Ed Schultz to Robert Gibbs: ‘You are full of sh*t and losing your base’

[tekisui]

Source: The Raw Story

Addressing a crowd of progressive talk radio fans in Minnesota, MSNBC's Ed Schultz revealed some of the harsh words he exchanged with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs off the air earlier in the week.

"I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him," Schultz said. "And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb the same way Senator Leahy got it on the Senate floor. I told Robert Gibbs, I said, 'I'm sorry you're swearing at me, but I'm just trying to help you out."

"I'm telling you, you're losing your base," he continued. "Do you understand that you're losing your base? And that the American people don't want public option, the American people want single-payer!?'"

Schultz, microphone in hand, got quite a few things off his chest at the AM950 Blue State Bash on Saturday night. He criticized Senators Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Jim DeMint and Ben Nelson. He called for voting out "people who have infiltrated the Democratic progressive movement." And he also talked about why he doesn't believe in bipartisanship.

"I probably wouldn't make a very good candidate," Schultz admitted. "I don't believe in bipartisanship. After the way (Republicans) ran the country into the ground for the last 8 years what the hell you want me to work with them on?"

more w/video: http://rawstory.com/2010/01/ed-schultz-robert-gibbs-you-full-sht-losing-base/

[Dogmudgeon]

1. I don't blame Gibbs, though

Gibbs is a good soldier. There is value in that. Ed should, and probably will, have the ear of the President.

Obama has given the GOP the benefit of every doubt for one whole year. Every gesture of unity, bipartisanship, and commonality of purpose has been spurned and ridiculed. I can understand why Obama has done what he has, but it's shelf-life has expired.

It's time the kid gloves went back in the drawer. It's too tough to crack open the whoop-ass cans with them on.

--d!

[mod mom]

28. I do, ever since he called Howard Dean irrational.

:mad:

[SergeStorms]

80. "a good soldier".........

"A good soldier" blindly follows orders and isn't allowed the freedom of independent thought. This man is in a LEADERSHIP position, not a soldiering position. He's well above "soldier" pay grade. We need someone who will tell his superiors that things AREN'T WORKING and we need a new strategy. "A good soldier" isn't what is needed in the White House right now.

[Dogmudgeon]

86. This isn't Nuremburg, it's Marathon

Gibbs is a messenger, not a criminal proxy.

That's the extent of my example.

If Gibbs has duties that require him to give the President advice, I can't imagine him being a yes-man. None of the "inner circle" give the impression of participating in groupthink.

--d!

[Kalun D]

87. Nuremburg

""Gibbs is a messenger, not a criminal proxy.""

At what point does guilt by association kick in? What does Gibbs know and when did he know it?

Is $700 BILLION for crooked bankers that intentionally caused the problem in the first place a "crime"?

It depends on your definition and the written laws. And in this case they have taken control of the institutions that decide what is a crime by appointing the very criminals to positions of control.

They've long ago done away with the written rules/laws that made these obvious crimes criminal from a technical (legal) standpoint.

If these people are just like any other run-of-the-mill fascist greed pig then their greed will get the better of them and they won't be satisfied with just breaking the rules that have already been discarded, they will break the rules that have yet to be removed, just like Enron. Rahm in particular strikes me as the type, the same arrogance as the bush boy.

You mention Nuremberg, people died as a consequence of the criminal acts of the Nazis. How many have died recently as a consequence of the wars for oil, conquest, and defense industry dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We hold, torture and kill POW's without charge or trial, much less conviction. The only difference between then and now as regards crime and punishment is who holds power.

What does Obama know about the torture and deaths and when did he know it?

[Dogmudgeon]

88. This was a conversation about Democratic base politics, not high crimes

At Nuremberg, the trials were held over war crimes and planned genocide. They resulted in death sentences for many of the guilty. Gates and Schultz were mixing it up over Obama's treatment of the Left's base, not whether Obama is guilty of genocide.

At Marathon, messengers bearing bad news were not infrequently killed in fits of rage.

If you believe you have a case against Obama, it is your prerogative to work to impeach, convict, imprison, and, if justified, execute him. But blaming Robert Gibbs for high crimes because he disagrees with Ed Schultz over campaign strategy is an absurd gesture.

--d!

[Kalun D]

90. About

I am going off on a tangent.

But I also think Gibbs is being dishonest. I think he knows exactly what Big ED is talking about but he's ignoring it because appeasing the left base is not part of the ObamaRahma agenda. So he's either a go-along-to-get-along or he agrees and participates in the fascist corporatism.

and the tangent is relevant. If you're lying one place you're probably lying elsewhere. Holding POW's without charges and torturing and killing them violates the Geneva conventions, which were put in place because of what the Nazis did. At what point do you say "only looking forward" is lawyer-weaslespeak and admit that if you know this is going on and do nothing you are complicit.

[leveymg]

2. Plain-speaking. What a refreshing change.

Too bad the White House Bubble seems to keep most of its cleansing power out, and away from the President.

[AndyA]

3. SOMEBODY needs to start saying this to the White House

ENOUGH of trying to be bipartisan. It's a two way street. It has to work BOTH ways, and for the last year plus the Republicans have had NOTHING to do with reaching across the aisle. It's either their way, or no way. And even when given what they want, still ZERO Republican votes.

The Republicans aren't a political party, they're TERRORISTS abusing the American legislative system. They block or delay EVERYTHING.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, Barack Obama! You will NEVER get cooperation from the GOP. So move forward without them. You've given them ample opportunity to work together with Democrats for the greater good, and they've been completely uncooperative.

Several top Republicans are on record as saying they're doing this INTENTIONALLY TO SCREW UP YOUR PRESIDENCY.

Move along without them already...and yes, YOU ARE LOSING YOUR BASE. The voters in Massachusetts sent a strong (if ill informed) message last week. Move forward or get out of the way, because the GOP is going to run over you if you don't.

[Better Believe It]

14. They know. They have been told many times. Do you think they care?

All they have to do now is talk a little of that "populist talk" and they think that will be sufficient to calm those "lefties".

[Myrina]

17. Yep, Bring Back Plouffe to Soothe us Feisty Left Wingers back into Line

:puke:

[donco6]

32. True. We're all just crazy anyway.

:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

36. The corporatist piece of sniffle that is called the SF Chronicle

Is now fervently promoting how Obama has heard the message and wants to be seen as more populist. That great changes are coming. Just give him some time.

But for many of us, it is all about "appearance." And in my book, appearance doesn't count - what counts is who a given politican surrounds himself with. And what he bothers DOING.

He was President last year, and no one, certainly none of us progressives, forced him to make his Presidency the "Rahm Presidency"

[bvar22]

68. "Seeking Bi-Partisan Consensus" has ALWAYS been just the EXCUSE...

...for pushing forward the Corporate Agenda of the DLC.

The DLC New Team
Working Class Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[krkaufman]

70. That's just creepy.

And I'd be a little annoyed were I a Cabinet member subordinated to Rahm.

[madokie]

4. I'm liking the big Ed more each time I watch his show

[rhett o rick]

64. Yes me too. At first I was not a big Big Ed fan, but he is growing on me. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I love Ed

:)

[rsmith6621]

6. TRUTH HURTS....doesnt it

.....AND THAT IS ALL i HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT..The time for talk and cooperation is over...

[uponit7771]

7. Ed makes good points but if I wouldn't demonize someone I would be trying to make a point with...

...that's NOT "How to Win Friends and Influence People".

[tekisui]

8. He is making a story. He is giving the sound bite to rise above the din.

I am not so sure he is trying to make a point with the WH as much as he is trying to focus people's attention and elicit a response from the WH.

[Confusious]

23. Sometimes you have to

I worked at place, some guy had a nickname for me, and I didn't like it.

So I asked him to stop. Once, Twice, Three, Four...........

one day we were both ended up in the back room. He used the nickname.And I let him have it.

"Listen you Fing SOB, I've asked you to stop, not once but multiple times. STOP CALLING ME BY THAT GDDMN MFing name"

That got through.

Sometimes you have to, to rise above the din in their heads.

[Enthusiast]

77. Yup, being weak

and complacent never achieved a damn thing. The appearance of weakness emboldens a bully.

[Greyhound]

72. The White House guy is not Ed's audience, he's never changing him. Ed did influence thousands

with those statements.

[peace frog]

9. Bipartisanship be damned

Obama needs to get a swift, decisive clue that Republicans as well as some Dems are not going to work with him. Period, end of story.
WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE TO SAVE YOUR ADMINISTRATION.

[Vidar]

10. K&R.

[DisgustedInMN]

11. If Barack Obama is even half as smart..

...as I think he is, he'll stop listening to advice from the likes of Rahm, Geithner, Summers, Bernake et al...

.. and start paying attention to Big Ed. Those fucking clowns aren't even fit to sweep Ed's studio.

[Hestia]

43. I dunno, the "advisors" are like Wormtongue - whispering constantly in his ear. If you heard that

all day, everyday, with no real people coming into talk, does he even really know how we feel? Don't you think they are not not giving him the blow-by-blow from out here? We've got to shout louder and harder and not just send petitions. I know how to do it through, at worse - benign, spiritual methods, but it is going to have to more than just me.

[ooglymoogly]

58. Obama chose his advisers. The buck stops with him. nt

[Kalun D]

67. One and the same

""If Barack Obama is even half as smart as I think he is, he'll stop listening to advice from the likes of Rahm, Geithner, Summers, Bernake et al""


I'm more cynical, I think Obama is absolutely no different from the people he's surrounded himself with. One year has gone by and things have gone screaming in the wrong direction.

"We Are Change" is a fake *ss TV show brought to you by the corporations, and Obama is just an actor.

[DisgustedInMN]

82. I can't argue..

.. that you are wrong, because you may well be spot on. I'm just hoping it isn't so. That "the team of rivals" wasn't just a scam. But that hope is fading fast.

[CTyankee]

12. Even if this is just one version of the story, there is a nugget of truth here.

Even if Ed just conveyed the "losing your base" and "people want single payer and public option" without the theatrics, I'm glad he said it.

Cut to the chase, Dems...you really don't have anything to lose and you do have a LOT, including SURVIVAL, if you listen to what Ed is telling you!

[shireen]

13. i'm hoping for Obama's big announcement at the State of the Union

to the Republicans: we spent a year trying to work with you, made hard concessions, and you never reciprocated. Now we're going to do things MY way.

I'm hoping ....

[mochajava666]

15. I"m a big fan of Big Eddie. See him live sometime,

he is even greater in person.

[AndrewP]

18. Yep. He is really amazing to hear speak in person.

[Romulox]

16. Gibbs would be a good sacrifice to the restless natives, I think.

A twofer, since he's terrible at his job as well. We get our sacrificial lamb, and the Obama admin gets rid of an ineffective putz.

[nc4bo]

19. Nothing sounds as sweet as the plain truth. Thank-you Ed for speaking your mind. nt

[louis c]

33. Ed Schultz is my hero

[SlingBlade]

20. Ed spoke the truth to power, So let the

Carnage begin, Cause if there's one thing power hates is to be called on their bullshit

Change you can believe in ? Sez Who ?

[autorank]

21. Excellent

The sad thing is that they don't care if they're losing their base, they don't even think about it.
It is all focused on the deliverables due.

[pjt7]

22. Good for ED

he's 100% right.

My only question is does this WH give a shit?

[SergeStorms]

81. Now that The Supremes...........

have decided Corporations can buy politicians at will there's absolutely no need for we "little people" at all. The Corps can write one check that can eclipse anything a million of us can offer. They can buy their agenda. We have to "hope" for it. :eyes: Guess who's going to prevail in the end?

[amborin]

24. Kudos to Ed

[emsimon33]

25. We are so lucky to have Ed on our side!

[emsimon33]

26. Ed gave great advice--better than Rahm does

Now if only Obama will listen.

[fascisthunter]

27. thank ya Ed

[nilram]

29. "The American people want single-payer!" :: Thank you Ed! -k&r

[Raine]

30. I LOVE Big ED! nt

:applause:

[bridgit]

31. hahaha, well, Ed, "I'm just trying to help you you clueless brain-dead sycophant!!" would have my

motion to conclude our tawdry little event sequence and instead show you my ass walking out the door

[Beartracks]

34. "After the way (Republicans) ran the country into the ground for the last 8 years..."

"...what the hell you want me to work with them on?"

Nail. Head. Hit.

[Jefferson23]

35. Thank you Ed!

[omega minimo]

37. Stay Classy, Yosemite Schultz!!!!!

[left of center]

38. The Democratic Party is indeed losing...

... its base. For the first time ever, I've been seriously considering changing my registration to Independent and no longer giving money to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC. I mean, why give money to an organization that helps elect "Democrats" that are more interested in appearing to do something than in actually doing something! I'd rather just throw my support to individual candidates like Obama or Alan Grayson!

At least Republicans let us know they are against things like healthcare reform!

[Skittles]

39. SHUTLTZ IS SPEAKING FOR ME

which is more than I can say about the so-called Democratic "leadership"

[kjackson227]

89. +1

[BeatleBoot]

40. Come any November, I'll be voting for a Democrat.

So, I don't know what this talk is of "losing one's base".

I'll vote for the Democratic nominee for president no matter what.

So what "base" is he losing exactly?

His base belongs to the Democratic Party.

[left of center]

41. The lose is not with Obama's base in my view

... ,but rather with the Democratic Party's base. There is a difference.

[MzShellG]

42. Thanks. You nailed it. nt

[NewJeffCT]

44. There is a difference between pulling the lever to vote

and actually going out making phone calls, putting up yard signs, donating money, raising money, writing letters, going to rallies, etc. When the base is inspired, they're the ones that do all that, and more.

[BeatleBoot]

47. I've been doing yard signs etc since the first grade

1971. The first election I ever worked for a local councilman (D).

I remember handing out those cool Jimmy Carter buttons when I was in the 6th grade.

You should see the inside of my garage....

[Webster Green]

45. Lots of folks will give up. Won't bother to vote.

I've always voted Democratic. I'm ready to stop voting entirely, and I'm not alone.

Obama is losing his base. The Democratic Party is losing it's base.

[BeatleBoot]

49. That's a Winning Attitude, son!

"I've always voted Democratic. I'm ready to stop voting entirely, and I'm not alone.

Obama is losing his base. The Democratic Party is losing it's base."


This is leadership? You make me sick to my stomach.

Grow a nut or two, then we'll talk.


"Oh, I'm so overwhelmed by Obama that I'm going to quit and just stay home."


LOL!

:rofl:


:puke:

[Webster Green]

60. Bite me.

I never claimed to be a leader, and I'm underwhelmed by Obama.

You'll figure it out in 2012. I'm not wasting anymore time on it. Shit just gets worse every day.

There's nothing anyone can do about it anymore. We're fucked!

[ldf]

61. what do you call someone who

continues to lick the hand of the master that beats him?

a part of the problem.

you'll vote for anyone that has a d behind their name, and they know it. so they don't give a shit. they represent THEIR constituents, money. and they know you have their back, no matter what they do to you.

and they will continue to go farther and farther right until the piece of shit nader will actually BE right.

not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

i'm sorry that you are apparently suffering from a twisted form of stockholm syndrome.

but there are more and more of us every day who actually expect our elected representatives to represent the hopes of the american people. those hopes are NOT far left, fringe ravings of lunatics. they are pretty basic. women's rights to control their bodies. human rights of equality for all. basic rights of health and welfare. the hope that our government would represent us, rather than corporations' profit margins. a cleaner environment. an effort to prevent a climate catastrophe that may dwarf all others we have ever experienced.

on how many of these basic issues have we got nothing but lip service, and in some cases, consideration of rolling back hard won gains?

we will no longer continue to prostitute ourselves, only to become the wiser and gentler version of the republican party. if we can't accomplish things now, we will never be able to. it all comes down to leadership.

there is a major void developing. voids are usually filled. i have hope that this one will also be filled. the response would be overwhelming.

the guilty parties will be the democratic leadership, who insist on continuing to drive the bus the wrong direction, and those who continued to lick their hands while being thrown under it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. You claim to be oh so hardcore about Dem politics, but know nothing of the math. Just a good soldier

You don't understand that you =/= the average Dem voter. And appealing to the lack of balls of Dems less loyal than you is not a winning argument since the average Dem has never been particularly loyal to one party.

[tmyers09]

46. So no matter what a candidate says or does,

as long as they have a D next to their name, you will vote for them? Way to stand for something.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

50. Amen, brother.

:applause:

[BeatleBoot]

51. I'm done with the bullshit here

and thanks for your response.

[Incitatus]

54. If you support Democrat candidates no matter what, you have something common with freepers.

[tmyers09]

55. So make them fight for those same principles.

If you just vote for them no matter what, that tells them that they can just sit up there and not do anything, or even do the opposite of what you want them to do, and still get elected. Say, I dunno Jim DeMint (theoretically) comes out and says he's switching to the Democratic Party. He's not gonna change much about him, except during tv appearances and on ballots, his name will say "Jim Demint (D - South Carolina)". You will cast your vote for him with no second thought? It goes against the whole point of having elections.

Still, it is good to know that one's worth is determined by a post count, and anybody who is underneath a certain mark is automatically a Freeper. Everybody here started off at 0. It doesn't make their input any less valid.

[ldf]

63. you need to flash forward to NOW

you are talking about your father's democratic party.

how many decades ago was that? by the way, i'm 58, voted in my first election in 72, as soon as i was legal, vote EVERY election, and have only voted for one republican in all that time.

the current democratic party has become the whore of the chamber of commerce (business, in general). they put out for them, but all we get are whispered sweet nothings.

they DO appreciate the money and votes of the unions, though. but strangely, a lot of union members are voting republican, since saint reagan blessed us with his downhome, countryfied, christian charade...(while using all the codes of the prejudiced, bigotted racists). go figure.

i just want to point out that the party has changed, and has become for sale to the highest bidder.

can you imagine what will happen now since the supreme court's "abomination" of a ruling on campaign donations? yes, there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth by the party leaders, with all checks being cashed, of course.

i shudder to think.

as an aside, i had a pair of beatle boots when in was in high school (graduated in 69, "sin, sex, beer and wine, we're the class of 69". of course that was all talk, in my case.) coolest pair of shoes i have ever owned. of course i was a huge beatle fan...

cool nickname. :thumbsup:

[bvar22]

69. THIS is the "Democratic Party I joined 42 years ago.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."

THAT is the Democratic Party of MY father and grandfather.
Unfortunately, it bears NO resemblance to the political party using that name today.

I WILL support a political party that embraces THOSE VALUES.
Those values are what my father, grandfather, and myself embraced....not a name.
THAT kind of "loyalty" belongs in High School....not politics OR life.

[Kalun D]

73. wake up and smell the coffee

there are two types of democrats, they are like night and day

there's Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Alan Grayson

and then there's Rahm Emmanuel, Lieberman, Obama

voting for someone just because they are affiliated with a particular party is un-enlightened

the DLC is a cancer, they are the corporate fascist takeover of what was once a great party but is no longer

[BringEmOn]

52. #&@%!!! Democrats!...You can't have bipartisanship with a den of vipers.

Republicans are what they are...cold-blooded, soul-less, venomous serpents. You can't pick up and cuddle a viper or sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya with vipers. They seek victims, not adversaries. Be a mongoose, not a mouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3BfL7X1uU8&NR=1

[Patchuli]

53. Exactly why I'd love him to run for office!

Go BIG EDDY!! Yayyyyyyyyyyyy!! :kick:

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. He could run in North Dakota. n/t

[4dsc]

56. SWEEEEEEEET..

Give them hell Ed.

[David Zephyr]

57. K&R.

.

[TexasObserver]

59. They get inside the beltway and they completely lose touch.

[Flying Dream Blues]

62. We need an "Ed Speaks for Me" bumpahstickah...nt

edited: that would be "an"

[lib_wit_it]

65. Ed for President!

[KonaKane]

66. FUCK bipartisanship

Just fuck it. Right in its big, ugly stupid face. Bipartisanship is a path for losers at the current time. You think the rightwing GOP had any interest in bipartisanship when they were in the majority? No. They put it in first gear and drove right over the face of the Democrats with spikey tires. Ram-rodded their agenda through, or as much as they could before they got their asses thrown out of power. And now the Democrats actually think that bipartisanship is going to work with the Repugs?

What kind of glue have they been smoking? Obama has squandered an excellent opportunity he had going into office. He had the will of the nation, a strong majority in Congress and anger with his predescessors that would have fueled just about anything the Democratic agenda had on its plate. Now its fucked.

Thanks to "bipartisanship".

[Tx4obama]

71. I stopped watching the Ed Show awhile back... MSNBC should have hired Cenk Uyger instead n/t

[Kalun D]

74. Mainstream

Ed is popular because he's mainstream, we need his voice along with all the other progressives. I like Cenk better too because he's a bit more radical, but I'll take any successful progressive, the more the merrier.

[Tx4obama]

75. I'm not so sure...

I'm not so sure that we need Ed's voice.
After he was hired by MSNBC he became more and more critical of President Obama and he seems to enjoy bashing our president.

MSNBC should have hired Cenk instead.

[Kalun D]

78. R U kidding me?

Obama needs the bashing, he's not on our side. Cenk bashes the heck out of him.

Cenk says everything Big ED says and then some

Heck even Thom Hartman is going after Obama

wake up

[defendandprotect]

76. Wow -- !! Love Schultz . .. especially on radio . . his TV show has some strange r-w guests???

Well -- there are a lot of people connected with the Democratic Party who want

to continue to argue that this isn't a liberal nation and the public doesn't want a party

on the LEFT!! Imagine that!!

[Enthusiast]

79. I will make donations to

and support those Democrats that are clearly progressive. But I will do this individually so that no Blue Dogs or corporate Democrats get a spec of my support.

If there is a decent alternative candidate in a state that has a Blue Dog incumbent, I will support that decent alternate.

Blindly allowing Teabagger nuts to take over the government is wanton destruction. Didn't eight years of Bush do enough damage?

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. "Error: you can only recommend threads started in the last 24 hours"

Why oh why did they take this guy and all the AAR hosts off the radio in DC a year ago?

[laureloak]

91. I've had it with Ed.

When the Dems asked him to run for Senate he ran to the media with it. He wasn't gracious, just an attention seeking asshole.