Ed Schultz Is EXACTLY What Progressives Need. EXACTLY What We Need.

[Yavin4]

In order for progressives to break through the stranglehold that corporatism has on our government, we need new LEADERS from non-traditional blue states. Having a guy like Ed from a plains state that can appeal to WORKING class Americans and win in those states is critical.

If you're a progressive and you want to end corporatism, then we need progessives to win in red states as well as blue states.

[graywarrior]

1. I'd love to see him run and win.

See if he can accomplish all the things he talks about on TV.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Nope, Big Ed doesn't meet the ND residency requirment. Like him as he is. eom

[chimpymustgo]

5. Are you sure? A poster wrote he said this morning he still has a house in ND.

[ShortnFiery]

13. He hasn't lived in this house. He doesn't want it and I don't want it for him. eom

[ClassWarrior]

20. He sounded pretty non-committal this morning on TV. No flat-out ruling it out, so...

...it doesn't sound "he doesn't want it." It sounds like he's giving it due consideration.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

8. He said on MSNBC this morning that he got an official call last night inviting him to run.

So he must be eligible.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. Not neccessarily.

Hillary wasn't a resident of New York. Alan Keyes wasn't a resident of Illinois when he ran against Obama. And that worthless piece of DLC shit Harold Ford is trying to carpetbag his way into the NY Senate seat right now.

These things have been known to happen, but at least Schultz has a documented history in the Fargo area, so he would actually have more of a legitimate claim than any of the above.

That said, I'm not sure this is the right time to put another radio guy in the Senate. On the other hand, if the alternative would be another Baucus/Conrad/Dasshole type, then Ed might as well go for it.

[onehandle]

9. They would not have asked him, if they did not have a plan. Election Law Blog says this --->

Politico reports that "Schultz said on his show Tuesday evening that he believes North Dakota law holds that a candidate would have to be a resident for the past five years to run, and he hasn't been living in the state."

Whether or not North Dakota has such a law applicable to state candidates, it cannot constitutionally be applied to candidates for the U.S. Senate or House, where the U.S. Constitution sets the sole requirements. Here's a footnote from our election law casebook, page 549:

Under the Constitution's Qualifications Clauses, members of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives must be residents of the state they represent. See U.S. Const., Art. I, s2, cl. 2; s3, cl. 1. Numerous courts have struck down state statutes attempting to impose additional requirements such as that a candidate for the House be a resident of the Congressional district. See Daniel H. Lowenstein, Are Congressional Term Limits Constitutional?, 18 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 1, 43-44 (1994) (collecting cases); see also Schaefer v. Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000), cert denied sub nom. Jones v. Schaefer, 532 U.S. 904 (2001), in which the Ninth Circuit held that "California's requirement that candidates to the House of Representatives reside within the state before election violates the Constitution by handicapping the class of nonresident candidates who otherwise satisfy the Qualifications Clause."

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/015002.html

[quiller4]

11. That restriction only applies to ND state officers like gov., Lieut. gove, attorney gen. etc.,.

the US Constitution governs as far as Senate and that only requires that you be a resident on election day. See discussion on Daily KOS

[ShortnFiery]

14. I don't think he wants to run and the press will demonize him. We finally

have an excellent liberal talk show host on Cable News, he wants to stay there and I hope he stays strong and holds to "Hell to the NO!"

[ClassWarrior]

30. Really!!? The press will demonize a progressive??! Nawwwww...

:eyes:

NGU.

[PDittie]

19. Link

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/6/822423/-ND-SEN:-Schultz-Can-Run

[kjackson227]

3. I think it's a FABULOUS idea if he decides to do so. Big Eddy...

would give 'em hell, that's for sure.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Plus he's a fearless communicator, which I think is a trait that many Dems are lacking.

NGU.

[derby378]

6. +1 (n/t)

[T Wolf]

7. Agree. The Dems have written off workers, trading us for their bankster friends

and insurance buddies. And the population knows that the old party of the people only differs from the pukes by a couple of degrees. That, added to the religious-whackjob social crap they push, make the rethugs more popular with the middle and working class than the Dems.

In a sane world, this should be no contest. Only the rich and the insane would vote for cons. And yet, our party moves further and further reich-ward for dollars and votes. And we go back every two years and plead, "May I have another, sir?"

As long as we all continue to vote them into office, they have no incentive to change and become Democrats.

Zero-sum and all that shit aside, would you rather be raped by the weird guy down the street or your favorite uncle?

[ChicagoSuz219]

10. Democrats.com has a petition up to draft him ...

...go sign it!

I told him that Al Franken can't do it alone... we need him!

[jillan]

12. Ed + Franken + Whitehouse - wow - we may actually have a team that will fight for us.

Go Ed - Just say YES!!

[gateley]

15. Earlier today (on his radio show) I thought I could hear him considering it -

but he just said some things that make me think he won't. Although, like all of us, I'm sure he vacillates, so we'll see what he decides. Whatever his decision, we've got a fighter on our side, that's for sure.

[change_notfinetuning]

16. Rahm Emanuel would kill to have Ed Schultz . . .

thrown under the bus. Well, he wouldn't kill, but he'd do it the Chicago Way, as Ed likes to say. Unfortunately, and I like Ed, he never did understand what the Chicago Way is. There is nothing more corporatist than the Chicago Democrats. And while they may not kill you with bullets, you will be killed with anti-kindness.

[Cleita]

17. They are starting to look like a bunch of Chicago crooks to me, not

Chicago politicians, and I am leaving Obama out of this. However, if Emmanuel and Blagojevich are examples, I rest my case.

[Clio the Leo]

21. In Clio's dream world, Rahm is behind the whole idea....

.... if Ed IS popular enough to get elected over a Republican, then it kills two birds with one stone .... it holds the seat AND it gets a nut (I love Ed, but he's pure macadamia AND a little two quick with the verbal friendly fire.)

No telling how he'd act if he were actually IN the Senate ... but I'm a firm believer that ANY Dem is ALWAYS better than ANY Republican.

[NatBurner]

29. get out of my head

my thoughts exactly

ed's great & all, but come on now

[ima_sinnic]

18. k&R

[PopSixSquish]

22. Ed was on Countdown and Again Ruled Out the Possibility

but things could change...

Ed and Al in the Senate could get very interesting...

[Yavin4]

23. Add Bernie Sanders

And you have the makings of a fantastic coalition.

[omega minimo]

24. A hothead, blowhard, faux Progressive?

And what makes you think he wants to "end corporatism"? He's on the gravy train, now. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee doggie. Boy I say Boy I say Boy!!! Let's send Foghorn Leghorn to the Senate, yesirrrreeeeee!!!!! Yeeeeee haw!

[freddie mertz]

27. Yes, he has dared to question the perfection of St. Barack of Chicago.

[JeffR]

25. He's real, real loud, at least.

Maybe it's time to turn it up to 11, so yeah, maybe. Or maybe not.

[Vinca]

26. I don't think Ed would be happy in the Senate.

I picture him on the floor, getting all red in the face over an issue and . . . suddenly . . . going for Jim Inhofe's neck.:rofl:

[dionysus]

28. i used to think he was a fake but he's really come into his own the last few years.

is his TV show as good as his radio program?

[insanity]

31. How does a talking head from a major corporation=exactly what we need?

Big Ed is a guy I agree with, but I often feel like his mastery of public policy and his ability to explain it are severely lacking. What we need is progressives who go to Washington to make policy and not a name for themselves.