You know those creepy videos of schoolchildren singing the praises of Dear Leader in the White House?
Liberal radio host Ed Schultz wants Secret Service agents singing the same tune.
Here's Schultz offering what is arguably the most inane commentary to emerge from the so-called White House party crashers breaching security at the Nov. 24 state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh (click here for audio) --
SCHULTZ: But I think this president deserves more. I think he deserves the absolute best around him. He doesn't deserve a cheaper cut or any less of an attitude and I would even go so far as to think it might not be bad to have politically like-minded people around the president in the Secret Service who would pledge allegiance to make sure that you go beyond the profession of a security that, you know, hey, that's my guy! That's my guy!
One gets the impression that what Schultz suggested on his radio show Dec. 1 was ludicrous even for him, hence the evasion into incoherence like a squid squirting ink as it flees.
To the best of my knowledge, Schultz is the only media figure to imply that Michaele and Tarej Salahi were allowed into the White House by partisan security personnel intent on embarrassing Obama, or worse.
Count me among those who want the Secret Service to remain most assuredly above politics, to the extent this is possible, and pledge themselves to protecting the president regardless of party.
But seeing how it would be nearly impossible to find Secret Service agents wholly devoid of opinion, Schultz gets it backward. From my perspective, and that of at least one other observer, the problem is not that Secret Service agents don't share Obama's politics, the problem might be that they do.
As Rutgers anthropology professor Lionel Tiger wrote in an op-ed in the Dec. 5-6 Wall Street Journal, comparing the Salahis to the title characters of the film "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion" --
Madam S donned a red sari, a costly hairdo, and confronted a Secret Service person who may very well have, because of their diversity-appropriate names, suffered a Maj. Hasan moment. Presumably he or she contemplated how offensive it would be to degrade someone named Salahi at the White House.
Another inanity from Schultz came two days later, as described by Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer --
SCHULTZ: Tiger Woods is really at the point now of being a victim in my opinion. What does he have to do, OK? What's he gotta, I know a lot of you are going to be mad at me for saying that I think he's a victim but wait a minute now. When does it stop? No laws broken, police report complete and now it's all juice from this point out, what's interesting.
... If I'm Tiger Woods' agent or if I'm his business associate, we cancel all contracts today. Yeah! We cancel all, we call up Nike, it's over, we want out. We want, we want every sponsor, it's over, all the stuff about, well, we've been with him a long time, no, no, go on the offensive, Tiger. Go on the offensive and say it's over, I'm starting completely over.
Frequent Schultz guest Norman Goldman, his "senior legal analyst," politely told Schultz he was full of balloon juice --
GOLDMAN: Ed, that's really counter intuitive. I mean, most people wouldn't do that. They wouldn't walk away from all that money.
Nor would they want to break their word in the form of binding contracts, Goldman might have added were he so inclined.
SCHULTZ: Tiger Woods hasn't been charged with anything.
GOLDMAN: Well, Ed, you're absolutely right.
SCHULTZ: This is a personal, this is a personal indiscretion. There is an admission, there is a recovery, so when does it stop? It's not the question of when does it stop. When does it start? When does the new Tiger start over? I'm Tiger Woods' business agent, I control his interests, all contracts are off today! We'll see you next year if you're interested! By the way they'll probably be a 25 percent increase.
Let me see if I've got this straight -- having trashed his marriage, Woods should violate his financial vows too?
Keep digging deep, Ed.
