updated 5/10/2010 9:29:22 AM ET 2010-05-10T13:29:22

Guest: Elijah Cummings, Rep. John Garamendi, Bob Shrum, Karen Hunter, Tony Blankley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Lizz Winstead, Louie Miller

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  Good evening, Americans.  And welcome to “The Ed

Show” tonight from Minneapolis.  These stories are hitting my hot buttons

tonight.  Mississippi‘s republican governor is downplaying the oil

disaster.  Haley Barbour doesn‘t think the spill‘s really all that bad.  I

think the fishing industry would disagree with him.  We‘ll have a lot on

that coming up in a moment.  

Plus, a live update from Biloxi, Mississippi, in just a moment. 

Now, we‘ve got the best job creation numbers in four years.  Those

numbers came out today.  But the righties, they are accusing President

Obama of waving the white flag on jobs?

And Lizz Winstead has something to say about family values,

conservatives, who make their living bashing gay people when they‘re

actually renting them for sex.  That‘s coming up in “Club Ed” later on

tonight.  

With this of course, is the story that has me fired up tonight.  A

major spin war is raging in this country over the gulf war oil spill.  Now,

the first—the—at this very minute, oil is lapping up on to the

shoreline of Louisiana.  As the righties keep gushing their BP. talking

points.  Listen to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. HALEY BARBOUR ®, MISSISSIPPI:  There is not certainty here that

this is Armageddon.  That something terrible is going to happen.  We may

have a, as secretary said, we may be hit by sheen, which is negative

impact, but not a great big impact.  Certainly not a catastrophe. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Good ole Haley Barbour just keeps spewing out the BP

bullet points to minimize the damage because he doesn‘t have the character

to own up to what‘s really going on and going down in the gulf.  He‘s doing

everything he can to make it easy for his oil buddies, instead of fighting

for the people of Mississippi.  Barbour thinks the real threat to his state

is me.  Earlier this week he said, “Some in the media keeps forcing this on

the public as the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez.  Well, the difference is

quite enormous.”  Really?  The only thing enormous is his ignorance to the

situation right now.  The Valdez spilled a finite amount of oil.  We know

how much is in that tanker. 

The leak in the gulf is coming from an enormous, well, that nobody

knows exactly how much is going to be coming out.  The media isn‘t your

problem, Haley.  Your problem, Mr. Barbour is oil.  If you weren‘t so

beholden to the big oil companies in this country, you‘d understand the

magnitude of this mess that‘s on our hands down in the gulf.  Haley Barbour

has made a living protecting the oil industry.  In 1991, he founded one of

the most powerful lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., and you got it, he

represented big oil.  Maybe that‘s part of the reason while Haley and his

buddy, Rush Limbaugh, want you to believe that the spill really isn‘t that

big of a deal.  

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, AMERICAN RADIO HOST:  We‘ll take care of this on its

own if it was left alone and it was left out there.  It‘s natural.  It‘s

just natural ocean water is.  Even places that have been devastated by oil

slicks, where was that place when the guy was drunk, ran a boat—Prince

William sounds.  They were wiping off the rocks with dawn dish washer

detergent and paper towels.  The place is pristine now.  

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Oh, the place is pristine now.  Good show prep there, Rush. 

Either Limbaugh is a flat-out liar or he is the college dropout that we

always thought he was.  Limbaugh isn‘t worried about the facts.  He makes a

living defending the drill, baby, drill crowd.  The conservatives need the

dragster and the right wing network to minimize this entire crisis.  The

leak is anything but small.  Heck, it might even outdo the Valdez and total

spill gallons by the time this whole thing is over.  This just in, the

associated press reports that the 100-ton dome to divert the oil is now in

place.  But there‘s still a lot of work to be done in order to get the

spill under control. 

This is the best news we‘ve had so far.  And BP deserves some credit

for getting that done, but will it stop it?  Now, let‘s get to the money. 

Because it is really all about the money.  Congress can‘t let BP. write a

check for $10 billion and then just let everybody go home and be happy with

the way things are.  Nobody has any idea how much ecological and financial

damage this leak is going to cost.  So, I‘m really arguing, and the

argument should be unlimited liability.  Members of the Congress are

starting to wake up to this.  Here‘s speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:  This bill can do great

ecological damage to the Gulf States and, of course, it affects fisheries

industry, tourism and the rest in this $10 billion goes a long way to

addressing that.  Depending on how much incidents are involved in these

particular spills, it can be more than one $10 billion liability.  But

you‘ll be hearing more about that as the committees take that up. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Well, in my opinion, the speaker, the president and the rest

of the Congress needs to stop all this talk about $10 billion.  It‘s going

to be a lot more than that BP. and Transocean need to make the people of

the gulf coast whole again with some guarantees.  Nothing short of that

would be good enough.  The other thing democrats need to do is start

fighting big oil.  Right wing talking points, Rush Limbaugh, Haley Barbour,

they‘re all out there.  They have no clue what they‘re talking about on

this.  They‘re just protecting big oil.  They have a history of doing that. 

And the bottom line in all of this folks is that I think this is up to you

and me. 

We‘re the ones that really control this mop-up.  We have to put a lot

of pressure on the senate.  We need to put a lot of pressure on the house

members to make sure that they follow through.  That there is no time left

unturned.  And we all have to realize that $10 billion to the oil industry

is chump change.  Let‘s start at maybe $500 billion and go up from there,

but for some reason, those in the Congress are afraid to use the term

“unlimited.”  It‘s nothing for us to go ahead and put $33 billion to the

war in Afghanistan and, say, well it cost $33 billion.  And that‘s the end

of it.  But here we can see what‘s happening onshore.  We can see people

potentially losing their family business.  We can put a pencil to that. 

I want to know how they came to this calculation of $10 billion.  Who

did the math on this?  Let‘s see.  You‘ve got Texas, you‘ve got Louisiana,

you‘ve got Mississippi, you‘ve got Alabama and Florida.  Oh, everybody gets

$2 billion for the mop-up?  Is that how it‘s going to work?  Have they

checked with tourism?  Have they checked with the Tax Commissioner‘s Office

to see what receipts are coming in?  They are to be able to figure this

out.  But to arbitrarily take a $10 billion figure out of the sky and say,

well, this is what the liability limit is going to be for incident, I‘m

telling you it doesn‘t go far enough. 

All right.  Get your cell phones out, folks.  I want to know what you

think about this.  Tonight‘s text survey question is, do you believe

conservatives are minimizing the damage in the gulf to protect bill oil? 

Text a for yes, and text b for no to 622639.  I‘ll bring you the results

later on in the program. 

Joining me now, as Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings, he heads up

the subcommittee on the coast guard in maritime transport.  Congressman,

good to have you with us tonight. 

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND:  It‘s good to be with you, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  I want your response on the dome.  That‘s the latest news

moments ago that it‘s in place.  How hopeful are you that this is going

really be the ticket to stopping all of this leaking?

CUMMINGS:  Ed, I am praying that the dome does work.  Because we‘ve

got to stop this leak, and you are absolutely right, this is—and I don‘t

know where—what planet Rush Limbaugh is operating from, but this—this

leak spewing out—these leaks spewing out 5,000 barrels of oil a day is

no light matter.  And Haley Barbour, I exactly say the same thing for him. 

We‘ve got BP and Transocean are going to be eventually be responsible.  But

in the meantime, the Congress I think has to do everything that we can to

clean this mess up and working with BP  And even if we have to get

reimbursed by BP, the key is to save those jobs, to save our environment. 

This is our watch, Ed.  This is our watch.  And it‘s our duty to address

this issue.  Effectively. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, are you willing to say tonight that we just

can‘t put a dollar figure on the cleanup?  I really think that that‘s what

the folks in the gulf really deserve to hear, that we really don‘t know

what this is going to cost and BP better be ready for that, Transocean and

all the other companies down there better be ready for that.  Are you

willing to go down that road?

CUMMINGS:  No doubt about it.  We‘ve been—being the head of the

coast guard and hearing from them on a daily basis, I know that it is truly

a mess down there.  And I don‘t even know how you compensate, Ed, for all

of the loss of life, the various species, the tourism, the fishermen who

are watching us right now who are not—can‘t even figure out how they‘re

going to make it over the next month.  We have got to do everything we can. 

This is our watch, and so, yes, I think the liability is unlimited.  And I

think BP needs to be prepared to pay and to pay up to the nth degree. 

Whatever it takes to clean up this mess.  

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, you head the subcommittee for the coast guard. 

CUMMINGS:  Yes.

SCHULTZ:  We‘re not hearing much about the coast guard.  Not much

conversation.  What are they doing?  How are they doing?  Are they doing

everything they can do?

CUMMINGS:  They are doing absolutely everything they can do.  From the

very beginning, on the 20th of April, they were on the spot.  Of course, if

you‘ll remember early on they were in a rescue mode, trying to rescue the

11 folks who sadly perished.  And then, they were surveying the scene

constantly and around about the 24th, I think it was, they began to first

notice the leaks and then later they discovered even more and they‘ve been

working very diligently. 

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ:  Have they done all what they can do?

CUMMINGS:  All that they can do and they continue to do it.  And they

continue to do it, Ed, right now they‘re doing it.  And I‘m very confident

of that.  The coast guard is one of our best-kept secrets.  They are our

line of defense at sea, and they‘re doing a great job.  And they just have

to continue to do what they‘re doing.  

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, I commend you.  You‘re the first one I‘ve heard

saying, we can‘t put a price tag on this.  I appreciate your attitude.  And

Americans need to hear that.  I appreciate your leadership tonight.  Thanks

so much.  Thanks for joining us. 

CUMMINGS:  Thank you, Ed.  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet.  

CUMMINGS:  Joining us now is Louie Miller, he‘s the Mississippi

Director of the Sierra Club.  He is in Biloxi, Mississippi, and that

beautiful water is behind him tonight.  And that oil is not far offshore. 

It hasn‘t hit Mississippi, but it has hit Louisiana.  Mr. Miller, what are

we looking at right now?  Some positive news.  The dome has been placed

over the leak.  What do you think?

LOUIE MILLER, MISS. DIRECTOR OF SIERRA CLUB:  Well, I hope it works,

Ed, but I want third-party confirmation that it‘s working, obviously,

because BP‘s credibility as far as I‘m concerned is in the toilet. 

SCHULTZ:  In the toilet, why?  I mean, they‘ve got the dome on there

tonight.  I need you to tell us exactly what you think they‘ve done wrong

after the spill. 

MILLER:  Well, just about everything.  It‘s been a—our concern at

this point in time, Ed, is that  hoping this will go away, which seems to

be Governor Barbour‘s contingency plan, is not a contingency plan.  You

know, we‘re facing a situation down here, and we‘re just sitting back

saying, well, we hope it will miss us.  That is not a contingency plan that

anybody in the state wants to subscribe to.  You know, the governor‘s

saying, hey, we don‘t want to panic people.  You know, these people of the

gulf coast are resilient, hardworking people.  They‘ve gone through

hurricane Camille, they‘ve gone through hurricane Katrina. 

You know, we don‘t panic down here, but we do prepare, and right now

we‘re not seeing the kind of action that we need as far as preparedness

goes.  We‘ve been out there.  The booms are not there.  We know for a fact

that Chandelier Island has now been hit.  It is the Mecca for sport

fishing.  The Mecca for sport fishing.  And there‘s oil all over the place. 

You know, that—if they will sacrifice Chandelier Island, the Mississippi

Coast is just around the corner. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  So, you think that Haley Barbour is doing a disservice,

not only in his reaction to this in responding to this, but he is

misleading the public in trying to minimize this? You believe that?

MILLER:  Oh, absolutely.  I mean, the press conference yesterday was

deplorable, and in which he said, well, you know, don‘t worry, be happy,

this thing is probably going to miss us.  Oil comes up through the floor. 

You know, all the Rush Limbaugh BP talking points.  Yes, we heard them

yesterday.  And that‘s unacceptable.  It‘s unacceptable to the public.  On

this gulf coast, the fishing industry, the shrimping industry, the tourism

industry, the gaming industry that all depend on a clean environment, and

this is the economic engine of the State of Mississippi, and right now,

we‘re in the bull‘s-eye of where this spill is headed. 

SCHULTZ:  Mr. Miller, good to have you with us tonight.  Keep up the

fight.  I appreciate your time so much.  Good luck to you. 

MILLER:  Thank you so much for keeping on top of this.  

SCHULTZ:  We will do that, my friend.  Thank you.  

Coming up, Eric Cantor‘s righty think tank?  Well, it sunk.  After

failing to produce, no surprise here, one good idea in a year, they‘ve

thrown in the towel.  I‘ll get some rapid fire reaction to that at the

bottom of the hour.  

And John McCain‘s fallen so far off this Maverick Rocker, the gigs at

Princeton have made a science project out of it.  

And of course, “The Beckster” races his way into the zone.  

And “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead, headlines, “Club Ed

Tonight.”  You‘re watching the Ed show from Minneapolis right here on

MSNBC.  Stay with us. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  The president refuses to take a victory lap, but this should

not go unnoticed.  290,000 jobs were created last month.  That‘s the

biggest hike we‘ve seen in four years.  I‘ll tell you what this means with

Peter Morici and also I think Robert Gibbs ought to apologize to the vice

president.  That‘s next.  Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to “The Ed Show.”  And thanks for watching

tonight.  Got to give credit to Vice President Joe Biden, couple of weeks

ago, he made a bold prediction at a fund-raiser in Pittsburgh.  He said

that the economy would create as many as 200,000 jobs in April.  Of course,

the Vice President got kicked around for that comment.  Robert Gibbs tried

to back away from it, saying that the vice president was overly optimistic. 

Well, today, we learned that Vice President Biden actually didn‘t go far

enough.  The economy created 290,000 jobs in April.  That is the best month

for job creation we have seen in this country in four years. 

Righties, what do you think about that?  For more on this, let‘s bring

in Peter Morici, the economist, and professor at the University of

Maryland.  I like the numbers.  Let‘s give credit where credit is due. 

Professor, you predicted this a couple of months ago.  What are we seeing? 

Are we out of the recession completely now?  And do you think this is going

to continue?

PETER MORICI, ECONOMIST:  We are out of the recession.  We‘re creating

jobs.  And we‘re creating just about all over the place.  There‘s still a

few weak spots but by in large this is an across the board recovery. 

Manufacturing, nonresidential construction, a lot of the service sectors,

and we‘re going to see more of this.  We‘re going to see steady jobs

creation.  Now, we‘re not going to see the kinds of job creation, we‘d like

to coming out of such a deep recession so we get that unemployment rate

down.  But it‘s a beginning.  And the stimulus package has helped.  Now we

can move beyond that.  The energy policy, the trade policy with China. 

Let‘s get that stuff straightened out, so we get the five, six, 700,000.  

SCHULTZ:  Is this the stimulus package working?  What do you think?

MORICI:  Oh, the stimulus package is part of the puzzle.  It certainly

is working.  Only a fool would say it didn‘t play a role.  The private

sector on its own, though, is recovering and only a fool would say that‘s

not playing a role.  So, it‘s everybody hands together. 

SCHULTZ:  This is the president talking about the unemployment

numbers, which did go up just a little bit.  Here‘s his response. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  The unemployment rate

ticked up slightly from 9.7 to 9.9, given the strength of these job

numbers, this may seem contradictory but this increase is largely a

reflection of the fact that workers who had dropped out of the workforce

entirely are now seeing jobs again and are now seeking jobs again. 

Encouraged by better prospects. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Professor, is the president correct on that?  Is it just

people coming out looking for jobs after not doing that?  What do you

think?

MORICI:  Oh, he‘s mark-on.  Exactly what‘s happening.  Folks that were

discouraged before, now are seeing a brighter future.  So, they‘re getting

out there, they think they can find a job.  So, it‘s not necessarily bad

news when the unemployment rate goes up.  You know, if it‘s because people

that were discouraged before are reentering the economy, it means that

things are getting better in a tangible way that we can‘t easily measure. 

SCHULTZ:  Peter, when you take a look at the graph, and we have seen

an increase.  We were, you know, losing, you know, five, 600,000 jobs a

year ago this time.  We‘ve completely turned that around.  Now, we‘re

adding, what if we were to stop the stimulus package, because we did want

to spend anymore the money, we had become fiscally really responsible right

now.  Do we need to finish with the stimulus package in your opinion?

MORICI:  We need to finish the stimulus package.  You know, the

patient has gotten out of bed but it still needs support from the nurses

under his elbows to walk down the hall before he gets robust again.  Now,

the stimulus package I‘m hoping this year will help construction get going

and then next year as we reach capacity, that we‘ll start to build new

capacity.  We‘ll get more business investment, more structures built. 

Things of that nature.  We‘ll get residential construction going again in

2011.  So a stimulus phases out, those aspects of the private sectors  

start to pick up some steam.  

SCHULTZ:  Peter Morici.  Professor, great to have you with us tonight. 

Thanks so much and we should point out that unemployment at 9.9 percent,

still lower than when Ronald Reagan was president.  

Coming up, the same guy who said President Obama has a deep-seeded

hatred of white people, is talking race, again.  And he‘s taking it to a

whole new level.  I‘m going to school him in the zone in just a minute. 

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, the Beckster‘s cranking open

the Tea Party textbook again.  The guy who said that President Obama has a

deep-seeded hatred for white people treated us to some more of his

expertise on the history of racism. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, FOX ANCHOR:  I find it really fascinating that the only

time that we have rounded people up and put them in jail for either their

skin color or for their points of view, Progressive Democrat Woodrow

Wilson, Progressive Democrat Theodore—I mean Franklin Roosevelt, the

most racist people to ever live in America were the progressives.  Really

radical.  Awful.  Awful.  Racist people. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Really, Glenn?  You want to talk about rounding people up? 

Your hero, Thomas Jefferson, got the ball rolling on the idea of Indian

removal, which ultimately led to the trail of tears where more than 40,000

Native Americans were rounded up and forced to leave their homeland. 

Thousands of them died on the way.  Was that progressive?  And then there‘s

that little group known as the KKK.  There are a lot of words I could use

to describe those folks.  Progressive is not one of them.  Glenn Beck,

continuing his smear campaign against progressives, by calling them the

most racist people in history is simply “Psycho Talk.”

Coming up, this guy isn‘t afraid to tell it like it is.  Congressman

John Garamendi, he‘s making a move to permanently ban offshore drilling on

the west coast and he‘ll drill the righties because they don‘t want to do

that.  

Plus, the Senate proves they are owned by the banks.  Eric Cantor runs

out of ideas, and “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead hits Michael Steele

right where it hurts.  You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.        

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  Thanks for watching tonight. 

I guess you could say enough is enough.  That‘s what California Congressman

John Garamendi is saying.  He‘s calling for a complete ban off offshore

drilling on the West Coast.  Garamendi is stepping up and showing some

leadership, and I sure wish the rest of the Congress would to the same

thing, including the White House, show some intestinal fortitude on this. 

The Garamendi bill has support of many members in the House, as far as

the Democrats are concerned, including Speaker Pelosi.  Congressman John

Garamendi joins us tonight from California.  Good to have you with us. 

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D), CALIFORNIA:  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  John, be very clear here.  You want to stop offshore

drilling on the West Coast?  Is that correct? 

GARAMENDI:  Well, the bill actually would prohibit any new federal

leases on the federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, and

Washington.  Existing leases, those are contracts, it would be awfully hard

to stop those unless you want to buy the drilling rights, and that‘s going

to be very expensive.  The idea here is, enough already, no more, no more

leases off the West Coast of California. 

And if we took that same amount of money, Ed—listen, that BP

disaster down in Louisiana, there‘s about a billion dollars right there,

the rig, the drilling that‘s took place, any future drilling, the cleanup

and everything else.  Spend a billion dollars right behind me, the

University of California campus and the research that‘s done there, and up

at Lawrence Berkeley labs.  You put that billion dollars into the research

that‘s there and you‘ll get far more energy and it will be renewable. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, is this going to be a big fight amongst the

Democrats?  There are some Democrats who are part of the drill, baby, drill

crowd.  There are some Democrats who simply do not want to put any more

regulation or restriction on offshore drilling.  In fact, they were

ecstatic when the president, not long ago, said we‘re going to go into

areas that have been protected.  What kind of fight is this going to be

amongst the party? 

GARAMENDI:  I don‘t expect a big fight amongst the party.  It‘s going

to be a hard bill to pass.  There‘s no doubt about it.  A lot of people are

going to say this is going to take away our energy future.  I go, no, no,

as long as we depend upon oil, our energy future is locked into the fate of

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and the Gulf Coast. 

We have to take a different path.  We have to break our addiction to

oil.  Now‘s the time to do it, by saying, no, we‘re not going to drill

more.  We‘re going to take the same am of money that would be used for

drilling and put it into the renewables, into photovoltaic and wind and

even wave action and, of course, the renewables in cellulosic and biofuels

and the like. 

SCHULTZ:  What about when it comes to restitution?  Would you say it

should have an unlimited amount?  No matter what the damages they pay, they

wouldn‘t have any liability limits?  This, too, is also becoming a fight in

the Congress.  Where do you stand on that? 

GARAMENDI:  I believe that there ought to be unlimited liability.  If

you or I were to go out and drink too much tonight and we hit somebody on

the road, we would have unlimited liability.  And the oil companies sure

hit a problem at least there in the Louisiana area.  They should also have

unlimited liability. 

Whatever it costs, folks, clean it up, economic damages, clean up all

the rest.  They‘re on the hook for all of it. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, great to have you with us tonight.  I think

you‘re showing real leadership by doing this.  We‘re not going to move the

energy debate forward in this country at all unless we start putting our

foot down and not let these corporations just run over our environment. 

That‘s how I see it. 

It was the Gulf that really spurred you to do this, or were you going

to do this anyway? 

GARAMENDI:  I‘ve been at this fight a long, long time.  I got into a

huge brawl with Governor Schwarzenegger.  He wanted a new lease in the

California area.  I said, no, no way.  We got into a huge brawl.  He said,

drill baby, drill.  I said no.  And ultimately he backed off, probably

because he saw the extent of damage that could occur. 

California, Oregon, Washington coast is unique.  The waves—all of

the geology is unique.  And we heavily depend—our economy depends upon

that, not only the ocean resources, but the tourism and the other resources

at the coastline. 

SCHULTZ:  No doubt about it.  John, good to have you with us tonight. 

Thanks so much. 

GARAMENDI:  Take care. 

SCHULTZ:  In the Senate, now, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham

says it will be impossible to pass a climate change bill now because the

offshore drilling issue is just too hot?  No, this is the time to do it. 

Florida Senator Bill Nelson has already said that any climate bill that

includes new drilling provisions will be dead on arrival.  What kind of

thinking is that?  The White House is playing it close to the vest. 

They‘re not saying much on this.  The president says he won‘t make a

decision about future offshore drilling until after the investigation into

the disaster is complete. 

For more on all of this, let‘s bring in veteran Democratic strategist

Bob Shrum, also professor at New York University. 

Bob, I tell you, the politics of this is fast and furious.  I want to

show you a poll that was recently taken of folks down in Florida, Florida

voters on drilling.  Back in June, well, they were at 55 percent in

support.  Now they‘re at 35.  The same number opposing it, 55 now, but it

was at 31.  What do you make of this?  Doesn‘t this just beg for

legislation and reaction from Washington? 

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Sure, it does.  There‘s going to be

a reaction.  The fact is that drilling offshore now is politically toxic in

Florida and California.  You do the electoral arithmetic.  No president of

the United States—you‘re not going to get elected without carrying at

least one of those states.  No president of the United States is going to

move forward with any serious, broad program of offshore drilling. 

It‘s just at this point politically toxic.  People like Haley Barbour,

who by the way should probably not have an R, Mississippi after his name,

but an R oil industry after his name, are speaking not for the interest of

their state and the environment of that state, and even the economies of

that state, they‘re speaking for the interests of the oil industry, which

often funds the Republican party. 

SCHULTZ:  You know as well as I do—you know better than anybody

that everything in Washington is political.  Where‘s the political gain

here?  Now, we know, you know, the money is going to be a fight.  The

ecosystem is just being trashed.  We know all the damage that‘s taking

place.  Where‘s the political victory here?  Where‘s the upside?  Where‘s

the opportunity? 

SHRUM:  Well, the opportunity here is, as John Garamendi said, to move

forward on alternative energy.  This would be a fight worth having, and

maybe even some of this would be a risk worth running if offshore drilling

was a solution to our energy dependence.  It‘s not.  The only solution long

term to our energy dependence is the development of renewable sources of

energy.  That‘s where we ought to be going. 

SCHULTZ:  Where do you think—what do you think the president‘s

reaction should be to Bill Nelson saying anything on a climate bill is dead

on arrival?  Lindsey Graham says this oil spill is too much of a hot issue. 

They can‘t get anything done on climate change.  Is that a safe move?  What

to you think? 

SHRUM:  I think Lindsey Graham moved away from climate change because

he‘s mad at the Democrats for saying they might move on immigration reform. 

He‘s trying to protect his friend, John McCain, who was one of the original

architects of immigration reform, and now trashes it as he panders to the

right in Arizona. 

I think Bill Nelson, you have to be careful, what he‘s saying is that

a climate change bill that includes offshore drilling just can‘t pass.  I

think he‘s right about that. 

SCHULTZ:  Bob Shrum, great to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so

much. 

SHRUM:  Thanks, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

Now let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these stories

tonight.  An effort to break up the big banks—I can‘t believe this has

failed in the Senate; 27 Democrats joined with three republicans to protect

Wall Street?  Can you believe that? 

And a Republican ideas group, started by Eric Cantor, is dead after a

year.  The righties are blaming liberals for killing it. 

And the RNC is accusing President Obama of waving the white flag on

jobs, even though April was the best month for job growth since 2006? 

With us tonight is Karen Hunter, journalist and publisher, and also

Tony Blankley, nationally syndicated columnist.  Great to have both of you

with us tonight. 

Karen, let‘s talk jobs first if we can.  Why isn‘t President Obama

coming out spiking the ball on this, saying this is the best numbers we‘ve

had in four years? 

KAREN HUNTER, JOURNALIST:  I don‘t know.  I have no idea why; 290,000

new jobs created?  And the flip side to this is, you know, there are

probably millions of jobs that will never come back because I think the

president might need to focus on shifting America‘s focus on creating and

making stuff.  We don‘t make anything in this country anymore.  Everything

is made someplace else.  In the long run, that number, 290,000, is not

going to be very good. 

SCHULTZ:  Tony, earlier tonight, Peter Morici said that the Stimulus

Package is working.  Would you agree with that? 

TONY BLANKLEY, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:  Well, of course it‘s working to

some degree.  There‘s no question.  I was actually in favor of a bigger

stimulus package a year and a half ago, and a better target on job

creation.  The question is how many jobs are we together producing.  As the

professor indicated—I think he indicated that at this rate of job

production, we will be staying between nine and 10 percent unemployment

literally I think until 2014. 

We need to be producing I think about 700,000 jobs a month to get back

to where we are in a few years.  So everything‘s good about creating

290,000 jobs, but it‘s not enough to bring unemployment down to a level

that allows the average working man to have a job. 

HUNTER:  That‘s exactly what I was saying. 

SCHULTZ:  Let‘s talk Wall Street for a moment.  Karen, why in the

world are the democrats getting cold feet on breaking up the banks?  Isn‘t

that what this is all about?  Are you surprised at that vote last night? 

HUNTER:  No, I‘m not.  They don‘t work for us.  Most of the people in

Congress are not working for the people.  It‘s not for the people, by the

people.  It‘s for big business by big business.  They‘re serving their

constituents, the big banks. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you think, Tony?  This is a victory for the right. 

It‘s a victory for the conservatives. 

BLANKLEY:  I think when both Republicans and Democrats agree on

something, either it‘s absolutely evil or it probably makes sense.  I think

it‘s the latter one this time.  Here‘s the reason, because the reason we

have very big banks, the reason we got rid of Glass-Steagall under Clinton,

with a Republican congress, bipartisan again, was because we were trying to

compete with the big European and the big Asian banks. 

If we could have world regulation of banking, I think it might make

sense to try to reduce the size.  Since we can‘t have that, if we‘re not

competitive with Europe and Asia, the money will leave America and we‘ll

become a poorer people. 

SCHULTZ:  Let‘s talk more about the economy, again.  Earlier tonight,

Chris Matthews had a very strong interview with George Pataki, the former

governor of New York.  And either Governor Pataki doesn‘t have his facts

straight or maybe he‘s just misleading.  He said this comment, and I want

to play it.  Here it is. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE PATAKI, FMR. GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK:  He has borrowed trillions

of dollars at a time—and raised taxes on the private sector,

particularly small businesses.  And where does job growth come from?  It

comes from small businesses. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  All right.  I want some response on this from both of you. 

Raise taxes on the private sector, particularly small business.  I heard

that.  I know it‘s wrong.  We called the White House.  They said that‘s

absolutely wrong, and I‘m surprised that Governor Pataki said that.  Karen,

your thoughts on that?  I mean, the right-wing sound machine is out there

trying to discredit this economy and the president. 

HUNTER:  It‘s more of the misinformation campaign, and the reality is,

under George Bush is what I was talking about before, we created a system

where we would not make anything, meaning most jobs are going overseas. 

Most of the wealth is going overseas.  While we have this new 290,000 jobs

this past month, in the long run, it‘s just not going to happen because

this economy is driven by manufacturing.  We don‘t have it here. 

SCHULTZ:  We don‘t.  Tony, the president has not raised taxes on small

businesses.  That‘s it. 

BLANKLEY:  Well, look, the president during the campaign said he was

going to raise taxes on people making over 250,000 dollars.  He‘s planning

to repeal the part of the Bush tax cut—or not bring back part of the

Bush tax cut that‘s going to end at the end of this year for them.  The

problem is that most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, and they‘re

exactly the ones who get hit. 

But small business creates about 65 percent of all the new jobs in

America.  By taxing more heavily the people making between 250,000 and

400,000 dollars you‘re taxing small business and destroying jobs. 

SCHULTZ:  But George Pataki was wrong in his comments.  He has not hit

the private sector with tax increases.  He hasn‘t done it.  The president

has not raised taxes on small businesses.  He hasn‘t done it. 

BLANKLEY:  The health care bill that the president passed includes

taxes requiring business to make payments on health insurance—

SCHULTZ:  That is—you have a choice.  That‘s not a tax increase. 

(CROSS TALK)

BLANKLEY:  OK.  You want to stand on the proposition that a fine is

not a tax?  That‘s fine with me.  But I think that people, if you pay money

to the government, it‘s a tax. 

SCHULTZ:  No, it‘s not.  Not a fee.  Not a fee at all.  Great to have

both of you on tonight.  I appreciate your time.  Thanks, Karen.  Thanks,

Tony. 

Coming up, Senator Bernie Sanders is hot on the trail of two trillion

bailout bucks for the banks.  And he wants to audit the Fed.  You won‘t

believe who‘s on board.  That‘s next on THE ED SHOW.  Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And in my playbook tonight, the Senate is on track to pass a

measure requiring the government to audit the Federal Reserve.  They want

to find out what happened to two trillion dollars of emergency loans the

Fed has doled out since December of 2007.  Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders

introduced the legislation, and it has support from across the political

spectrum. 

The White House came on board late yesterday, after the proposal was

changed to make sure it wouldn‘t interfere with the Fed‘s authority on

monetary policy.  Independent Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders joins me

now.  Senator, great work on this.  It‘s long overdue, as you well know. 

And you‘ve been leading the charge on this. 

This is all about the Fed wanting to make sure they maintain

independence and there‘s no government meddling.  Is that fair? 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT:  Well, not independents.  I think

they should be independent.  But independence is not secrecy.  There‘s just

far too much secrecy and lack of disclosure.  For example, Ed, as you

mentioned, during the bailout process, the Fed lent out at zero or near

zero interest rates over two trillion dollars to the largest financial

institutions in this country. 

Do you know who got that money?  You don‘t know.  I don‘t know.  The

American people don‘t know.  I asked Ben Bernanke that.  He said not going

to tell you.  If we pass my amendment, they will have to tell us.  It will

be up on—on the Internet and everybody in America can know that.  Second

of all—

SCHULTZ:  Are you disappointed—OK.  Go ahead.  Second—

SANDERS:  Second of all, it seems to me—and the GAO needs to

investigate this, whether or not there are just some very outrageous

conflicts of interest.  You got the heads of the largest financial

institutions in our country sitting down with the Fed.  And at the end of

the day, they end up receiving billions of dollars in low-interest loans or

other programs.  That does not seem right to me.  I think we need to know

that as well. 

So, bottom line is we have to lift the veil of secrecy off of the Fed,

and we need to see what‘s going on. 

SCHULTZ:  Do you think the White House has been strong enough on this

issue? 

SANDERS:  No.  Well, quite the contrary.  As you just indicated, until

yesterday, they were in opposition to our amendment.  Their argument was,

which I don‘t really accept—they thought that what we were trying to is

get into the day-to-day functioning of the Fed, monetary policy, have

Congress dictate what interest rates would be.  That was never, never, ever

my intention. 

What we want is transparency at the Fed.  The American people have a

right to know.  And I‘m glad, frankly, that while the Fed, itself, remains

in strong opposition to what we‘re trying to do, at least now the White

House is agreeing with us that we do need that transparency. 

SCHULTZ:  And senator, on another note, the vote that took place last

night on the amendment by Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, the too big to

fail amendment, to break up the banks, what‘s your comment on the Democrats

not doing this?  I mean, I was told on this program last summer by Dick

Durbin that the banks own the Senate.  Well, last night I‘d have to say

that he was spot-on.  Are you surprised that amendment went down? 

SANDERS:  No.  No.  I am disappointed, but certainly not surprised. 

Look, let‘s face it, remember, you had many Democrats and Republicans

voting for deregulation.  Let‘s remember that last year the financial

institutions put 300 million dollars into lobbying, alone.  They have huge

capabilities in terms of campaign contributions.  They are enormously

powerful.  They get what they want. 

What Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman were trying to do is beginning to

move in the right direction.  When you have four large financial

institutions that have over seven trillion dollars in assets, over half the

GDP in this country, when those four large banks write two thirds of the

credit cards, half of the mortgages, absorb 40 percent of the deposits, you

have a very dangerous situation.  Of course you have to break them up. 

SCHULTZ:  I just can‘t—I can‘t believe that the Democrats ran on

change, and after the biggest financial mishap we had in the history of

this country, they can‘t suck it up and do the right thing and vote for

some regulation and also vote to break up the banks, so we won‘t have this

again.  It amazes me.  Senator, great to have you with us tonight.  Thanks

so much. 

SANDERS:  Good to be with you. 

SCHULTZ:  Final page in the playbook tonight.  It‘s been

mathematically proven that Senator John McCain of Arizona is no longer a

maverick.  The Princeton PHD students did a statistical analysis of members

of Congress to find out who the true mavericks really are.  And John McCain

did not score very well.  He was quite the maverick back in 2001, when he

voted against the Bush tax cuts.  But since then, he has plunged back into

the party hack territory with a below-average rating. 

The actual top mavericks of the Senate for this year are Russ Feingold

of Wisconsin, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Evan Bayh of Indiana.  How

about that?  It‘s almost like a game show in Washington. 

Coming up, “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead weighs in on anti-gay

activists who rented a boy online.  Can‘t wait to hear this one, Lizz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And welcome back.  If it‘s Friday, it‘s time for Club Ed,

with Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the “Daily Show.”  Tonight she‘s doing a

benefit for Waggie Tail Rescue at the Bauery (ph) Poetry Club in New York

City.  Tickets are only 10 dollars and all the proceeds go to help small,

unwanted and abandoned dogs. 

LIZZ WINSTEAD, COMEDIAN:  Don‘t read this.  Go, go, go.  Who cares

about where I am in June. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  You‘re all over the place.  All right. 

WINSTEAD:  I know. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you make of George Rekers, the co-founder of the

Family Research Center?  He‘s been a longtime gay basher.  First of all,

he‘s on RentBoy.com and then he happens to pick up a guy and travel with

him.  What do you think? 

WINSTEAD:  He‘s got that nice ‘70s stache.  So it should have been a

clue right off the bat.  I always wondered what the Family Research Council

actually researched, and what family wanted him to research RentBoy.com. 

It‘s sort of awesome. 

I think what we learned this week, Ed, again and again we‘ve been

learning that it really is gay prostitutes who are the unsung heroes of

investigative journalism.  They just get in there and they expose things,

so to speak, and they get it done. 

Here‘s what I think we need to do, though, Ed.  I think what we really

need to do is just get this collection of homophobic Republicans who keep

ending up in gay relationships and just start a master document and call it

Larry Craig‘s list. 

SCHULTZ:  And with that, that‘s Club Ed tonight. 

Tonight, our text survey question was, I asked you, do you believe

conservatives are minimizing the damage of the Gulf to protect big oil? 

Ninety three percent of you said yes; seven percent of you said no.  That‘s

THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right

now.  We‘ll see you Monday night.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY

BE UPDATED.

END   

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.>

transcript

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,