t quite defend himself against all the punches and name calling. It becomes entertaining TV, if you enjoy seeing people sandbagged and shouting over each other, which was perfectly on display in an outrageously over the top Ed Show segment with Ron Christie that seemed to send Christie to his wit’s end.

Watch Monday’s segment here, from MSNBC:

If these segments are meant to inform, they’re failing. If they’re meant to be professional wrestling style entertainment with a wrestler taking on a bookworm, they work. But Christie’s getting punked.