I know, I bring it upon myself when I put his radio show on. But today, Ed Schultz spent an hour (well, so far) bashing liberals over the killing of Osama bin Laden. And he did so for the wrong reason -- rank politics.
Before I indulge in any venting on Ed Schultz's position, I am at best (worst?) ambivalent about the killing. I can't pretend to know what happened there. I don't presume to hold any conspiracy theories about the precise circumstances of bin Laden's death. I don't have any reason to question the official story, other than that it's been a bit confusing at times. And I'm not going to miss Osama bin Laden. It doesn't bother me that he's dead, and I didn't feel like celebrating either.
To say I was disappointed in Schultz is perhaps overstating it. It's difficult to be surprised or disappointed in expected behavior. Gung-ho, rah-rah! He'd wave pom-poms if it were macho to do so. But he used his show to bash dissenters -- and I'm not even sure I am one -- just over the politics. The President did what he said he'd do, Schultz says. As if that alone makes it right. He bashes liberals purely for the potential for political damage they are doing, as if our only concern should be Obama's poll results or re-election chances. Schultz spent an hour on this, and the subject of the legal niceties didn't even come up.
I'm sorry, but ethics matter to me. I think they should be a high priority to everyone, but oh well. Go ahead and get mad at that if you like. When liberals bash other liberals and put politics ahead of ethics, that's the position taken, bed's made, go lie in it. That is where Ed Schultz is right now. Politics over ethics. That may not be what he means. But spending all this time on it and it doesn't come up, well, that is how it looks.
I don't wish death on anyone, but I don't miss Osama bin Laden. He probably got what was coming to him. As per the official story, I am inclined to think he deserved to get shot. It seems as if he hadn't simply given up. He may have had the option to surrender and tried to run instead. May have. I don't know. And I think we have the right to question. Because Obama's presidency has purportedly been about doing the right things in the right way. If such is possible, let this be a righteous killing. It should be done in the right way, according to the law. If it was, tell us how.
And not just to shut me up -- here is where the politics come into play -- give me the information I need to shut down the conservatives that will go on making noise long after the last liberal has been pacified. They were willing to avenge Nixon and impeach a Democrat over a blowjob. Think they'll pass this up, if there is any wiggle room to question? Imagined room? Irrational room? I need to know, not just for my own sake, but so I can help make the other side look stupid for their questions, their conspiracy theories.
I think he would want us to ask questions. I'd like to think ethics matter to him as well. I'm inclined to think so. I may not make the assumptions of the likes of Glenn Greenwald, but neither will I make the assumption that everything was just fine. I will ask questions, and I will not ask permission first, or check and see if it's politically expedient. Even if, in the end, I think it may be the expedient thing to do.