“O’ Really…Really?”
By
Russ Jackson
Commentary on the “Ed Shultz Show”
On July 26th, Ed Shultz had Howard Dean on to discuss the whole “Fox News” issue concerning Shirley Sharrod. Dean basically said that it was Fox’s fault that Sharrod was fired. He explained that Fox was racist and had a racist agenda. Even when Ed (correctly) pointed out that Sharrod was fired before the story broke on Fox News, Dean brushed this aside and stated again that Fox had a racist agenda and was invested in the downfall of Barak Obama. To see some actual facts to this whole show down, please visit
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100725fhwir.php.
First question is this, how in the heck did Howard Dean even get on the Democratic radar back in 2004? I mean really, based on this interview alone, most forward thinking people would come to the conclusion that at best Howard Dean lives in his own little world, or at worst, needs psychiatric help. Now, I get that Dean and his left leaning comrades have an agenda. And that agenda includes smearing anyone who does not agree with them. But, a person who has sat as the Democratic Chair and held other prominent positions in government (Governor) should have enough sense to back down when confronted with overwhelming facts. You know what, forget all that. The simple fact that it is OK for Howard Dean to proclaim an entire News Organization as racist is plain wrong. Where is the outrage from the left on this? The left claims to be the holder of tolerance, and compassion. Where is the outrage from the ACLU, or Reverend Al Sharpton? They all claim to be against racism, and here you have Howard Dean using the R word on national TV. Not a whisper from the left. Hardly even a whisper from the right. If I sat on the board in FOX, I would be firing a lawsuit for slander and deformation of character against Mr. Dean on pure principle alone, regardless if it ever went to court, and regardless if I could win or not. Screw the cost, I would raise such a stink against Mr. Dean for his scandalizing, baseless, disparaging remarks that he would be forced to find a cave to live in.
You can bet that if the situation was reversed, and Michael Steele stood up and said that MSNBC was racist for not covering the New Black Panther situation and that whole scandal in the Justice Department that the NAACP, the ACLU, and every other jack in the box who ‘claims’ to be looking out for humanity would jump all over Steele, and force his resignation at the very least.
Second question is this: Can you disagree with the President of the United States and not be a racist? Well, the obvious answer to that question is a resounding yes regardless of the color of his skin (our current President just happens to be African American this time). However, according to multiple pundits’ in the left leaning media, it is obvious that if you disagree with any of the Presidents policies, that you are racist and just want to ‘beat the black man down’. What rubbish. While the left wants to play these silly games, the United States sinks deeper into debt and continues a deep recession that at this point has no end in sight. To be sure, the republicans are really not much better at the moment, and all the country can really hope for at this point is more deadlock in Congress and the Senate before any more damaging bills are passed into law.
So lets get to today. Again, I am watching the Ed Shultz show, and for those of you who do not know what that is, it is MSNBC’s poor attempt to counter the successes of Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannidy. I do not normally watch Ed’s show, but lately I have decided that if I am going to see the right slant, I should at least attempt to stomach the left slant. And in all reality, Ed himself can be pretty entertaining, much more than say Keith Oberman (story for a different day). An aside on all of these commentary type TV shows. First off, they are for entertainment value only. Do not be tricked into forming an opinion solely based off of any of these commentary shows. Do your own homework. They all have their own agendas (making money is #1). To be sure, some of the agendas I can agree with, others I can not. The point is, watch all of these shows (including radio programs of any political persuasion) with a large grain of salt.
So, all of these shows follow a similar pattern. The host proclaims their views at the beginning of the show aka O’Reilly’s ‘Talking Points’ or Ed’s ‘Burning Topics’. This is followed by a few guests that are basically on the show to parrot the hosts point of view. It is pretty hilarious if you watch these things closely. All of these hosts ask leading questions, interrupt their guests to no end, and have to get the last word. I guess that works, after all it is their show right? Right… Lastly, each host will have some poor schmoe with an opposing view on to illustrate that the host is indeed fair and listens to both sides. In reality, they over talk the opposition, continuously try to put words in their mouths, and basically try to make the opposition look silly or stupid. Shows like Hardball, O’Reilly, Hannidy and Countdown with Keith Oberman follow this same basic format.
OK, back to todays show. This afternoon, Mr. Ed had some poor guy on from the Heritage foundation. First off, this poor lad was unprepared to deal with the mighty Ed Shultz, and Ed hammered his guest on the republican stance of not repealing the Bush Tax cuts on the ultra rich. First, lets take a look at Ed’s opening commentary. Ed starts off the show by proclaiming that removing the tax cuts on the rich (passed by the republicans in 2002?) is not a tax increase. It is just going back to the status quo. I guess that works in theory but in reality taxes on some people will go up and the general principles of a recession point to lowering taxes, not raising them. To be fair, raising taxes on less than 10% of the American people by only 2% is kind of hard to argue against when the Nations debt is out of control. It is hard to have the position of saying “No” to higher taxes while saying the “debt must be reduced”. Or is it? I will explain in a second. But, to put things in context, it is pretty hard to defend that position and if I were from the Heritage Foundation, I either would not have accepted the interview, or put a more seasoned warrior on there to battle the mighty Ed Shultz. Needless to say, Ed hammered his point home and made this guy look silly.
Now, back to the point on defending the ultra rich tax increase (regardless of what the status quo was, it is a tax increase on some people and that is a fact). How do you defend not raising taxes on the ultra rich? Those increases will not affect me, will not affect anyone in my family, and most likely will not affect anyone I interact with. Now, I have to give some credit to Ed, even though I disagree with about 99% of his view points. Ed said on National TV that the tax increases (or tax reduction repeal if you’re a left leaning reader) will affect him, and he was OK with that. So, props to Ed for putting his money where is mouth is.
Here is what I have to say about ANY Tax increases to any part of the American population (individual, small business owner, corporate, and that even includes BP). NO! Until the current federal government and administration can prove they can be fiscally responsible with our money, they have no right to raise any taxes. Zero, zilche, nada, the federal government has pretty much lost all credibility in this voters eyes and are in essence behaving like a bunch of children. But that is an issue for another day. I would agree to tax increases (even on the middle class) only under these conditions. 1) All federal employees take a minimum of 10% pay cut. 2) All federal employees take a minimum of 15% benefits cut (including medical and pensions). 3) All federal employees take a minimum 30% budget cut for food and travel. 4) The Federal budget is cut by 5% every year until a balanced budget is reached. 5) All raises in taxes go to pay off the US debt. I have many other suggestions as well, but the point is this. The federal government, the US Congress, and the President of the United States need to put their money where their mouth is, just like Mr. Shultz did today. Until the federal government can show that they are willing to tighten their belts like the majority of the American people have had to do over the last few years, they have zero credibility and zero right to increase anyone’s taxes.
Thank you for reading “O really…Really??” by Russ Jackson, take care all! And look for more, because I am one of those unemployed people with nothing better to do than rant about the current sorry state of affairs in this great nation of ours.
Starkimus
7/27/2010
By
Russ Jackson
Commentary on the “Ed Shultz Show”
On July 26th, Ed Shultz had Howard Dean on to discuss the whole “Fox News” issue concerning Shirley Sharrod. Dean basically said that it was Fox’s fault that Sharrod was fired. He explained that Fox was racist and had a racist agenda. Even when Ed (correctly) pointed out that Sharrod was fired before the story broke on Fox News, Dean brushed this aside and stated again that Fox had a racist agenda and was invested in the downfall of Barak Obama. To see some actual facts to this whole show down, please visit
http://johnnydollar.us/files/100725fhwir.php.
First question is this, how in the heck did Howard Dean even get on the Democratic radar back in 2004? I mean really, based on this interview alone, most forward thinking people would come to the conclusion that at best Howard Dean lives in his own little world, or at worst, needs psychiatric help. Now, I get that Dean and his left leaning comrades have an agenda. And that agenda includes smearing anyone who does not agree with them. But, a person who has sat as the Democratic Chair and held other prominent positions in government (Governor) should have enough sense to back down when confronted with overwhelming facts. You know what, forget all that. The simple fact that it is OK for Howard Dean to proclaim an entire News Organization as racist is plain wrong. Where is the outrage from the left on this? The left claims to be the holder of tolerance, and compassion. Where is the outrage from the ACLU, or Reverend Al Sharpton? They all claim to be against racism, and here you have Howard Dean using the R word on national TV. Not a whisper from the left. Hardly even a whisper from the right. If I sat on the board in FOX, I would be firing a lawsuit for slander and deformation of character against Mr. Dean on pure principle alone, regardless if it ever went to court, and regardless if I could win or not. Screw the cost, I would raise such a stink against Mr. Dean for his scandalizing, baseless, disparaging remarks that he would be forced to find a cave to live in.
You can bet that if the situation was reversed, and Michael Steele stood up and said that MSNBC was racist for not covering the New Black Panther situation and that whole scandal in the Justice Department that the NAACP, the ACLU, and every other jack in the box who ‘claims’ to be looking out for humanity would jump all over Steele, and force his resignation at the very least.
Second question is this: Can you disagree with the President of the United States and not be a racist? Well, the obvious answer to that question is a resounding yes regardless of the color of his skin (our current President just happens to be African American this time). However, according to multiple pundits’ in the left leaning media, it is obvious that if you disagree with any of the Presidents policies, that you are racist and just want to ‘beat the black man down’. What rubbish. While the left wants to play these silly games, the United States sinks deeper into debt and continues a deep recession that at this point has no end in sight. To be sure, the republicans are really not much better at the moment, and all the country can really hope for at this point is more deadlock in Congress and the Senate before any more damaging bills are passed into law.
So lets get to today. Again, I am watching the Ed Shultz show, and for those of you who do not know what that is, it is MSNBC’s poor attempt to counter the successes of Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannidy. I do not normally watch Ed’s show, but lately I have decided that if I am going to see the right slant, I should at least attempt to stomach the left slant. And in all reality, Ed himself can be pretty entertaining, much more than say Keith Oberman (story for a different day). An aside on all of these commentary type TV shows. First off, they are for entertainment value only. Do not be tricked into forming an opinion solely based off of any of these commentary shows. Do your own homework. They all have their own agendas (making money is #1). To be sure, some of the agendas I can agree with, others I can not. The point is, watch all of these shows (including radio programs of any political persuasion) with a large grain of salt.
So, all of these shows follow a similar pattern. The host proclaims their views at the beginning of the show aka O’Reilly’s ‘Talking Points’ or Ed’s ‘Burning Topics’. This is followed by a few guests that are basically on the show to parrot the hosts point of view. It is pretty hilarious if you watch these things closely. All of these hosts ask leading questions, interrupt their guests to no end, and have to get the last word. I guess that works, after all it is their show right? Right… Lastly, each host will have some poor schmoe with an opposing view on to illustrate that the host is indeed fair and listens to both sides. In reality, they over talk the opposition, continuously try to put words in their mouths, and basically try to make the opposition look silly or stupid. Shows like Hardball, O’Reilly, Hannidy and Countdown with Keith Oberman follow this same basic format.
OK, back to todays show. This afternoon, Mr. Ed had some poor guy on from the Heritage foundation. First off, this poor lad was unprepared to deal with the mighty Ed Shultz, and Ed hammered his guest on the republican stance of not repealing the Bush Tax cuts on the ultra rich. First, lets take a look at Ed’s opening commentary. Ed starts off the show by proclaiming that removing the tax cuts on the rich (passed by the republicans in 2002?) is not a tax increase. It is just going back to the status quo. I guess that works in theory but in reality taxes on some people will go up and the general principles of a recession point to lowering taxes, not raising them. To be fair, raising taxes on less than 10% of the American people by only 2% is kind of hard to argue against when the Nations debt is out of control. It is hard to have the position of saying “No” to higher taxes while saying the “debt must be reduced”. Or is it? I will explain in a second. But, to put things in context, it is pretty hard to defend that position and if I were from the Heritage Foundation, I either would not have accepted the interview, or put a more seasoned warrior on there to battle the mighty Ed Shultz. Needless to say, Ed hammered his point home and made this guy look silly.
Now, back to the point on defending the ultra rich tax increase (regardless of what the status quo was, it is a tax increase on some people and that is a fact). How do you defend not raising taxes on the ultra rich? Those increases will not affect me, will not affect anyone in my family, and most likely will not affect anyone I interact with. Now, I have to give some credit to Ed, even though I disagree with about 99% of his view points. Ed said on National TV that the tax increases (or tax reduction repeal if you’re a left leaning reader) will affect him, and he was OK with that. So, props to Ed for putting his money where is mouth is.
Here is what I have to say about ANY Tax increases to any part of the American population (individual, small business owner, corporate, and that even includes BP). NO! Until the current federal government and administration can prove they can be fiscally responsible with our money, they have no right to raise any taxes. Zero, zilche, nada, the federal government has pretty much lost all credibility in this voters eyes and are in essence behaving like a bunch of children. But that is an issue for another day. I would agree to tax increases (even on the middle class) only under these conditions. 1) All federal employees take a minimum of 10% pay cut. 2) All federal employees take a minimum of 15% benefits cut (including medical and pensions). 3) All federal employees take a minimum 30% budget cut for food and travel. 4) The Federal budget is cut by 5% every year until a balanced budget is reached. 5) All raises in taxes go to pay off the US debt. I have many other suggestions as well, but the point is this. The federal government, the US Congress, and the President of the United States need to put their money where their mouth is, just like Mr. Shultz did today. Until the federal government can show that they are willing to tighten their belts like the majority of the American people have had to do over the last few years, they have zero credibility and zero right to increase anyone’s taxes.
Thank you for reading “O really…Really??” by Russ Jackson, take care all! And look for more, because I am one of those unemployed people with nothing better to do than rant about the current sorry state of affairs in this great nation of ours.
Starkimus
7/27/2010
I will be the first to admit that I don't follow politics very close, and therefore I try not to complain too much. What i don't understand is why this (Sherrod firing) became such a firestorm in the first place. Are politicians so worried about making the other party look bad that they forget to do the job they were voted into office to do? I suppose that home prices are on the rise again, unemployment rates are dropping and every state's and the national debt are on the decline. Why else would the media and political machines spend so much time and effort on this?
ReplyDeleteWhat can we do to send politicians the message that we don't care if someone made a racist comment in 1986 (I tried to do some research)? I suppose my first sentence sums it up--I don't pay attention. Maybe this blog will get me connected. Thanks Stark!