updated 5/7/2010 9:42:45 AM ET 2010-05-07T13:42:45

Guest: Robert Menendez, Rush Holt, Jonathan Alter, Jesse Jackson, Ron Christie, Jack Rice, Rob Cox, Mike Papantonio

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW

tonight from New York.

These stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour. 

How much more proof do lawmakers in the Congress need?  The oil spill

in the Gulf is killing the ecosystem and the coastal industry.  But we

still have this crowd out there that says, “Drill, baby, drill.” 

Well, this just in.  Oil has reached ashore along the Chandeleur

Islands in Louisiana. 

BP, you can start writing checks now. 

Wall Street got a shock today.  The Dow dropped nearly 1,000 points

this afternoon.  I‘ll tell you what happened.

Plus, ,Harry Reid and Chris Dodd have signed on to Bernie Sanders

proposal to audit the Fed. 

And Republicans accuse Democrats of coddling terrorists, even as they

are defending the rights of expected terrorists who—buy guns?  Just wait

until you hear how Lindsey Graham tries to wiggle out of this one and

explain it. 

This, of course, is the story that has got me fired up tonight.  A

major fight basically has broken out of the Congress over offshore


What are we going to do?  I mean, if this isn‘t the biggest wakeup

call that we have ever had in this country when it comes to our energy

policy, I don‘t know what is.  Only time will tell if those in the Congress

use this and see this as a defining moment to do something about it. 

Now, we‘ve got oil on the shore.  We all excited about that now? 

Here‘s leadership for you.  Congressman John Garamendi, a freshman out

of California, is trying to stop any new oil drilling off the West Coast. 

The bill is called the West Coast Protection Act of 2010. 

In my opinion, this is leadership.  But, of course, like clockwork,

here come the conservatives.  They‘re already attacking the plan. 

Good old Texas Congressman, Barton, he says Garamendi‘s plan is

“Astute politics now, but it won‘t be a viable energy policy until cars run

on something other than gasoline or everybody rides bicycles to work.”

Which in other countries is exactly what they do in crowded cities. 

Congressman Garamendi responded to Barton‘s comment on my radio show

earlier today. 


REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA:  Joe Barton is covered with oil. 

He is the oilman‘s representative here in Washington D.C., and there‘s no

place in the world that he doesn‘t want to drill.  And he would drill in

his own back yard if he could. 

Maybe he wouldn‘t.  I don‘t know.  But anyway, the fact is that he

represents the oil industry. 


SCHULTZ:  OK.  It‘s almost like a softball game.  We‘re picking up the

good players and the bad players.  Let‘s split it up, let‘s get it on. 

Garamendi is spot on, on all of this.  Barton and the rest of the

“Drill, baby, drill” crowd are doing really what they do best, protecting

the people that line their pockets. 

Let‘s see.  The record shows that they have fought to protect

insurance companies, they have fought to protect the fat cats on Wall

Street.  They don‘t want reform.  And really, now they‘ll do just about

anything to protect their buddies in the oil business. 

And, oh, wait a minute.  Both sides are guilty. 

Senate Democrats, they‘re doing some protection work as well.  Senator Mary

Landrieu of Louisiana is really, I think, earning her campaign

contributions from BP. 

You see, Landrieu is worried.  She‘s really worried that Senator

Robert Menendez is trying to raise the liability cap from $75 million to a

measly $10 billion. 

Now, according to Politico, she said to a reporter, “There are

thousands of wells drilled by mom-and-pop operations that, if Menendez has

his way, they‘re going to be going out of business.  And I‘m not going to

allow that.” 

Now, let‘s consume that for a minute. 

Do you know any poor oil people?  Do you know any oil people that are

on the verge of going out of business? 

Mom and pop, it makes it sound like it‘s almost like lemonade stands

down there. 

Senator, I‘m at a loss.  We have interviewed people on this program in

recent days that are on the verge of not only losing their family business

of 80 years, their clientele right now, and wiping out the whole industry,

yet you are concerned about the liability limits on big insurance and oil? 

Does that make sense? 

Wow.  Senator Landrieu, you‘re really looking out for people, aren‘t

you?  Or is it just that $1.8 million worth of money to your campaign

speaking right now from BP? 

Landrieu took it a step further and delivered what I think is a really

low blow on Katrina.  She also told Politico, “Without naming names,”

Landrieu said, “it‘s very, very interesting that a lot of the same senators

had little interest in the Gulf after Katrina in 2005.  There just doesn‘t

seem to be an outcry about it, so it‘s very interesting to me.”

What a cheap shot to your own party.  Come on.  Well, of course,

there‘s not a party.  We‘ve got a bunch of Independents running around

because the political climate is so screwed up right now.

Democrats did not ignore Katrina.  I think the Bush administration


Senator Landrieu has always been a shell for big oil.  She‘s proven it


Listen to what she was saying just last fall. 


SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA:  Drilling-related spills are less

than one percent of spills in the ocean.  I am an unabashed advocate for

more domestic drilling of oil and gas.  I‘m going to continue to be a

fierce advocate for more onshore and offshore natural drilling—I mean



SCHULTZ:  OK.  Did you hear one percent?  Well, on the Chandeleur

Islands, it‘s now up to 100 percent. 

Oil companies don‘t need advocates in Washington.  The people of the

Gulf Coast do.  And $10 billion is not going to bankrupt big oil.  And pro-

oil Democrats need to stop trying to do a Sarah Palin imitation. 

The crisis in the Gulf should alarm the entire United States of

America.  We are now at a crossroads.  We either want to trust the big oil

companies like BP and the rest of their friends with our future, or we

really want to grab this moment while we can and push forward for a strong

energy policy. 

We can‘t afford to fight any more wars.  And now we can‘t afford to

fight an ecological battle on our own shores. 

We don‘t need any more Dick Cheneys or Mary Landrieus out there trying

to say that big oil is just the altar boy time and time again, and they do

nothing wrong.  John Garamendi of California, the freshman congressional

member who has nothing to lose, tells it like it is. 

I think that‘s leadership.  There‘s a Democrat out there speaking up.

Tell me what you think about all of this in our telephone survey

tonight, folks.  The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 

My question tonight is: Do you want the United States to permanently

ban offshore drilling?  Press 1 for yes, press 2 for no, and I‘ll bring you

the results later on in the show. 

Joining me now is New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez.  He‘s a member

of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.  He‘s also the

chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. 

Senator, good to have you with us tonight.

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D), NEW JERSEY:  Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Do you have a response to Mary Landrieu?  Is she talking

about you?  Did you show enough concern for Katrina, and are you trying to

shut down the oil industry in the Gulf? 

A lot on the table tonight, Senator.  We need you to answer to this


MENENDEZ:  Well, let‘s talk about the oil industry.  I won‘t shed any

tears to raise the liability cap to $10 billion when BP made $5.6 billion

in three months, the first three months of this year, when the entire top

five oil companies made about $25 billion in the first three months of this


I think that they should follow the rule that all of our mothers

taught us when we were growing up, that when you mess up, you clean up and

you pay for it.  And that is, in essence, what we‘re trying to do by my

bill that says, you know, let‘s stop the big oil bailout prevention by

making sure that we raise the cap, that they become responsible for their

liability and responsible for the consequences. 

You know, everybody keeps saying about, yes, they‘re going to be

responsible for the cleanup, but the later part, what happens to the

commercial fishermen?  What happens to the shrimp fishermen?  What happens

to the coastal communities? 

SCHULTZ:  Well, that‘s a great point and I think you‘re spot on, but I

think you‘re shortchanging them, personally.  Not taking a shot at you,

Senator Menendez.  You know we‘re on the same team.  I‘m a liberal. 

But $10 billion?  That‘s pretty much chump change to the oil industry

when they make—well, what did you say, $5.6 billion in the first

quarter?  Heck, they‘re in business for less than a year to take care of a

spill that‘s going to throw the ecological system right on its ear. 

I mean, it just seems to me, why not unlimited?  Why is it at $10


MENENDEZ:  Well, you know, what we figure based on previous

experiences, that‘s about the right figure.  And it‘s $10 billion per

incident, per company. 

And in this case, not only do you have big oil and BP, you have

Transocean, who was the driller here.  You may have others that are

involved.  So, as far as I‘m concerned, when you add all of the liabilities

together, you‘ve got the type of money that can actually make people whole

at the end of the day. 

And as it relates to—you know, I‘ll just simply say—and I have,

you know, respect for Mary Landrieu.  But simply to say that—look, after

Hurricane Katrina, I was in the House of Representatives then.  I led the

effort to have a commission on Katrina so we could find out why the Bush

administration failed the people of Louisiana.  I led efforts with the

Congressional Black Caucus, and I continued to support those efforts when I

came to the United States Senate. 

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Senator, good to have you with us tonight.  I

appreciate your time. 

MENENDEZ:  Good to be with you.

SCHULTZ:  Robert Menendez from New Jersey tonight, with us on THE ED


Now, New Jersey Congressman coming up with us is Rush Holt, a member

of the Committee on Natural Resources.  He just introduced legislation to

raise the liability cap. 

Even if it‘s per incident, per company, OK, how many players do we

have in there? 

Folks, this is a $500 billion mistake, accident, mishap, whatever you

want to call it.  I just don‘t think $10 billion does it, even if you‘ve

got 10 companies. 

The bottom line here is, is that this—why do I sense that Americans

haven‘t grabbed the ripple effect that we‘re going to be looking at in all

of this?  And now we‘ve got this fight breaking out over offshore drilling. 

Congressman Rush Holt with us tonight, here on THE ED SHOW.

Congressman, where do you stand? 



SCHULTZ:  You bet, sir.  Thank you.  I‘m passionate about this because

if we don‘t take a stand—

HOLT:  I can tell. 

SCHULTZ:  If we don‘t take a stand on this, when are we going to do

it?  What accident do we wake up to? 

HOLT:  Well, of course we‘ve got to take a stand.  And the point of

the legislation that we‘re talking about here, I have in the House, along

with Representative Pallone and Representative Boyd, Kosmas and others,

legislation that‘s very similar to what Senator Menendez and Lautenberg and

Senator Bill Nelson have in the Senate.  It is to raise the liability from

$75 million. 

We think this $10 billion is probably a pretty good place to start. 

But the real point is that $75 million is laughably small.  You heard

Senator Menendez. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, $10 billion is small.  Don‘t you think -- $10 billion

is nothing.  These guys make record profits. 

And, of course, the consumers, heck, we‘re going to end up paying for

it anyway.  They‘re just going to stick it to us at the pump. 

I‘m talking about making sure.  BP says they‘re going to pay for it. 

All right.  Well, all these watermen that are out there, all these

businesses that are going to go down, how about making them whole?  That‘s

what the legislation should say, I think. 

HOLT:  Well, in fact, that‘s what it will mean.  That‘s what we‘re

talking about, is that $75 million is laughably small. 

This is to make it large enough so that—the people who would really

be hurt here is the fishermen.  It‘s the‘ oyster fishermen and the shrimp

fishermen, the tourism people.  I mean, everybody whose livelihood depends

on the shore will be made whole. 

And it will cover everything from personal property to injury of

natural resources to destruction of property, lost profits, extra public

services.  And as you heard Speaker Pelosi say earlier today, it depends on

your definition of “incident.”  This is easily defined as more than one


SCHULTZ:  Well, how about having no more incidents and stop offshore

drilling?  Would you get on to that? 

HOLT:  I certainly would.  The whole point of this is so unnecessary,

because we‘re chasing an archaic way of powering our economy. 

This is archaic.  They‘re not called fossil fuels without reason. 

This is old-fashioned.  This is unsustainable. 

Certainly along the Atlantic seaboard and many places in this country,

the wind power is much more sustainable.  I know some people laugh at wind,

but let me tell you, surveys by the Department of the Interior say that you

could have sustainable 10 -- I‘m sorry, 1,000 billion watts, a thousand

gigawatts of power.  That‘s enough to run a good part of the East Coast of

the United States. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, good have you with us tonight.  Got to run. 

Appreciate your time.

HOLT:  Thank you.

SCHULTZ:  You‘re on record.  You‘re against offshore drilling,


HOLT:  You got it. 

SCHULTZ:  Good to have you on.

Coming up, “Turd Blossom” has got another covert operation.  He‘s

plotting a righty revolution.  More on that.  Oh, that‘s going to be fun.

And President Obama says the time is now on immigration reform.  That

has got Reverend Jesse Jackson all fired up.  He‘ll join me at the bottom

of the hour. 

All that, plus, we‘re going global in the “Zone.”  And an anti-gay

activist got busted with a “Rent a Boy.”  That‘s right. 

You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  And thanks for watching


Well, the man who duped America into electing George W. Bush twice has

been secretly planning how to put Republicans back in charge in Washington,

D.C.  You got it, Karl Rove and other Republican political operatives have

quietly built a network of five conservative groups that specialize in

campaign fund-raising, organizing and advertising. 

The network is modeled after the Democrats‘ Democracy Alliance Group,

which, of course, drove the party‘s 2006 takeover of the Congress, and as

they also helped out and modeled out to help Barack Obama win in 2008. 

For more, let me bring in Jonathan Alter, national affairs columnist

for “Newsweek” and MSNBC political analyst. 


SCHULTZ:  Jonathan, well, we have probably the biggest win at all

costs political operative back in the game.  What do you think?  Is this

fun time for us? 

ALTER:  You know, not really.  The guy is a master organizer.  What

everyone thinks of his politics, he did a fantastic job getting George W.

Bush elected president in 2000, and he‘s not to be underestimated. 

Republicans are good organizers, and they‘re going to have a lot of

money with this new Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. 

They‘re going to essentially have unlimited corporate money.  And they have

no scruples about what they say. 

You know, Ed, you call it “Psycho Talk.”  But in some cases, that‘s a

mild way of characterizing it.  It‘s just lying, saying things that simply

aren‘t so.  And in the clutter of today‘s system, it can be very hard to

straighten out some of the misrepresentations that I‘m sure they‘re going

to undertake. 

SCHULTZ:  So, these are the groups that Rove and his cronies have put

together: American Crossroads, American Action Network, American Action

Forum, Resurgent Republic, and the Republican State Leadership Committee. 

Now, what does this mean for Republicans?  Is this somewhat of a

signal that now that Rove is back in the game, the rudderless ship called

the Republican Party may have some real direction now?  Even though he‘s

not the head of the party, he is somebody that they do respect? 

ALTER:  Oh, absolutely.  And he‘s very good at helping them build

these kinds of networks. 

He did that long before Bush became president.  You know, he was a

formidable Texas political operative going back 25 years.  And he‘s really

somebody to be reckoned with. 

So, the idea that somehow they‘re going to be ashamed to being

associated with him I think is wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. 

He might work a little bit quietly, but he‘s out there hawking a book right

now, so he‘s not exactly a shrinking violet.  And you can expect people to

defer to his judgment in a lot of different areas.  And on politics, he‘s a

smart one.

SCHULTZ:  Jonathan Alter, always a pleasure.  Good to have you with us


ALTER:  Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Coming up, Iranians‘ nut job president says he knows where

Osama bin Laden is hiding—inside the beltway.  We‘re going international

into the “Zone” next. 

Stay with us. 


SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, well, we‘re going global. 

Iran‘s wacko president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been stirring up

controversy during his visit to New York this week.  Ticked off just about

everybody at the U.N., then he got into it with ABC News. 

Maybe he wants a job at the CIA.  He says he knows where Osama bin

Laden is. 


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS:  Isn‘t Osama bin Laden in Tehran? 

Your question is laughable.  Do you know or not? 


question is laughable.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Is it true or not?

AHMADINEJAD:  Maybe you know, but I don‘t know.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  I‘m asking you.  You‘re the president of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD:  I don‘t know such a thing.  You are giving news which is

very strange.  I heard that Osama bin Laden is in Washington, D.C. 

STEPHANOPOULOS:  No you didn‘t. 

AHMADINEJAD:  Yes, I did.  He‘s there because he was a previous

partner of Mr. Bush.  They were colleagues, in fact, in the old days. 

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Osama bin Laden is not in Tehran today? 

AHMADINEJAD:  Rest assured that he‘s in Washington. 


SCHULTZ:  Sure he is.  Bin Laden‘s down in D.C.  Hey, maybe he‘s

hiding out with “Shooter,” Dick Cheney‘s bunker.  You never know. 

This guy could take down Glenn Beck in a contest for the craziest

conspiracy theory.  There‘s no doubt about that. 

And I‘ll have to say this tonight, folks.  If Osama bin Laden is in

Washington, D.C., I‘ll join the righty talkers of America on national

security, because that would be one hell of a security breach.  But I don‘t

think I have got anything to worry about. 

Saying that Osama bin Laden is in Washington, D.C., is world class,

high-level “Psycho Talk.” 

Coming up, the NBA‘s most prolific coach just slammed the Suns for

taking a stand on immigration.  I‘ll ask Reverend Jesse Jackson what he

makes of all of that, as well as the president‘s decision to get

immigration done this year. 

And the Times Square bomber was packing heat, but the righties don‘t

care.  Heck, some folks who talk tough on security are trying to make it

easier—did you get that—easier for terrorists to get guns. 

“Rapid Fire Response” coming up next. 

And L.T. gets cuffed, and you won‘t believe who is renting boys

online.  I‘ll explain it all in the “Playbook.”

You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. 

The battleground story tonight is, is this a flip?  President Obama

says he wants to move on comprehensive immigration reform this year.  He

didn‘t ask for this fight but he is not afraid to take it on. 

I respect him for that.  I think we should do it this year.  The

situation in Arizona pretty much is red hot and all over the country. 

People in the state are demanding leadership from Washington and the

president seems to be ready to provide it. 

But immigration is a very complex issue.  There is a lot of passion on

both sides.  But it doesn‘t cut straight down party lines. 

Joining me now is Reverend Jesse Jackson, president of Rainbow/Push

Coalition.  He has been out in front of this issue, rallying Arizona and

calling for boycotts. 

Reverend, good to have you on tonight.  Good to see you. 


much when Dr. King won the Nobel Prize and came back and said to Lyndon

Johnson at the White House, and said to him, we need the voting rights act. 

Johnson said to Dr. King, I like it but I can‘t (INAUDIBLE) the voting

rights act.  The time is not right and the Congress won‘t do it.  But

somewhere between Selma and Montgomery, the provocative actions of Alabama,

forced Johnson‘s hand.  He chose federal rights over state‘s rights. 

In many ways, Arizona has forced the president‘s hand.  He‘s putting

forth a bill now—a proposition for immigration rights and he‘s right to

do it. 

SCHULTZ:  And 51 percent of the country, according to a “New York

Times” poll says that they favor what Arizona is doing.  Does that trouble

you?  And what does it say? 

JACKSON:  Well, I‘ll tell you what, you know, if you have a poll, most

Americans for the voting rights act in 1955.  People‘s right and they

learned from there.  We could not have gotten the (INAUDIBLE) bill by a


At some point, our leadership must do what is morally right and

legally sound.  A state does not have the right to determine federal

policy.  President Barack must give the confidence (ph).  But there‘s no

doubt he will. 

He must speak with the president of Mexico and President Preval of

Haiti.  That is his job to do.  And if he does not stop Arizona from doing

it, other states will do the same thing.  They don‘t have the legal right

plus they‘re not on sound moral ground. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you say to those critics, Reverend Jackson, who are

saying that the only reason why the Democrats want to do this is to pick up

more votes?  What do you think? 

JACKSON:  Well, I don‘t why Arizona did it, except for maybe for some

reason I can‘t quite explain, except this act of humiliation, threatening

deportation and threatening kind of a grouping of people by name and by


That provocative act has changed the ballgame.  And I think that

Latinos who are—who‘ve been moving at a fairly slow pace have said, now

while we—we‘re not (INAUDIBLE), but why we can‘t wait. 

I think (INAUDIBLE) like a sound border policy, immigration policy

that is fair price for citizenship.  That time is upon us now. 

SCHULTZ:  You know, this is cutting across every walk of life.  The

Phoenix Suns of the NBA put on the “Los Suns” jerseys last night and it

drew a reaction from the most successful and most high profile coach in the

NBA.  And Phil Jackson, who is a big liberal and big thinker. 

He says, “I don‘t think the team should get involved in political

stuff.  The American people are really for stronger immigration laws, if

I‘m not mistaken.  We should let that kind of play out and let the

political end of that go where it‘s going to go.” 

What do you make of this?  I mean here‘s a very strong liberal in a

very visible position in America.  Everybody knows who Phil Jackson is,

especially the younger demographic of this country and he makes a statement

like that. 

What does that illustrate to you? 

JACKSON:  Well, I have a high regard for Phil Jackson.  He‘s been a

progressive, broadminded down through the years.  But many of these

players, they‘re American Latinos.  They‘re neighbors of Latinos and so

they‘re (INAUDIBLE) two, three hours a night and regular citizens the other

21 hours of the day. 

These men on the basketball court have dignity beyond the playing

field.  And so as these men mature in the sense of biblical (ph) civility. 


JACKSON:  They should be congratulated and not condemned.  But I think

that Phil will come down on the right side of this.  I think that he is

concerned that they‘ll politicize the game.  He‘s right about that. 

These Phoenix Suns have a right just as the NFL players—the King

holiday basketball, they‘re doing the same thing, just as John Carlos did

it and Thomas Swift many years ago. 

Athletes are men and women beyond the ball field, beyond the playing


SCHULTZ:  And finally, one other subject I want to bring up with you

tonight, Jessie, is the number of African-Americans who are running for

office on the Republican side.  Thirty-two.  That‘s the most since


What‘s your take on that?  What‘s happening here? 

JACKSON:  Well, it‘s a good thing.  I think they ought to run.  And

the people will vote for them are not based upon what their interests are. 

I think that they have more people running and have more opinions is a good

thing for democracy.  I think it‘s a good thing. 

Most of them may not win but their running is the right thing to open

the dialogue.  I think that‘s healthy, really. 

SCHULTZ:  Yes.  Reverend, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so


JACKSON:  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  Now let‘s get some “Rapid Fire “Response from our panel on

these stories tonight.  Republicans don‘t want to give suspected terrorists

any rights except the right to buy a gun?  Senator Lindsey Graham‘s

reasoning was so crazy he made Joe Lieberman looks sane. 

We‘ll get to that. 

As we just talked about, President Obama‘s election is inspiring black

Republicans to run.  Thirty-two are running for Congress in this election

cycle.  That‘s the highest number in more than 100 years. 

And Joe Sestak‘s latest campaign ad accuses Senator Arlen Specter of

being a Bush ally and a phony Democrat. 

With us tonight, criminal defense attorney and former CIA officer,

Jack Rice, and also Republican strategist Ron Christie is with us tonight. 

Gentlemen, always a pleasure to have you with us.  Let‘s talk about

terror first, if we can.  What do you make of the position that Lieberman

and Graham are taking, Ron Christie, when it comes to allowing those who

are very questionable in our society to buy handguns? 


has a very, very good position as it relates to taking away the rights of

American citizens who seek to harm this country. 

I have problem, again, individuals who seek to hurt this country

should not be in the position of getting guns.  I think we have strong gun

enforcement laws in this country.  I think—it‘s reasonable to have a

waiting period.  I don‘t think terrorists should have guns. 

SCHULTZ:  Here is Senator Lieberman.  What he had to say about the

whole thing. 


SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT:  Why would we not want to give

the Department of Justice discretionary authority when one of them comes in

to buy a gun, a suspected terrorist? 

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA:  Here‘s the argument, Joe. 

There is no constitutional right to get on an airplane without being

screened, that I know of.  I mean, when the founders sat down and wrote the

Constitution, they didn‘t consider flying. 

It makes perfect sense to me that losing the ability to own a gun,

which is a constitutional right, using this list the way it‘s constructed

is unnerving at best. 


SCHULTZ:  Jack Rice, what do you make of that? 

JACK RICE, FORMER CIA OFFICER:  I‘m blown away.  I‘m blown away by

this simply because the idea that the Second Amendment is important but the

Fourth Amendment isn‘t is completely shocking to me. 

It‘s inconsistent in the first place.  In the end, I think what we

really have to look at is what‘s happening.  The idea that we would simply

dismiss Miranda and we would say well, that doesn‘t particularly matter

even for American citizens in the first place. 

But the idea that what you can do is allow guns to go to just about

anybody—look, you can go buy them at gun shows.  It‘s easy. 


RICE:  A terrorist can do it, too.  And so that‘s ridiculous. 

SCHULTZ:  And, Jack, switching gears, what do you make of 32 African-

Americans running for Congress from the Republican Party?  What‘s happening

over there in your opinion? 

RICE:  You know what?  I‘m thrilled by this.  I think that the more

the Congress looks like America and reflects America, the better.  I don‘t

care whether you‘re left or right or center.  From my perspective, the more

people that we see that look like America, the better it is for all of us. 

SCHULTZ:  Ron Christie, was this a concerted effort by Michael Steele

or is this just the kind of the way it turned out? 

CHRISTIE:  I think this is the kind of the way it turned out, Ed.  And

it‘s very exciting. 

SCHULTZ:  Really? 

CHRISTIE:  If you look at the period from 1865 to 1887, you had more

than 2,000 blacks elected at the state, the local level, and the federal

level.  You had 15 people on the Congress, you had two senators, you had a

governor in Louisiana. 

This is a great thing.  The more diverse that we can be in our elected

officials and the more voices that can be heard, and particularly for

African-Americans to believe that they can run in a majority white



CHRISTIE:  As opposed to just running in urban areas.  It‘s fantastic. 

SCHULTZ:  And that is going to be the key, isn‘t it, to get white

Republicans to vote for a black candidate? 

CHRISTIE:  Absolutely. 

SCHULTZ:  Is that a heavy lift? 

CHRISTIE:  I don‘t think it‘s a heavy lift.  It‘s one thing that

President Obama showed us in his election, he was able to inspire Americans



CHRISTIE:  -- regardless of the color of their skin to vote for him. 

I think he set a very important precedent and I think he encouraged a lot

of blacks who are Republicans to run. 

SCHULTZ:  But, Ron, you don‘t think that this was an effort for the

Republican Party to show diversity?  That—I mean I find it interesting. 

I mean I think it is.  I mean I think Michael Steele said, look, we‘ve got

to bring some diversity to this.  Let‘s go out and see if we can get some


CHRISTIE:  I agree with you on that.  But it‘s more than Michael

Steele.  It‘s George W. Bush. 


CHRISTIE:  It‘s people around the country.  I think all Republican

elected officials and those who lead our party have a responsibility, not

just for African-Americans, but Hispanics and other members of color. 

I give Mr. Steele his due here but I think it‘s a great day for the

country that we have these many blacks running for -- 

SCHULTZ:  All right.  Gentlemen, let‘s -- 

RICE:  Ed -- 

SCHULTZ:  Yes, go ahead. 

RICE:  The one thing I noticed, again, I was covering the DNC in

Denver and then I was in St. Paul at the RNC.  What I saw—and this is

simply what I saw. 


RICE:  In Denver, I saw a group of people that really did look like

the entire country.  When I went to the RNC, what I saw was a lot—mostly

old white guys. 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s a little different. 

RICE:  And women. 


RICE:  It‘s true. 

CHRISTIE:  You were at a different place than me, Jack.  I saw a lot

of people of color there. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, the tape we‘re looking at—you need some diversity

in the Republican Party.  Let‘s just leave it at that. 

RICE:  It‘s a good thing. 

SCHULTZ:  All right, gentlemen.  Let‘s go to Pennsylvania.  And this

gentleman has predicted all along that he would close the gap on Arlen

Specter.  And the number showed, the Quinnipiac Poll, Specter leading Joe

Sestak, 47-39. 

Here‘s the kind of ad, and I think a very effective one, that Mr.

Sestak has come out putting Arlen Specter right next to George W. Bush. 


REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  I‘m Joe Sestak, the Democrat.  I

authorized this message. 

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  My change in party will enable

me to be re-elected. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  For 45 years, Arlen Specter has been a Republican


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT:  Arlen Specter is the right man

for the United States Senate.  I can count on this man.  See, that‘s

important.  He‘s a firm ally. 


SPECTER:  My change in party will enable me to be re-elected. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Arlen Specter switched parties to save one job. 

His, not yours. 


SCHULTZ:  Ron Christie, on a scale of 1-10, I have to give that about

a 9 ½.  What do you think? 

CHRISTIE:  I think you‘re right.  I think it only shows what a fraud

Senator Specter is and I think that Sestak is running a great ad.  I think

the days of trying to harken back to the Bush administration are a little

lame.  But I have to be honest with you, he was no great ally of ours.  We

had to go up there—at least when I worked in the White House—to try

to commit the senator to do the right thing. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, Bush liked him. 

CHRISTIE:  Well, I don‘t know—I can‘t speak to that personally.  I

don‘t like his politics.  And I think that, frankly, President Bush should

have supported Pat Toomey who was running but I think Toomey will take him

this time on. 

SCHULTZ:  Jack, is Joe Sestak in the game?  What do you think? 

RICE:  You know, I think he might be, obviously.  He‘s not getting

much support from this White House.  But I like Joe Sestak.  He‘s the

senior military man in Congress.  This is—I think he was a two-star

admiral and a very, very smart guy. 

So I like the fact that we have a real Democrat that‘s running in that

race.  We certainly don‘t have one in the incumbent. 

CHRISTIE:  Yes, Jack, you‘re right.  I mean a real Democrat.  If—

Arlen Specter is not a real Democrat, he‘s an opportunist, and he needs to

be defeated. 

SCHULTZ:  Ron Christie, Jack Rice, always a pleasure. 

CHRISTIE:  Take care, gentlemen. 

SCHULTZ:  Great to have you with us tonight. 

RICE:  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  Coming up.  If you thought you just had a bad day at the

office, Wall Street traders, well, their mistake may have messed up the

global economy, right? 

Plus it‘s a story you can‘t make up.  An anti-gay activist got busted

for renting a boy online.  It‘s all coming up in the “Playbook.”  Stay with



SCHULTZ:  It‘s still not too late to let us know what you think.  The

number to dial tonight is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 

Tonight‘s survey telephone question is, do you want the United States

to permanently ban offshore drilling?  Press number 1 for yes and number 2

for no. 

Again, the number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 


SCHULTZ:  In my “Playbook” tonight, well, it was a wild afternoon on

Wall Street with the largest intraday drop in the history of the Dow Jones

Industrial Average. 

The Dow plunged almost 1,000 points before rebounding somewhat,

closing down 347 points.  Most of the drama unfolded within an hour.  The

Dow fell 700 points in just 15 minutes then gained 600 points in the next

20 minutes. 

The financial industry is scrambling to figure out what happened and

human error may be to blame.  There are reports that a trader—a trader

may have typed in the letter B for billion instead of M for million, which,

of course, happens all the time in Washington. 

This, of course, was suspected to be on a regular market order,

triggering the Dow‘s nose-dive. 

For more, let me bring in Rob Cox, U.S. commentary editor with


Rob, I‘ll let you take a shot at it.  What happened here?  Was it just

a typo or are we nervous about what‘s going on over in Greece? 

ROB COX, REUTERS:  Well, definitely it sounds like a typo.  I like to

call this the fat fingered doofus phenomenon.  So somebody at a bank typed

in, as you say, the number and then put a B instead of an M for million. 

It could have been worse, of course.  They could have put a G for

gazillion.  I would like to see what happen—I wouldn‘t like to see what

happen if that were the case.  But I mean there is—what it really did

bring home to me was the fact that there‘s real concern out there. 

And people—you know, from about 2:40 in the afternoon to about

3:00, 3:15, 3:30, people really freaked out and they tried to figure out

what was going on.  And even though they knew that there were some things

that completely insane, it looked like there was—you know, computer

glitches, you have so much to worry about out there. 


COX:  Between Greece, between what‘s going on in the—you know, the

oil.  I mean there‘s just so many things that people just all of a sudden

glommed on to, and you have the fear trade all again just like we had in


SCHULTZ:  Well, it was the Greek credit crisis that everybody was

focusing on this afternoon when this was going down because we really

didn‘t know the ripple effect and the ramifications of it, just how deep

was this going to go and was it going to end up in the United States. 

Riots in Greece today. 

So as we go to tomorrow, what‘s your predictions? 

COX:  Well, tomorrow, we will—we‘ll have some idea what actually

happened.  So, in fact, I was just looking—the NASDAQ has put out a note

that said that they‘re going to actually cancel thousands of trades that

were made from 2:40 to 3:00.  Anything that was, you know, really showed an

anomalous drop during that period. 

So we‘ll—it starts to get some sort of an indication of what

actually happened.  But then I think people will actually focus on the

bright side of things.  To be honest, tomorrow we have job reports coming


And by all indications—at least maybe it‘s just optimism on my part

I think it‘s going to be a great number and people will say, hey, wait a

minute, the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are really great.  The

stimulus is working. 


COX:  Companies are hiring again.  This isn‘t so bad.  And they‘ll

forget again, you know, for a couple of weeks, maybe, all of the problems

that are taking place in Athens. 

SCHULTZ:  Rob Cox, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much. 

Couple of final pages in the “Playbook” tonight.  Ex-New York Giants

linebacker Lawrence Taylor was arrested earlier today for allegedly raping

a 16-year-old girl.  The victim was apparently paid $300 and forced into

prostitution with Taylor. 

The two-time Super Bow champ and Hall of Fame inductee was arraigned

on a class E felony rape in the third degree.  LT has had plenty of run-ins

with the police in the past but this incident could land him in the slammer

for up to four years. 

SCHULTZ:  Also, the Family Research Council is in a bit of hot water. 

George Reekers, a cofounder of this council and a flaming opponent of gay

rights, apparently hired a male prostitute from a Web site to accompany him

on a trip to Europe. 

Reekers claims he did not know the man was a prostitute until midway

through their trip and he had paid him just to carry his baggage. 

Reekers found his escort at a Web site called Rent-a-Boy.  There is

now a report that the Rent-a-Boy says he had sex with Reekers.  The site

offers male escorts and masseuses. 

And finally one of our own here at NBC hit it big on Tuesday night and

everybody wants to get to know her. 


SCHULTZ:  KNBC assignment editor Jackie Cisneros and her husband were

one of the winners of the $266 million jackpot.  After finding out she won,

Jackie finished up her shift at KNBC in Los Angeles.  She said she couldn‘t

imagine quitting her job and plans to continue her work for NBC as long as

she can. 

The chances of winning the mega millions is about 1 in 177 million. 

Jackie, congratulations.  And it just goes to show that this business

is a disease.  It‘s hard to leave. 

Coming up, the oil fights have boiled over into Washington.  Both

sides of the aisle are drilling at each other. 

Mike Papantonio blasts off next right here on THE ED SHOW.  Stay with



SCHULTZ:  And finally tonight, when you think of oil rigs in the gulf,

you really don‘t think of them being mom and pop businesses.  Yet that‘s

exactly the “Psycho Talk” coming from oil lover Mary Landrieu, the senator

from Louisiana, thinks raising the financial liability cap will hurt those

little oil rig operators. 

What about the real small business owners in her state up and down the

Gulf Coast that are bracing for a total washout of business? 

Mike Papantonio, environmental lawyer whose firm is leading the class

action lawsuit against BP, joins us tonight. 

And I don‘t know if you heard it earlier or not, Mike, but Reuters is

reporting through NOAA, saying that NOAA is saying that the oil has reached

the shore at the Chandeleur Islands.  So I guess -- 


SCHULTZ:  Go ahead. 

PAPANTONIO:  Yes, I was down there last night, as a matter of fact. 

Met a woman who owns one of those islands.  And it is under oil already. 

So that‘s the correct report.  It‘s getting worse. 

You know, Ed, it‘s such an interesting—Mary Landrieu I know is out

there trying to say this is—mom and pop is affected by this.  This is

not a mom and pop issue.  And what‘s happening is the politicians are

trying to characterize something about a convicted felon. 

We have—when we look at this case, we have to treat BP just like

they‘re a person, just like me or you and we were in trial.  When I‘m

trying this case, the first words out of my mouth is we‘re dealing with a

convicted felon that killed 15 people and injured 170 in Texas because they

were wanton and reckless. 

And they haven‘t changed.  As a matter of fact, this person that

Landrieu is trying to defend, if you really look at everything, they have

more of a history, a $300 million fine against them, Ed.  One of the

biggest fines for manipulating prices in America. 

SCHULTZ:  So -- 

PAPANTONIO:  What they were trying -- 

SCHULTZ:  Mike, is she -- 


SCHULTZ:  Is she absolutely the poster child at this hour for

protecting big oil?  I mean, she‘s against the liability cap.  I mean

you‘ve got constituents down there of hers who are on the verge of losing

everything and she‘s in Washington saying that she‘s not going let big oil

go down or take too big a hit on this. 

I mean that‘s the interpretation I get. 

PAPANTONIO:  Well, that‘s exactly right.  You have these shields right

now, Ed.  They‘re all over the coast.  They‘re scurrying up and down the

coast every day.  We have politicians, local politicians in Florida,

Alabama, Louisiana that have these talking points. 

Look, we got a great document.  Let me just for one second share the

document.  The document is a blueprint for how this company handles issues

like this.  One of the first things they do on that document, they say they

don‘t use the term “shield” but we have to go out and identify the shields. 

And then they say the second thing we have to do is after we have the

shield out there, we need to flood the market with what I call the sorority

crew, and that—it‘s these cutesy, perky little women that come down here

and act like they‘re one of us. 

They give speeches at town hall meetings, saying, gee, we can feel

your pain.  They‘re like (INAUDIBLE) all up and down the coast.  The reason

they do that, as this document says, it‘s hard for us to get mad at them. 


PAPANTONIO:  Therefore put them out front. 

SCHULTZ:  All right.  What about -- 

PAPANTONIO:  It‘s a whole playbook. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the $10 billion liability limit?  They want to go

from $75 million to $10 billion.  I say that‘s chump change.  What do you

say?  Should it be unlimited? 

PAPANTONIO:  Absolutely.  Let me just tell you something, we‘re going

to get past the liability limit anyway because we‘re going to show reckless

and wanton conduct.  We have enough to show that right now.  They know it. 

BP knows it. 

They know when we try this case—the limitation does not concern me

because we‘re going to beat on the limitation.  I have enough documents, I

have enough witnesses to show right now that their conduct wasn‘t just

negligence, Ed.  It approaches wanton conduct that is just right—just a

tad below manslaughter in some instances. 

But I do have to tell you this.  We are seeing politicians, a few

politicians—Bill Nelson, a few people like that—that are trying to do

the right thing.  But other than that, we kicked over a rotting log.  Now

we have these creeping little characters coming out from underneath it,

people like Marco Rubio who day one is for drilling, day two, he says I

don‘t want to talk about it right now. 


PAPANTONIO:  Because I don‘t want to politicize it.  All of these—

all of these shields are on the move.  And you know what?  The only way we

can expose them is to talk about them on the air because that at least

shames them -- 

SCHULTZ:  All right. 

PAPANTONIO:  -- to the point that they shut up about it for a while. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, the dome apparently is going to be lowered tonight. 

And of course we‘ll have more on that tomorrow here on THE ED SHOW and on


Mike, good to have you with us tonight. 

Tonight, our telephone survey -- 

PAPANTONIO:  Thanks a lot. 

SCHULTZ:  -- question was, do you want the United States to

permanently ban offshore drilling?  Seventy-eight percent of you watching

said yes, 22 percent said no. 

That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  Chris Matthews is next.  We‘ll

see you tomorrow night from Minneapolis here on MSNBC. 




Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc.  All materials herein are protected by

United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,

transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written

permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


Discussion comments