Vitter Tries To Bribe Sec. Salazar; Ed Schultz Silent

Self-described “liberal” talk show host Ed Schultz helped engineer Rep. Weiner’s resignation due to Weiener’s sexting habits.  Schultz spent a considerable amount of time wringing his hands as hard as he could in the days following Weiner’s sexting revelation.  My question, as well as that of plenty of other liberals is, “What about Sen. David Vitter, Ed?”  I first wrote about this last week and am following up on the story now that new news has come to light.

What’s happened is this: Sen. David Vitter made a bribery offer to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (whom I have no love for, as evidenced by my writing history, by the way): Vitter will stop holding up $19,600 of Salazar’s pay raise vote if the Interior Secretary can somehow increase the rate of exploratory drill permits for the Gulf of Mexico.  Money for action = bribe.

This news came out at ~1:30P ET today as CREW filed an official complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee.  Unsurprisingly, I didn’t find any reference to Ed Schultz issuing commentary on the subject yet today.  I don’t expect I’ll find any such reference tomorrow or next week.  Schultz has left Sens. Vitter, Ensign and Coburn untouched during their respective ethics violations and well-documented illegal behavior.

A Democrat sending pictures of his junk?  Schultz feels compelled to hammer home his opinion because TMZ reported on it.

Republicans violating laws and breaking ethics rules?  Schultz ignores them because he thinks he can’t generate ratings if he covers them.

Ed Schultz is an entertainer first and a liberal second (at best).

Gee, I Wonder Why Republicans Lost in 2008

It couldn’t be because of their lack of understanding of topics or lack of empathy for their constituents.  It couldn’t have been because of things like:

1. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), on the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide:

Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.

“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”

One indication that the EPA likely would consider 20,000 runners a single source of pollution is that the agency is trying to regulate waste-water runoff and emissions of drilling rigs in oil fields by attempting to define entire areas as a single source of pollution, Barton says.

Yeah, I totally see how 20,000 runners are the same thing as 20,000 drilling rigs.  Rep. Barton’s analogy is ridiculous.  The rest of America (the sane part) knows the difference.