But as a practical matter Ed Schultz is right. Erick Cantor opposes reforms that would cure this woman’s cancer. This will, directly, result in her death. Cantor’s own defense of his position is mind-bogglingly naive — “don’t worry, you’d be alright if you just knew the right form to fill out, from the right hospital and/or government institution?” It’s possible he’s right, but when you’re literally dying of cancer running around the state filling out charity care forms at every hospital, the state capital, federal offices, etc. on the off-chance you might qualify for one of those programs before you actually die….

BTW, most politicians answer questions like these by pointing to the staffer they hired specifically to keep track of all charity-care programs in the entire district, and saying “that guy will make sure you get the care you need.” This is called constituent service, and pols who are good at constituent service almost never have trouble back home.

Isn’t that something you normally have to print a retraction and an apology for? We all get busy but this is bat-crap crazy :-)

Here’s one example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJc8K3P49ls&feature=related

He also constantly tells people how moderate he is. If he were as balanced as he thinks he is, it wouldn’t be necessary.

Is that good? No. Is her certifiable? No

Since I don’t haunt cable news, I wasn’t really aware that MSNBC was trying to fill the market for lefty kooks.

I might need to check this guy out, just to see if his act is any good. The thing with guys like Limbaugh and Beck is that they are very good at what they are doing. They know the script, and which buttons to push.

Does Shultz? Based on this he seems to be a bit ham-fisted, a poor mimic. Not bad, but still needs work.

As for Maddow, she isn’t a reporter, she’s a commentator. And to my ears still far more professional and factual than the vast majority of people on any network. Her conclusions are what the commentating part is. As for snarky, you’ve obviously not paid close attention to George Will or Joe Scarborough.

If you want something over the line, it would be Schultz’s rant last night or the day before. I wouldn’t defend that.

I posted an unfinished version of this post earlier without the blockquote and associated language. My apologies if there was any confusion.

As far as postings on Facebook…those are postings of Facebook. This is a guy with a network show. Huge difference.

I do think Maddow is much more careful with how she presents facts, but her snark undercuts her credibility. If she lost that and simply reported the way she COULD report, I’d be much more prone to highlight her as a serious liberal thinker. But this “politainment” nonsense that Fox News and MSNBC is building their brands out of is dumb, and it’s not good for the discourse. Do know I think Fox News is far worse than MSNBC, but Schultz went WAY over the line on this one, and I honestly can’t see how you can defend him.

Heh…Captcha is: skulls and

As for MSNBC, Rachel Maddow routinely asks this question “Was that a fair summary of the facts and your position?” before she interviews people and I don’t know of anyone else on the air I have ever heard do that other than her before each interview. It would NEVER happen on Faux News.