Part 1:

The problem with Schultz is he is a fairly recent conversion to being Democrat. Unfortunately, you can’t just say “I’m a Democrat” (or liberal or progressive) and that makes you one. Unfortunately, he still shows his underlying conservative core from time to time. I believe that is the case in calling Laura Ingraham a slut on worldwide cable.

There is a profound difference between conservatives and liberals.

Using the term “Democrats” to refer to democrats/liberals/progressives…

Democrats’ decisions are not fear-based, and they do not automatically react to new situations, things or people with fear. This is perhaps our greatest strength, and allows us to have developed other values and strengths.

We value diversity, in opinion and in people. We see it as a strength, and the best way to have the benefit of all cultures and interest groups’ ideas.

Democrats value independent thinkers, and look which much respect to someone who will take the risk of speaking truth to power. We believe it is our duty as citizens and human beings to stand up for what is right--even if it carries sacrifices for standing up. Our heroes are people like Rosa Parks who--when every other African-American in the south was riding in the back of the bus--risked arrest, imprisonment, beatings and more when she refused to be confined to one area of the bus just because her racial background was not Caucasian.

Democrats argue with each other about everything. I defy you to give a brunch committee meeting without at least two people getting into an argument about what pastries will be served.

We don’t take offense that others disagree with us. Indeed, it’s kind of a compliment from them—they know we are secure enough in our own ideals and beliefs that someone disagreeing with us isn’t going to personally challenge us. We are tolerant, and don’t turn against others just because we don’t 100% agree on everything.

We encourage everyone to truly participate, and jump into the fray. In this way we ensure that we reach a true consensus of opinion and, from that point, we can go forward confidentally and develop the policy, workshop, or whatever.

Democrats are more aware of the needs of others, and are willing to make sacrifices for the common good. We embrace the fact that any group is only as strong as its weakest member, and see helping others as a way of making our entire country and world stronger.

However, if a leader is doing wrong, Democrats are far more likely to stop supporting them than are GOPers in similar circumstances.

GOPers do not value diversity, in opinion or people. They don’t look favorably on a member of their group making waves by speaking truth to power, and especially challenging a popular leader. They tend to not be

When Democrats argue, it makes GOPers very nervous. The GOPers like to call it something catchy like “a circular firing squad.”

Note the difference: Democrats see arguing as one of their great strengths, and GOPers view it as being equal to being shot.

GOPers (conservatives) have been shown to react in fear to new situations, people and things. They do not value speaking truth to power in their party. Some point to the Teabaggers and say they are speaking truth to power, but they are not, because in their own bagger group, where their identity lies, there is very little arguing or challenging of opinion and policy.

GOPers fear diversity. This is the base of their intolerance to most that is different from them and their beliefs. This fear of diversity is what drives the racism and bigotry in the Republican Party. They certainly don’t value diversity, and the challenges it brings to the status quo.

The way GOPers reach consensus of opinion is by a respected leader telling the people what is the best thing for them. It took a remarkably horrible GOP action—pushing for the destruction of Medicare and Social Security—to make the GOP voters in NY turn against their GOP incumbent and vote for the other party. Usually, if a popular GOP leader is pushing a policy or legislation on GOPer voters, they look askance at anyone who challenges the GOP leader and his/her policy.

GOPers are more prone to have double standards for people and actions (although some Democrats have developed this disgusting trait by giving Obama a free pass for what they bitterly bitched about when GWBush did it).

GOPers are not independent thinkers, and don’t value independent thinking in others.

GOPers are not empathetic with others, and don’t understand that the group is only as strong as its weakest member. They tend to think about their own needs first and often only.

-----------------

Part 2:

There are many other ways in which liberals tend to be different from conservatives, but the ones I've described are the ones I believe Schultz has demonstrated that--even though he may think he is a liberal--his actions and reactions are not those of a liberal.

Here are a few examples I remember, even from the rare, intermittent times I listened to his show relatively early on after he was converted to being Democrat. .

1) When Schultz was talking to a teacher about the "leave no child behind" problems that have been created for schools, teachers, students and parents, Schultz was flumoxed to hear that teachers (especially elementary-school teachers) use their own funds to buy at least part of the supplies needed for their classes. I do not know one liberal who has not known about teachers having to spend their own money for supplies for their classes. There is plenty of information about this issue that has been present FOR YEARS. For Schultz to be so oblivious to the problem, IMO, indicates that this type of issue and news is something that carries zero interest for him--not even from a humanitarian issue standpoint.

In other words, as a newly converted-to-Democrat, Schultz still at heart had a GOPer’s lack of empathy and self-sacrifice for the common good.

2) When Schultz found out about the money being spent by elementary school teachers, he asked something like, "Is this something you HAVE to do?" The teacher replied, "It's not required but, yes, I feel I have to." Schultz then said (paraphrasing), "That's because you're afraid you'll get into trouble or lose your job if the kids don't do well on the tests, right?"

Well, that take on the situation is completely out of "right" field, and indicates the narcissism that is more prevalent on the right than the left. Teachers spend their own money, especially in elementary schools, because students at certain ages need varied stimuli to adequately learn, and the school budgets have cut down the classroom budget to such a low level that, to adequately teach a subject, teachers must get the supplies somehow, and usually end up using their own money. So teachers spend their own money because they take their jobs very seriously, as they do the role they play in the process of making children good citizens.

3) When talking to a biofuel advocate, Schultz's big concern was that his big SUV couldn't run on biofuel. He said he was willing to use biofuel if it was the same cost or cheaper, but he wasn't willing to give up his big SUV.

In my experience, Democrats would not be so narcissistic and "me-first, who-cares-about-you" oriented. We are the ones who would make a personal sacrifice of the size and type of care we drove, etc., if it would contribute to the greater good.

4) Schultz consistently rants against Democratic politicians who won't lock-step support other Democratic politicians on issues if the other politician has a stance or is advocating a policy which will cause harm to Americans or America. He dismisses the kind of bravery it takes, for instance, for Barbara Boxer to stand up, as the lone Senator to join the Congressional Black Caucus in protesting the 2004 vote, as a "circular firing-squad."

Democrats believe it is our honor and responsibility to speak truth to power. GOPers equate it with being shot.

So those are just 4 examples. If I listened to him more, I'm sure I'd have more examples, but these are the ones I remember off of the top of my head.

----------------------------

Ed was out of line, that type of comment on a national stage with as big of megaphone as he has was wrong. If you believe that the term derogatorily to women as I do then it should be called out. He should not be compared to what others have said, it isn't a contest, it was wrong.

Schultz, with that one remark about Laura Ingraham, said more insulting and degrading things than I have ever heard on any other network. I don't know why he feels the need, as do many liberals, to insult and denigrate those he disagrees with. Just seems to be de rigueur with libs. Not all are like this but the majority are? MSNBC seems to have recurring problems with its anchors. Olberman, Schultz and Scarborough. Oh well. No wonder I don't watch that network very much.

The people here at Current are among the last bastion of honesty and truth. Really. We're all probably on a list. Ironically, the list is now probably being compiled by the new Mr. Patriot Act, Barack Obama hisself. Welcome to the new Neocon world.

Even Michael Moore defends Obama now, applauding, if not celebrating, the hit on Bin Laden. What part of what solution will that turn out to be, if anyone out there is actually thinking this through? Pervez Musharraf is now terming the "hit" a "casus belli." The Pakis are cozying up even further to China. All of these things are lining up as possible - perhaps probable - wildcards for next year's elections. It may be the sort of perfect storm that will lead to a Neocon Executive Branch, Senate, House, and Judiciary.

As Neocon balls get bigger and bigger and as "liberal" balls keep shrinking up into the abdomens of gutless pansy "Democrats," we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing - silencing of the opposition. Like Schultz. Like Olbermann, who, because of the truth he speaks, has been shunted off into the purgatory of a splinter media group like this one. Harmless, now. It's not just that progressivism is dead - the reality is that the history books of the future, if they are not censored, will say that progressivism was effectively killed off in November 1963. The ideas that founded America are virtually dead, and the Neocon camp followers are now just roaming the battlefield, tapping any survivors they find and looting the corpses.

A new strategy must be found.

HIs 15 viewers must be devastated.

Way to go Ed, sink down to the same level as Fox News.

MSNBC is hoping to increase ratings by replacing him with their new "Paint Drying Show".

Was Ed Schultz just suspended for a week? Faux News keeps saying "for an indefinite period". Just checking.

S.L.U.T. -Stupid, lousy, useless twat. Yep, that pretty much sums up Laura Ingraham.

Maybe he's bucking for a show on Current too. Worked for Olberman.

Ed Schultz apologizing to Ingraham, MSNBC, his family and viewers.

"OK"! one sorry is enough, your fans forgive you. It's over now, so that's that.
if she can't forgive you oh well. Your fans are with you 100%.

LA is a vile person. Can't wait till Ed is back on the air!

this just goes to show that MSNBC has morals and standards that Fox does not... there is no way Fox would reprimand an anchor for saying the exact same thing about a democrat

We love Ed here at our home, can't blame him for his anger toward this woman. Why does Laura bash The President for his UK tour, but not Eric Cantor for holding the emergency funding for the victims of this devastation hostage unless there are more budget cuts ! Tonedeafness, disconnect ! Really! Laura ?

Ed is a lion. Let him roar.

What Laura said about the President is more offensive because it was utterly self-serving, insidious crap of the sort that Fox News serves daily. Belch, vomit.

What's wrong with being a slut? I wish had been more of a slut -- too late now. Seriously, though, anyone receiving a wage is a wage-whore. So I guess I am a whore. Thanks, Ed.

Dictionary definition of slut:
1 a dirty, slovenly woman
2 an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute
Some of both these definitions fit Ms Ingraham.

Inappropriate Ed. I hold you to the same standard that I would hold to those on the right. This is not a term to be used on a national level. Point out her inconsistent and hypocritical viewpoints but don't resort to name calling. That is what the forums here are for.

Schultz needs to be suspended for far longer than a week. He is just a water carrier for the Democrat party. No great intellect. I periodically watch him for laughs. The fact that many here seem to find not much wrong with it says a lot about liberals or Democrats, all of it negative by the way. Doesn't disturb me however, as I like consistency but it may disturb some. Obviously it disturbed MSNBC management. At least someone over there knows how to behave.

Okay - the stupidity of Fox is just growing beyond imaginable proportions at this point in time. They are bagging on Obama for drinking a cocktail while he may, or may not have known about a storm front smashing into a state either at that moment of shortly before/after thousands of miles away. Seriously? This is news to them? I am guessing their anger and condemnation was not equally doled out for Eric the heartless f@#$er Cantor who stated he'd hold up emergency funds to the same exact region to gain political points from his party and base.

Unattractive Narsissist maybe, but certainly no slut. I kinda like sluts.

Is that not the same a media Whore?

OK so those two bitches on FOX have the right to call everyone names including other women and yet Ed is being called out for calling sluts sluts? They entertain assholes who refer to the Presidents and political rivals as faggots and get away doing so. Have Ted Jerkoff "rock out" with tub of butter Hucksucker singing songs about killing our leader and Hillary riding on the end of his assault rifle yet it is OK but Ed is being encouraged to take a week off without pay because of calling a slut a slut? WFT!