Currently viewing the tag: “Vote”
Change.
Not only is it The One’s own party that’s squawking about this, it’s his pal Dick Durbin who appears to be spearheading it. Which means they’ve definitely got the votes in the Senate to pass a resolution blessing the mission and figure that it’ll be a useful wedge to split neocons from libertarian isolationists within […]
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Given all the problems we have, I really have to wonder why this is necessary:
The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.
He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation’s heritage.
“There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust,” Forbes said.
The phrase “In God We Trust” was made the official U.S. motto in 1956, one year after the phrase “under God” was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Critics of the resolution said it violated the establishment clause of the Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
“The phrase ‘In God We Trust’ does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.”
The separation of church and state issues seem rather obvious to me but, leaving that aside, I’ve really got to wonder what this has to do with the House GOP’s promise that they would be focusing on job creation and cutting Federal spending.
Before here recent “airplane issues” Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) was facing an uphill battle for reelection. But her flying problems are getting worse. Earlier this month, Politico reported that the senator spent nearly $ 76,000 of taxpayer money to fly a charter plane which she owns with her husband and other investors, for purely political trips. Its perfectly OK to bill the public for private plane trips made for Senate business, but billing the public for political trips is a definite no-no.
Apart from the obvious bulling the taxpayer for trips that were her expense, and not paying taxes McCaskill staked her reputation on transparency and stamping out government excess, so this looks real bad. She even made an issue of the use of planes in her unsuccessful bid for Governor in 2004. According to Politico:
During the crescendo of her primary challenge to Gov. Bob Holden in July 2004, then-state auditor McCaskill ran an ad showing an airplane circling around the outline of Missouri, slamming the governor for “taking over 300 taxpayer funded trips on the state airplane.”
When she ran for Senator she urged voters If my walk doesn’t match my talk, shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.”
It may be time to listen to the Senator’s advice (if you cannot see video below, Click Here)
Please email me at [email protected] to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com![]()
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com
I’ve seen a number of people excitedly tossing around links to Senator Scott Brown’s statement in support of Planned Parenthood funding, but I think this is the most important part of the article:
Earlier this month, Brown voted in favor the House GOP proposal that would have made the cuts, though he said at the time that he “would have had different priorities” in cutting spending. The Senate defeated the House plan, and a Democratic alternative, in a set of votes orchestrated by Senate leaders to force both sides back into negotiations.
Scott Brown’s not a back bench house member. He’s a Republican Senator from Massachusetts. He’s at the pivot points. The way for him to get things done is to refuse to vote for bills that have provisions he opposes. If he’s voting to defund Planned Parenthood, then all the statements in the world don’t mean a thing.
Weigel isn't expecting it:
"Before any further military commitments are made," said Boehner, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." If he wanted to, Boehner could have put a line in there about a vote in Congress. He didn't. As long as this is a pricey multinational effort to destroy weapons and buildings as a way of aiding Libyan rebels — as long as it is short — there is no call from Congress for more oversight.
Mitch Nolan writes:
I’m not a statistician, but I’m looking at the Egypt vote results using Benford testing (the name of which I just learned today, to warn you of what a novice I am). First, here are the official results in Arabic. And here‘s an unofficial Google spreadsheet in English (the first page with the original data is locked, other pages are editable).
Nolan may not be a statistician, but I know nothing about Egypt. So I’m just posting his numbers below without comment.
OK, so here’s what Nolan sent me. Make of it what you will:
Distribution of trailing numbers in the “valid” vote results:
1 x
2 xx
3 xxx
4
5 xxxxx
6 xxxx
7 xxxxxx
8 xxxxx
9 x
0 xx
(Lots of 7s…)
Distribution of trailing numbers in the “invalid” vote results:
1 xx
2 xxxx
3 xx
4 xx
5 x
6 xxxxxx
7 xxxxx
8 xxx
9 xxxx
0
(No round numbers)
Valid and invalid, combined:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxxx
(6 zeros, 16 sixes?)
Valid, invalid, and yes votes, combined (still looking at trailing digits):
1 xxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxx
0 xxx
(Four times as many 6s, 7s, and 8s as 0s?)
I’m going to skip over the no votes, because those would just be a
calculation of valid votes minus yes votes, and not numbers picked out
of the air in any case. Sticking with that data set of valid, invalid
and yes votes, here are some other results:
Leading digit:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxx
8 xxxxxx
9 xxxxxx
0
(Those 6s pop out a bit…)
Leading two digits:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxxxxxxx
(Seems ok?)
Leading three digits:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Not sure if the bias toward even numbers between 2 and 8 means anything.)
Trailing two digits:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxxxxxxxx
(A bit of a bias toward 8s, but not a huge one.)
Second digit:
1 xxxxx
2 xxxxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxxxxxx
6 xxxxxx
7 xxxxxxxxxx
8 xxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxx
0 xxxxxxxxxx
(Seems ok?)
Third digit:
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxxx
7 xxx
8 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxx
(What happened to the 7s?)
Third digit, excluding the four 3-digit numbers in the set (where the
third digit is also the last digit):
1 xxxxxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxx
5 xxxxxx
6 xxxxxxxx
7 x
8 xxxxxxxxxxxx
9 xxxxxxxxxx
0 xxxxx
(NOW what happened to the 7s?)
OK, it’s me (Andy) again. Let me repeat that I did not do the analysis nor do I have any opinions on it. I just wanted to pass it on, and to Except to say that I think it’s a good thing that data and statistical ideas are becoming so generally accessible.
No legislative body in the world can match the United States Senate for preening self-regard, and I think only the Senate could produce a document similar to the one Lori Montgomery profiles here:
More than 60 senators from both parties are calling on President Obama to lead them in developing a comprehensive plan to rein in record budget deficits, a powerful sign of bipartisan willingness to abandon long-held positions on entitlement spending and taxes. In a letter sent Friday to the White House, the 64 senators urge Obama “to support a broad approach to solving our current budget problems” along the lines of recommendations issued last year by a presidentially appointed commission. That plan calls for sharp cuts in government spending, elimination or reduction of dozens of popular tax breaks and an overhaul of Social Security that would include raising the retirement age to 69 for today’s toddlers.
The first thing that’s ridiculous about this, is that if 64 Senators want to vote for the Simpson-Bowles Commission’s recommendations, then there’s nothing stopping them from voting for the Simpson-Bowles Commission’s recommendations. They don’t need support from Barack Obama to do so. If anything, Barack Obama endorsing Simpson-Bowles would make it more difficult for Republicans to endorse it.
The second thing that’s ridiculous about this is that the White House has already produced a plan for reducing the budget deficit below the “current policy” baseline. You can find that proposal exactly where you think you’d find it—Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal.
The third thing that’s ridiculous about this is that congress has already voted on a plan for reducing the budget deficit below the Obama administration’s proposal. It’s called “do nothing.” If you don’t repeal the Affordable Care Act, don’t do a Medicare “doc fix” and don’t extend the Bush tax cuts then the medium-term deficit problem basically goes away. Most people don’t regard this as a credible policy trajectory because they think congress wants to do “doc fixes” and wants to extend at least some of the Bush tax cuts. Which is fine. But it means that all a member of congress needs to do in order to effectuate massive deficit reduction is say “I’m open to voting for doc fixes or ACA repeal or tax cut extensions, but only if they’re offset—I refuse to vote for any measure that increases the deficit.”
That instead they want to write letters to Barack Obama is, again, a testament to the fact that the Senate’s preening self-regard is matched only by its lack of comprehension of the issues.
“It is widely assumed that quick elections would give an advantage to the well-established Muslim Brotherhood.” I tried to tell you.
“Many Egypt Christians vote ‘no’, fearing Islamists,” by Sarah Mikhail for Reuters, March 20:
CAIRO (Reuters) – Many Egyptian Christians say they voted on Saturday to reject proposed constitutional amendments in a referendum because they fear hasty elections to follow may open the door for Islamist groups to rise to power.
If the amendments are approved, parliamentary elections will take place in late September followed by presidential elections in December, giving scant time for new parties to organise, including ones representing the aspirations of Christians.
Foremost among these aspirations is the creation of a civil state where religion is not a basis for legislation.
It is widely assumed that quick elections would give an advantage to the well-established Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in the 1920s which has emerged as the best organised political force since Hosni Mubarak was toppled from power.
“I fear the Islamists because they speak in civil slogans that have a religious context, like when one said he believed in a civil Egypt but at the same time no woman or Copt should run for president,” said Samuel Wahba, a Coptic doctor….
Coptic Christians also want the new constitution to do away with Article 2, which says Islam is the religion of the state and Islamic jurisprudence the main source of legislation — a point of tension with Islamists….
“I see we should say ‘no’, because such amendments are not valid to build a modern civil state. That isn’t our opinion alone but also that of any moderate Egyptian who wants a civil state,” said Father Metyas, a priest in a Coptic Orthodox Church.
“Anyone is free in one’s opinion, but our role as those responsible for enlightenment is to tell people that these amendments serve the Brotherhood’s ideology,” he said.
Egyptians took pride in the Christian-Muslim solidarity displayed during the revolution that toppled Mubarak on February 11 and hoped the uprising had buried tensions that have flared up with increasing regularity in recent years.
But these feelings were dampened in March after an interfaith romance sparked the torching of a church by Islamists, which led to sectarian clashes leaving 13 people killed.
Copts staged an unprecedented sit-in for nine days in front of the state’s television building demanding the destroyed church be rebuilt. Some Muslims also joined in.
“I voted ‘no’ because, as an Egyptian, I want a new complete constitution…it’s not based on the ‘yes’ of Islamist groups,” said Ramy Kamel, a Coptic lawyer.
Allow me to refresh his memory.
Ed Schultz and a caller to his radio show Thursday got into a heated argument after she criticized him for suggesting last year that Democrats stay away from the polls on election day to express their anger with congressional Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits.
Schultz not only denied what the caller said, he was unequivocal and emphatic about it. Here's how the exchange went (audio) –
SCHULTZ: All right, let's see, let me get back to this headline here — "Obama's team seeks new ways to fire up his base." Beverly in Chicago, you're on the Ed Schultz radio show. Respond to that, thank you.
CALLER: Do you think what you did in the midterms was right, telling folks to stay home?
SCHULTZ: I didn't say that and I'm not going to get into that discussion. That is absolute garbage. That is right-wing crap that's going around the Internet and I'm not even going to go down that road, but I'll give you a chance to finish your phone call.
CALLER: Whether you did or didn't …
SCHULTZ: No, I, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not a question of whether I did or didn't. I did not. I gave my opinion. I did not tell people not to vote. Do not say that! That is not true.
CALLER: OK, can I say something now?
SCHULTZ: You can say something, as long as it's not accusatory.
Don't you know I'm above criticism?! After that the call turned toxic, Schultz and the woman arguing for the next two minutes until Schultz reined in his anger and, to his credit, said he wanted to talk with the caller again after a commercial break. Later in the same hour, back on the phone with Beverly from Chicago, Schultz said this (audio) –
Do I think the president, do I have opinions about his campaign? Absolutely. Do I have opinions about the way they're doing things? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm against him as a president? Absolutely not. Not at all! And, you know, you have to clarify exactly what you're consuming, OK? Just like when you called in and said that I was telling people not to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I was telling the 99ers (Schultz's term for the long-term unemployed, those who had received jobless benefits for nearly two years), you know, asking them the question, where do you stand now in the midterms? They were the ones that brought it up. They said they didn't want to vote. I covered it as a story. I never said, hey yeah, you guys get together and don't vote.
…. a claim demolished by what Schultz proclaimed to his radio audience on July 30 (audio) –
SCHULTZ: But I'm not giving up on this (advocating for extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed). And I think the best way for the 99ers to get the attention of the Congress is to form an unemployed coalition and just flat-out tell the Democrats, we're not voting in the midterm. Look, if they don't realize the seriousness of this, then they don't deserve to be in office. It's that simple. Because they are not serving the people and they're just taking the problem and passing it to the next generation. We have got unprecedented unemployment in this country and the people have to be heard. The people have to be heard! This isn't about saving anybody's congressional ass. This is about saving lives at this point. And if Harry Reid doesn't have the guts to keep the Senate in to move on this issue, in my opinion, he should not be re-elected in Nevada. I don't care who he's going up against. We'll just have to go through this generational fight and make it a lesson for the Democrats and make sure that they know that the grass-rooters are serious, that we mean business, and you gotta do it for people and if you don't, we're not going to vote!
And I'm announcing today, I'm not gonna vote in the midterm. I'm not gonna do it! You can say it's un-American. No, it's rather revolutionary is what it is. I'm at that point. I'm checking out. I'm checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don't know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver's seat, you hit the throttle and you run over 'em. That's what you do. And the Democrats just don't have the guts to politically do that. So they have to be taught a lesson.
Not exactly a get-out-the-vote pitch. Any of this strike a chord, Ed, in particular your own remarks?
Schultz's mid-summer rant caught the attention of Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer, Allahpundit at Hot Air, Kerry Picket at The Washington Times, and Joe Schoffstall at RedState, among others.
By the way, the legislation Schultz wanted passed before the midterms, to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, was not approved until December in the compromise between President Obama and Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates.
Allow me to refresh his memory.
Ed Schultz and a caller to his radio show Thursday got into a heated argument after she criticized him for suggesting last year that Democrats stay away from the polls on election day to express their anger with congressional Democrats for not extending unemployment benefits.
Schultz not only denied what the caller said, he was unequivocal and emphatic about it. Here's how the exchange went (audio) –
SCHULTZ: All right, let's see, let me get back to this headline here — "Obama's team seeks new ways to fire up his base." Beverly in Chicago, you're on the Ed Schultz radio show. Respond to that, thank you.
CALLER: Do you think what you did in the midterms was right, telling folks to stay home?
SCHULTZ: I didn't say that and I'm not going to get into that discussion. That is absolute garbage. That is right-wing crap that's going around the Internet and I'm not even going to go down that road, but I'll give you a chance to finish your phone call.
CALLER: Whether you did or didn't …
SCHULTZ: No, I, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's not a question of whether I did or didn't. I did not. I gave my opinion. I did not tell people not to vote. Do not say that! That is not true.
CALLER: OK, can I say something now?
SCHULTZ: You can say something, as long as it's not accusatory.
Don't you know I'm above criticism?! After that the call turned toxic, Schultz and the woman arguing for the next two minutes until Schultz reined in his anger and, to his credit, said he wanted to talk with the caller again after a commercial break. Later in the same hour, back on the phone with Beverly from Chicago, Schultz said this (audio) –
Do I think the president, do I have opinions about his campaign? Absolutely. Do I have opinions about the way they're doing things? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm against him as a president? Absolutely not. Not at all! And, you know, you have to clarify exactly what you're consuming, OK? Just like when you called in and said that I was telling people not to vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I was telling the 99ers (Schultz's term for the long-term unemployed, those who had received jobless benefits for nearly two years), you know, asking them the question, where do you stand now in the midterms? They were the ones that brought it up. They said they didn't want to vote. I covered it as a story. I never said, hey yeah, you guys get together and don't vote.
…. a claim demolished by what Schultz proclaimed to his radio audience on July 30 (audio) –
SCHULTZ: But I'm not giving up on this (advocating for extension of jobless benefits for long-term unemployed). And I think the best way for the 99ers to get the attention of the Congress is to form an unemployed coalition and just flat-out tell the Democrats, we're not voting in the midterm. Look, if they don't realize the seriousness of this, then they don't deserve to be in office. It's that simple. Because they are not serving the people and they're just taking the problem and passing it to the next generation. We have got unprecedented unemployment in this country and the people have to be heard. The people have to be heard! This isn't about saving anybody's congressional ass. This is about saving lives at this point. And if Harry Reid doesn't have the guts to keep the Senate in to move on this issue, in my opinion, he should not be re-elected in Nevada. I don't care who he's going up against. We'll just have to go through this generational fight and make it a lesson for the Democrats and make sure that they know that the grass-rooters are serious, that we mean business, and you gotta do it for people and if you don't, we're not going to vote!
And I'm announcing today, I'm not gonna vote in the midterm. I'm not gonna do it! You can say it's un-American. No, it's rather revolutionary is what it is. I'm at that point. I'm checking out. I'm checking out of the Democrats because they are proving to me that they don't know how to handle these big babies over on the right that say no. You know what you do? You get in the driver's seat, you hit the throttle and you run over 'em. That's what you do. And the Democrats just don't have the guts to politically do that. So they have to be taught a lesson.
Not exactly a get-out-the-vote pitch. Any of this strike a chord, Ed, in particular your own remarks?
Schultz's mid-summer rant caught the attention of Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer, Allahpundit at Hot Air, Kerry Picket at The Washington Times, and Joe Schoffstall at RedState, among others.
By the way, the legislation Schultz wanted passed before the midterms, to extend jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, was not approved until December in the compromise between President Obama and Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates.
