Guests: Jim Hood, Mike Papantonio, David Axelrod, Katrina Vanden Heuvel,
Bill Press, Ron Christie, Bob Shrum, Brent Coon.
HOST: Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW
tonight from New York.
These stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour.
President Obama makes his choice for the Supreme Court, but a lot of
progressives are concerned that Elena Kagan just isn‘t liberal enough.
I‘ll ask senior White House adviser David Axelrod coming up in just a
moment.
And that‘s a big story, but I think this is bigger. The oil disaster
in the Gulf is getting worse. The dome project didn‘t work. And the
country wants to know, what is BP going to do about all of this?
Plus, a new poll in Pennsylvania has Joe Sestak, the congressman,
leading Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. That‘s coming up
in the “Playbook” tonight. You won‘t want to miss the conversation.
But this is the story that has me fired up tonight. The big box, it
didn‘t work. Now what?
BP made $5.6 billion in the first quarter of this year, and they
really didn‘t have a sound plan for an offshore oil disaster? Well,
here‘s what it looks like now.
At this hour, the National Guard is dropping sandbags and filling sand
barriers on the beaches of Louisiana. They‘re scrambling to find another
way to stop this oil leak from dumping 200,000 gallons a day into the Gulf
of Mexico.
You know, when you think of the way this whole thing is unfolding, why
do I get the feeling this is the BP engineering lab working on this crisis?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE THREE STOOGES”)
LARRY FINE, ACTOR: Say, I beg your pardon. Do you have any idea what
we‘re doing?
MOE HOWARD, ACTOR: Now that you mention it, no.
SHEMP HOWARD, ACTOR: Why don‘t you tell the general he ain‘t
Professor Sneed? He couldn‘t invent the rocket fuel in a million years.
FINE: I beg your pardon.
M. HOWARD: Wait a minute, you ignoramuses. If they find out we‘re
only carpet layers, they‘ll go back and grab the real professor. And not
only that, they‘ll shoot us. Now, we‘ve got to fool them. Savvy?
(END VIDEO CLIP, “THE THREE STOOGES”)
SCHULTZ: Yes, we‘ve got to fool them.
I‘m sorry, folks. That‘s how I feel about this whole thing right now.
What else are we supposed to believe at this hour?
The brain wizards over at BP are talking about everything from a
smaller box to shooting garbage into the hole to block the oil? You heard
me right—garbage.
Here‘s the commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADM. THAD ALLEN, U.S. COAST GUARD: The containment dome that was put
over the leak site developed ice crystals, which happens when, at very high
pressure and low temperature, water and natural gas comes together. It
actually started lifting the coffer down, and it became buoyant, and they
had to set it over the seafloor next to it.
The next tactic is going to be something they call a junk shot.
They‘re actually going to take a bunch of debris—shredded up tires, golf
balls and things like that—and under very high pressure shoot it into
the preventer, itself, and see if they can clog it up and stop the leak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Did you hear that? A junk shot?
Now, I‘m not dissing the admiral here, but it just seems to me that
the engineering in this country when it comes to oil drilling down at a
mile deep in the ocean would be a little bit more advanced than that.
Don‘t you think so?
You can‘t make this stuff up. They plan to use golf balls and tires
to try to clog the leak? I mean, I can‘t believe the BP engineers didn‘t
seem to have a clue that this giant box was kind of maybe going to fail
because of the pressure, because of the temperature, because of the
chemical, all of that.
I‘ve got a little secret for you, folks. This is just my opinion. I
thing they‘re winging it and nobody can stop this whole thing.
The United States allowed one of the largest corporations in the world
to get by with drilling off our shores with no true protection from
disaster? They‘re winging it. The offshore oil regulations are some of
the weakest regulations in America.
Just listen to Florida Senator Bill Nelson tell it like it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BILL NELSON (D), FLORIDA: Big oil wants its way, and they‘ve
been trying to bully their way to drill off the coast of Florida, had the
Florida legislature going to let them drill three miles off the coast of
Florida in state waters. Big oil has had its way among the regulators.
There‘s been a cozy relationship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Oh, those cozy relationships, huh?
We‘re getting a major lesson on why government needs to enforce rules
on big business. British Petroleum was allowed to run roughshod on our
waters with no real plan to fix any major damage if it had happened. They
need really to worry about regulations.
Do we have that power? Because they know not worrying about
regulations, they don‘t have to that because it‘s always cheaper to buy
some politician off in Washington and get that “cozy relationship,” instead
of having to maybe worry about cleaning up the biggest ecological disaster
in the history of the country. And that‘s where we‘re headed.
The leak has no—and shows no signs of being stopped any time soon.
We‘re down to hitting golf balls. And I believe before this is over, it
will affect every single American in this economy.
BP engineers—this is what I think—BP engineers, they need to be
out in front of the cameras every single day telling the American public
how they plan on stopping what has become a weapon of mass destruction just
off the American shores. And this is a classic, folks, from the standpoint
we really do, here in this whole thing unfolding in front of our eyes, we
are seeing two Americas. One America that can operate offshore, corporate
America, without regulation, without any oversight. And, oh by the way,
they wanted to do the oversight themselves. They were going to monitor
themselves on all of this.
And then the other America is onshore just waving. Hey, boys, don‘t
make the damage too bad.
Please!
The rich America‘s at sea. The poor America‘s on shore. And we‘re
the ones that‘s going to get stuck with the bill. That‘s what‘s going to
come down on all of this.
And what‘s going to happen to our economy? Well, how did it work out
when it went to $4 a gallon of gasoline not long ago? Did that help?
I‘m not convinced that BP is an honest broker based on the way they
have played the game in the past.
Get your cell phones out, folks. I want to know what you think of
this tonight.
Tonight‘s text survey question is: Do you have confidence that BP will
stop the leak anytime soon?” Text “A” for yes and text “B” for no to
622639. We‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.
And as I‘ve said before, it‘s all about the money.
Joining me now is Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
Mr. Hood, good to have you with us tonight.
I know that you have been working hard on this and you‘ve had some
conversations with the oil company and other people that are involved in
this.
What‘s your confidence level that there is going to be complete
restitution based on your conversations and what you have asked of the oil
company?
JIM HOOD, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, at this point, you
know, we‘re cautiously optimistic that they‘re going to pay what they owe.
That‘s the representations made by their general counsel sitting in my
office last Thursday.
We asked that he put that in writing. Just a few minutes ago, we got
a response to a letter that we, five of us coastal state attorneys general,
sent to the general counsel of BP. They‘ve given us some written
assurances that some of the caps will not apply to our individuals or our
states, and so we‘ve got some written declarations. But then I found out
this afternoon that they have filed some action to try to consolidate all
of the individual class actions that were filed in Houston, Texas, before a
likely friendly federal judge town there in Houston.
SCHULTZ: OK. So what you have in writing now from BP—and are they
the only ones that you were in conference with on this?
HOOD: No. We attorneys general also wrote Transocean and several
other responsible parties.
SCHULTZ: OK. All right.
Now, you‘ve got in writing they‘re going to not pay attention to the
caps. So the $75 million is out the window, right?
HOOD: That‘s correct.
SCHULTZ: OK. And this is—they‘re also now, on the other hand,
going to, I guess you could say, judge shopping. Would you go so far as to
say that?
HOOD: I‘m not sure at this point because I haven‘t seen the complaint
that was filed. I anticipated them doing that.
I asked their general counsel, did they plan on doing that? That was
Thursday. He said that he didn‘t know what the plans were at that point.
I expressed to him I certainly didn‘t want to see our states drug into the
middle of these class actions, because if this oil continues to flow, and
it reaches our beaches, there are going to be a tremendous amount of
damages that the states will incur, as well as loss of tax revenue and, you
know, tourism and so forth.
SCHULTZ: How can you even begin to put a number on that, Mr. Hood?
HOOD: It‘s going to be a difficult task. It can be done.
We‘re of course still optimistic that it won‘t come in and be as bad.
But with these failures occurring, you know, it looks like it‘s going to
continue to flow for a while. And the more it flows, at some point the
winds and currents will change, and I anticipate us receiving a pretty
serious impact. I flew out over the Chandeleur Islands Thursday, and, you
know, it was a sea of red around the islands out there.
SCHULTZ: So, when it hits your shore, you‘ve now got in writing from
BP and Transocean that they‘re going to not pay attention to the caps and
they‘re going to do everything they can to take care of this, and there
will be full restitution? I‘ll tell you what, I‘m going to stay tuned to
this movie. This would be a brand new chapter in their history.
Mr. Hood, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.
HOOD: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: And that‘s the way you‘ve got to handle these oil companies.
But, of course, they play both ends against the middle.
Mike Papantonio can tell you that better than anybody, environmental
lawyer whose firm is leading the class action lawsuits against BP.
All right. So we‘ve got some new information there, Mike. What do
you make of that?
MIKE PAPANTONIO, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER: Well, first of all, this is
the first time where I‘ve really thought that we might have something that
looks like a limited fund, where you have a bankruptcy. This company is
losing $350 million a day.
And so Jim Hood is a leader. Look, let me just tell you, he‘s one of
the most aggressive, responsible AGs probably on the coast. But the truth
is, they can make all kinds of promises, but what did they do today, Ed?
They did judge-shop. They forum-shopped. They went somewhere where
they can tell an AG, yes, we‘re there to help you, but then the next thing
we know, they‘re in front of a judge in south Texas, where the oil industry
is king.
So, that didn‘t just happen by mistake. And look, I applaud Jim Hood
for trying. He‘s out front on the fight.
But the truth is, this is a company that at the end of the day,
they‘re concerned about up thing, can they survive? And I‘ve got to tell
you, this is the first time, Ed, where I‘ve really thought they might not
survive. And if they go into something called a bankruptcy-limited fund,
that judge over in Texas—and I‘m not—let me just tell you something -
I‘m going to fight like the dickens to keep it out of Texas because I‘m
worried about what‘s happening in Texas.
But at the same time, if they do—this is something that could put
this company out of money. I mean, I‘m telling you.
Yes, they made $30 billion last year, $27 billion the year before
that, but they could argue in front of a judge that it‘s foreseeable that
they don‘t have enough money to pay for all of this. Transocean,
Halliburton, nobody has enough to pay for all of this. Then what happens?
And it‘s the first time in the last couple of days where I‘ve been
thinking that‘s really a possibility. I hope it‘s not, but I‘ve got to
tell you, I‘m less optimistic that it‘s not.
SCHULTZ: Now, this is actual video of what‘s going on down there.
And, of course, it‘s all done by robot. And the pressure, the temperature,
the environment down there that‘s being created by the different chemicals,
how could the BP engineers not know that this was going to be a heavy lift?
I just find this amazing.
PAPANTONIO: There‘s a great scene in Leslie Nielsen‘s movie
“Airplane,” where the airplane‘s out of control, there‘s no pilot, and the
flight attendant walks to the back of the airplane and says, “Does anybody
here know how to fly an airplane?” Well, that‘s what BP is doing.
Just like you said when you opened this program, they‘re winging it,
Ed. There‘s no question.
It‘s so bad, they even have a toll-free number that they‘ve put up
asking for ideas. They‘re showing up at meetings all over the coast and
they‘re asking people in the audience, “Do you have an idea?” These aren‘t
--
SCHULTZ: If it gets to a Texas judge, the chances aren‘t very good
for full restitution. Is that fair?
PAPANTONIO: Well, I think it‘s—I think it‘s very fair. There‘s a
couple of things.
First of all, there‘s a circuit—it‘s called the Fifth Circuit.
It‘s one of the least favorable circuits we‘d want to be with this issue.
And look, I‘ve got to tell you something. If you don‘t think that they
went out of their way to pat those courts these last 10 years, that the
Republicans focussed on trying to pat not just the trial courts, but the
appellate courts in that state, all you have to do is look at the results
even on a state level. It‘s disastrous.
So, this just doesn‘t happen, that they say, hey, we want to go to
Texas. There‘s more cases filed in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and
Florida than Texas.
SCHULTZ: And quickly, do you believe that they‘re honest brokers when
they tell five attorneys general that they‘re not going to pay attention to
the caps?
PAPANTONIO: No.
SCHULTZ: They all pay attention to caps. They may not pay attention
to a cap of $75 million, but there‘s going to be a number when they‘re
going to stop and fight.
PAPANTONIO: You should have heard the promises they made in the
tobacco litigation, Ed. You should have heard the promises. They‘d sit
across the table and tell you one thing. The next day, they do absolutely
the opposite of what they promise.
So I applaud Jim Hood for trying.
SCHULTZ: Mike, keep up the fight, my man. I hear you. Keep up the
fight.
PAPANTONIO: Thanks a lot.
SCHULTZ: Mike Papantonio with us tonight.
You won‘t want to miss the show tomorrow night, THE ED SHOW. Senator
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is going to be joining me to talk about the
spill and some of the criticism she‘s levied at her Democratic colleagues
in the Senate on this issue.
Coming up, the righties wasted no time in launching vicious attacks on
the president‘s pick for the Supreme Court. They‘re calling her a radical
anti-military zealot?
David Axelrod responds, next.
And Sean Hannity says it‘s time for the president to step up or step
aside? You know where that puts him, right in the “Zone.”
All that, plus we‘ve got Tiger. He‘s got a pain in the neck.
And Betty White, did she knock it out of the park on “Saturday Night
Live”?
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. And thanks for watching
tonight.
Earlier today, President Obama nominated U.S. Solicitor General Elena
Kagan to be the next nation—to be the nation‘s next Supreme Court
justice. He described her as a trailblazing leader and praised her
intellect and temperament. If confirmed, Kagan will replace retiring
Justice John Paul Stevens, regarded as the liberal anchor of the court.
Joining us now on THE ED SHOW is senior White House adviser David
Axelrod.
Mr. Axelrod, good to have you with us tonight. Making your debut on
THE ED SHOW. Not too much pressure here, is there?
DAVID AXELROD, SR. WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: I don‘t know if I can handle
it, Ed, but let‘s see if I can survive this. Good to be with you. Good to
be with you.
SCHULTZ: It‘s good to be with you.
All right. Elena Kagan, how big of a fight is this going to be? She
got seven Republican votes for being the solicitor general‘s position. Do
you expect you‘ll get that kind of support this time around?
AXELROD: I don‘t know, Ed. She should. She should get broad
support.
She has got a superb background, a very broad background in the law.
She has got a distinguished record and support across the political
spectrum.
So you would think that she would do well, but, you know, there are
many times that I think we‘ll reach consensus in Washington and a funny
thing happens on the way to the ball. So we‘ll wait and see, but we‘re
prepared for a rigorous process, and I‘m sure she‘s prepared for a rigorous
process.
SCHULTZ: Republicans are saying that she‘s short on experience. In
fact, she would be the first justice without judicial experience in some 40
years.
Does that bother you? And is that a chance the White House is taking?
AXELROD: No, I don‘t think it‘s a chance. The fact is that she‘s got
great—as I said, great breadth of experience in every branch of
government.
She was the dean of the Harvard Law School. And as solicitor general,
she spent much of the last year and a half at the Supreme Court, arguing
before the Supreme Court. In fact, they refer to her as the tenth justice
because she worked so closely with the Supreme Court.
In fact, they refer to her as the 10th justice because she worked so
closely with the Supreme Court. So I don‘t think that‘s going—if that‘s
the most potent argument, I don‘t think it‘s going to be a very successful
one.
SCHULTZ: Did President Obama have her in mind all along, back to a
year ago?
AXELROD: You know, Ed, he interviewed her when he appointed Justice
Sotomayor. He‘s always had a high regard for her, obviously, because he
appointed her solicitor general, which is an extraordinarily important
post, arguing for the United States of America before the Supreme Court.
But—and going into this appointment, he knew he was replacing
Justice Stevens, who was a leader on the court for a generation, someone
who commanded great respect and who the other justices look to. While
nobody can replace him in that leadership role, nobody can replace a
generation of experience, he wanted to appoint someone who over time, could
play a leadership role on the court, and he believes Elena Kagan is that
person.
SCHULTZ: Some Republicans like Senator Barrasso is saying that he
wants to challenge her in the hearings on the constitutionality of the
health care bill that was recently passed.
What‘s the White House make of that?
AXELROD: Well, I mean, from the standpoint of the White House, we
believe the health care law is constitutional and will be found
constitutional. The president didn‘t discuss that particular issue with
Elena Kagan because it would have been inappropriate to do so. But he
believes that the law is constitutional. And I would guess that people who
he thinks are qualified for the court and see the Constitution properly
might arrive at the same place.
SCHULTZ: A lot of liberals—if my show on the radio is any
indication at all, a lot of progressives thinks that she‘s not liberal
enough, that she doesn‘t go anywhere near as far as Justice Stevens.
Was the president looking for a liberal-leaning judge?
AXELROD: Well, first of all, Ed, you know, it‘s kind of curious,
because on the same day that you‘re asking me that question, you know,
there are people on the right who are hammering her because she clerked for
Abner Mikva and she clerked for Justice Marshall, and accepted his view
that the court should stand up for the least of us. And, you know, she has
a long history here that should give people some sense of what her personal
sensibilities are.
But what the president was looking for, above all, was a justice who
believed as he believed, that we have to respect the Constitution, uphold
the Constitution, but also do it in a way that makes sure that everybody
gets a fair shake. Not just the powerful, but everybody gets a fair shake.
And that‘s a view that Elena Kagan reflects.
SCHULTZ: And how does the president feel about her position when she
was the dean of the Harvard Law School and she did not want military
recruiters on campus? This seems, too, to be a point of contention for a
lot of conservatives.
AXELROD: Well, understand, she did express a view on “Don‘t Ask,
Don‘t Tell.” Her view was that any American who wants to serve their
country ought to be allowed to serve their country.
She also was a strong supporter of young people on the campus who
joined the military, who enlisted in the military. And there was
recruitment on campus. There wasn‘t recruitment through the campus career
center. That was a policy that was established before she got there, and
she upheld it until it was ruled unlawful.
SCHULTZ: Mr. Axelrod, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so
much.
AXELROD: All right, Ed. Good to be with you.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, from the White House,
with us here on THE ED SHOW.
Coming up, of all people, Sean Hannity, who can‘t get his concert
numbers correct, says the president of the United States isn‘t interested
in the facts or the truth. And you know where that lands him—right in
the “Zone,” next on THE ED SHOW.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, Sean Hannity has a new one for
us. He says President Obama should think about calling it quits. Yes.
Here‘s some of his whacked-out reasons why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: On this night we are asking you to approach
this president with a veil of ignorance and judge him only by his actions
of the past week—his response to the oil spill, his reaction to the
attempted Times Square bombing, his mischaracterization of the Arizona
immigration law, and his failure to publicly acknowledged the disaster that
is unfolding in Nashville, Tennessee.
Mr. President, well, what in the world are you doing? Is it time to
step up or maybe step aside?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Step aside.
Hannity, you‘ve been hanging around your friend Sarah Palin too much.
Or did you get that talking point from Michele Bachmann, holding that sign
up at her rally?
Let‘s look at what President Obama has been doing.
The morning after the oil rig explosion in the Gulf, he sent the
deputy secretary of the Interior and the Coast Guard to the region
immediately. Since then, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary
of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and the president, himself, they
have all visited the Gulf Coast.
The Times Square bomber was caught and locked up just 53 hours after
he tried to set off a car bomb. And by the way, in case you missed that
story, Sean, he is talking and giving valuable information.
Also, President Obama characterized the Arizona immigration bill
pretty accurately. The original bill basically legalized racial profiling.
And what‘s more, a bunch of righties including Karl Rove, Jeb Bush and
Marco Rubio all spoke out against that law as well.
Finally, the Obama administration responded immediately to the
flooding in Nashville. FEMA got down there before it even started to rain.
Both the governor of Tennessee and the mayor of Nashville have praised the
White House‘s response. And Obama, the president of the United States,
sent Secretary Janet Napolitano down to Nashville this past Saturday.
Hannity, you know, you cheered on George W. Bush for eight years as he
took the country down the tubes and into a dirt road. And, of course, now
you suggest that President Obama should consider stepping down?
“Psycho Talk,” buddy. One hundred percent “Psycho Talk.”
Coming up, “The Beckster” and “The Drugster,” they‘re not getting away
with anything either. They have all the angles covered when it comes to
smearing the president‘s Supreme Court nominee.
Beck‘s calling her a socialist, Rush is calling her a Marxist. And
Katrina vanden Heuvel takes them both on in just a moment.
Plus, Shooter Jr., I guess you could say, and Iraq Rudy can‘t stand
the fact that President Obama is keeping us safe. I‘ll get rapid fire
response, find out what they‘re saying coming up on THE ED SHOW.
And Tiger, he‘s got a real issue. He‘s hot under the collar, but it
isn‘t injury. That‘s coming up in the playbook. You‘re watching THE ED
SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: While we can‘t presume
to replace Justice Stevens‘ wisdom or experience, I have selected a nominee
who I believe embodies that same excellence, independence, integrity, and
passion for the law, and who can ultimately provide that same kind of
leadership on the court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. This is the Battle Ground
story. President Obama says Elena Kagan will provide the same leadership
as retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. There are a lot of liberals who are
not convinced as of yet. Justice Stevens is the anchor of the court‘s
liberal wing. He railed against many of the Bush/Cheney abuses of
executive power, such as the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
As solicitor general, Elena Kagan has fought for the Obama
administration to preserve some of the Bush era terror tactics. But Kagan
also has a strong record of taking on business. As solicitor general, she
led the fight to keep corporate cash out of our elections.
For more, let‘s bring in Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of “The
Nation.” I always revere your opinion, Katrina. Thank you. I know a lot
of progressives around the country are wondering where does “The Nation”
editorial board come down on this one?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, “THE NATION”: You know, I think Elena Kagan is
a cautious pick. At the same time, I think the main thing at this moment
in our history is we need to look at this court, which has been in the
business in these last few years of protecting corporations and not
ordinary people, protecting powerful interests, that other America you were
talking about earlier, Ed.
And I think Elena Kagan is someone who clerked for one of the great
civil rights lawyers, justices of the 20th century, Thurgood Marshal,
worked for a liberal icon, Admiral Mikva (ph). I think it‘s too early to
tell which direction she‘ll head in. I think she has great experience.
You don‘t need to be in the judicial monastery to look at Earl Warren.
But I do think there are some troubling issues and questions that need
to be raised at the confirmation hearing about her views on executive
power. As solicitor general, she defended the administration. In 2005,
she along with three other law school deans sent a tough letter to the
Senate Judiciary Committee protesting the administration‘s unreviewable
executive power. So I think we need to probe in this confirmation hearing,
understanding that the court has taken a right-word, corporate-leaning
direction in the last few years.
SCHULTZ: We can imagine what the Republican response has been. Mitch
McConnell, Senate minority leader, says “the American people also want a
nominee with requisite legal experience. They instinctively know that a
lifetime position on the Supreme Court does not lend itself to job
training.”
Jeff Sessions of Alabama, also on the Judiciary Committee, says—the
Judiciary Committee‘s ranking Republican echoed a similar sentiment. “Ms.
Kagan‘s lack of judicial experience and short time as solicitor general,
arguing just six cases before the court is troubling.”
It‘s an experience issue from that standpoint. Is she going to have
to knock it out of the park?
VANDEN HEUVEL: Listen, this is a woman who was dean of the Harvard
Law School. She‘s solicitor general. She was confirmed by the Senate.
This idea that you have to have worn a black robe to have the requisite
experience, in my view, is just folly. If you need that kind of experience
to pass what we just got out of the Citizens United decision, unleashing
corporate money, a sluice gate into our system, polluting our political
system, what value are judicial robes?
I think Elena Kagan, there are issues to be raised. But this notion
of experience is just foolish. These Republicans need creative new talking
points. They are tedious. It‘s a pale, stale party, which is now
attacking Elena Kagan for her praise of Thurgood Marshal, who in his
valedictory address spoke of the original Constitution as a defective one.
He was talking about the fact that this nation, always in quest of becoming
a more perfect union, was founded in slavery with slavery. If that is not
defective, then the Republican party is essentially defending slavery now.
And that, to me, suggests a party that is unmoored from the values it once
once had as a party, and needs to go back to its roots and find some way
forward. President Lincoln is turning in his grave.
SCHULTZ: Do you think that they‘ll get any Republican help on this?
I mean, she got seven votes for the solicitor general‘s position a year
ago. Will any of those votes show up this time around?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don‘t know. This party seems to be rooting for
President Obama‘s failure on every count.
SCHULTZ: Yeah.
VANDEN HEUVEL: And in this arena, it may be the same thing. They‘re
going to go after Elena Kagan on this lousy, stupid nullification of the
health care reform, which is patently unconstitutional under Congress‘
authority to regulate interstate commerce and tax and spend. If that‘s
where they want to put their energies, this is a party soon going to be
called the Grand Obstructionist Party, not the Grand Old Party.
SCHULTZ: Katrina Vanden Heuvel, always a pleasure. Great to have you
with us tonight.
Now let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these
stories. Right wing attack dogs like Liz Cheney and Rudy Giuliani slamming
the successful capture of the suspected Times Square terrorist.
The Republicans say the nation‘s top attorney, Elena Kagan, is as
unqualified for the Supreme Court as the Bush nominee, Harriet Miers.
The Tea Party crowd is claiming victory in Utah after conservative
voters ousted incumbent Senator Bob Bennett at the state party convention
over the weekend.
With us tonight, Bill Press, nationally syndicated radio talk show
host, and Ron Christie, Republican strategist.
Gentlemen, let‘s talk about our good friend, my good friend, Liz
Cheney and, of course, Rudy Giuliani. I mean, why do I get this feeling,
Bill Press, that if the Obama administration were to hand Osama bin Laden
to the American people, that they‘d find something wrong with it?
BILL PRESS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know that they would, Ed.
Look, as you pointed out earlier, first of all, the bomb didn‘t go off.
Nobody was killed. This guy was captured in 53 hours. Great job by the
New York Police Department, the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security.
They got tons of information out of him. He‘s still talking. They
did everything right. Liz Cheney, who had a desk job at the State
Department because her name is Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani, who told the
nation that there was no terrorist attack under George W. Bush on our soil,
nobody ought to take them seriously.
You know what, Ed, when it comes to Americans being killed by foreign
terrorists on American soil, the score is still 3,000 to zero, Bush versus
Obama.
SCHULTZ: Ron, what about, you know, Attorney General Eric Holder
saying, look, we‘ve got to make some changes Mirandizing some of these
suspects? They‘re willing to move on that and look at it again. What
about that?
RON CHRISTIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I still think President Obama
and the attorney general don‘t get it fundamentally, and they don‘t
recognize that we‘re in a war against terrorism. This isn‘t about giving
people Miranda rights. This isn‘t about, let me just take a moment so I
can advise you to remain silent. This is about a war. It is Islamic Jihad
at war with the United States. And whether the attorney general and the
president want to deny it or not, that‘s the fact. That‘s what my friend
Liz Cheney was saying. That‘s what my Mayor Giuliani is saying.
SCHULTZ: Ron, they say this every single time.
CHRISTIE: Of course they say this every single time because we‘re
consistent. We should not be giving them Miranda rights. We should not
telling them, A, that they should be given the opportunity to remain silent
and get a lawyer when there‘s valuable information that can be obtained.
PRESS: You‘re not only consistent, you‘re consistently wrong. They
did not immediately give him his Miranda rights. They questioned him under
that emergency procedure, which they‘re allowed to do for terror suspects.
They got all the information. Then he happens to be an American citizen.
He has his rights and they read him his Miranda rights, Ron.
(CROSS TALK)
SCHULTZ: Let‘s respond to this. This is a criticism coming from
Giuliani and Cheney. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI, FMR. MAYOR OF NEW YORK: I would not have given him
Miranda warnings after just a couple hours of questioning. I would have
instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that.
And at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question
him for a much longer period of time.
LIZ CHENEY, DAUGHTER OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: When the
administration captures a terrorist and their first instinct is to inform
him that he‘s got the right to remain silent, that is exactly the wrong way
to win this war. If you aren‘t willing to acknowledge that you‘re facing a
committed network of terrorists as your enemies, and that it‘s radical,
Jihadist Islam, then your response to that is, by definition, going to be
insufficient time and time again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Ron Christie, did they know right away that there was a
Pakistani connection?
CHRISTIE: I don‘t know whether they knew right off the bat—
SCHULTZ: So everybody that‘s—
(CROSS TALK)
CHRISTIE: Hang on a second. Ed, my point here that I‘m being very
consistent about this. If the American government takes somebody into
custody, who has declared war, in essence, by trying to explode a bomb in
Times Square, this is not a legal procedure. This is someone who is trying
to go to war with America. And we need to deal with that.
SCHULTZ: You want to have law enforcement totally view different acts
of violence. We‘re going to have—whether you‘re in the United States,
if you‘re a citizen or not, all of a sudden they‘re going to make the
arbitrary decision that, hey, you‘re an enemy combatant. Go ahead, Bill.
PRESS: You know what the bottom line is here, Ed? They cannot stand
the success of Barack Obama in dealing with terrorism and dealing with
terrorist suspects. We‘ve seen it with the Christmas Day bomber. We‘ve
seen it with this guy in Times Square. It is working and the Republicans
are—they‘re just nervous. They‘re scared because they‘re losing their
one issue.
CHRISTIE: We‘re not losing our issue. It‘s all political.
SCHULTZ: I have to switch subjects. All of a sudden, the Tea Party
in Utah is taking credit for ousting Senator Bennett with Tim Bridgewater
at 37 percent, Mike Lee at 36 percent, and the senator not endorsed at the
GOP convention. What do you make of this, Ron Christie?
CHRISTIE: I think that Senator Bennett had the opportunity to go home
to Utah and explain to his constituents his record in the United States
Senate, and he was fundamentally rejected by his nominating committee. I
don‘t see this as much of having his entitlement to the Senate seat. I
think he didn‘t close the deal with his constituents and they sent him
home.
SCHULTZ: So, Bill, this means that the Tea Party is officially
Republican operatives in disguise then? Nothing original about them at
all.
PRESS: I think it says two things. One is I think every incumbent,
Republican or Democrat, has a target on his or her back this year, and they
better know it. Secondly, you know what I think it means, Ed? The
Republicans are eating their own. Bob Bennett is one of the most decent
guys in the U.S. Senate. He served that state well. They just—
SCHULTZ: Ron, you just got to admit that the Tea Partiers, they can‘t
fake it. They‘re all Republicans. Good to have you with us tonight.
(CROSS TALK)
SCHULTZ: Got to run, guys.
Coming up, Admiral Joe Sestak is quickly becoming Arlen Specter‘s
worst nightmare. He‘s closed the gap and is on track to pull off a win
next week in Pennsylvania. I‘ll show you how he‘s doing next in the
playbook. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: In my playbook tonight, how about this, Congressman Joe
Sestak has surged ahead of Senator Arlen Specter in the Democratic state
primary in Pennsylvania. Polls show Sestak now ahead by five points, 47 to
42. And President Obama‘s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court
throws a new twist into this race. Senator Specter voted against
confirming Kagan as solicitor general last year, while he was still a
Republican. Six weeks after the vote, he switched sides, and now he‘s the
only Senate Democrat to have opposed Kagan.
Joining me now is Bob Shrum, Democratic strategist, professor at New
York University. Interesting political winds are blowing in Pennsylvania,
Bob. What do you make—is this going to be a real talking point for
Sestak? And what do you make of his revival? Heck, he was down by more
than 25 points at one time.
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, he was smart. He waited
until near the end. He had less—he had fewer resources than Specter,
and he invested them at the time when they counted most. Look, we know why
Specter voted against Elena Kagan the first time for solicitor general. He
was desperately trying to survive in the Republican Party.
Now, he can‘t go out and say that. So what he said today is there are
two different jobs. Obviously he has an open mind about her as a Supreme
Court justice. I don‘t have much doubt that he‘ll vote for her. What‘s
happened here is that Sestak has successfully turned Specter back into a
Republican. Specter thought his biggest asset was that he had Barack Obama
campaigning for him. But what Sestak has done is put an ad on the air
showing George Bush saying really nice things about Arlen Specter, ending
up with a shot of Arlen Specter standing with Sarah Palin. That‘s hurt
him.
Go ahead, Ed.
SCHULTZ: You‘ve got the Democratic establishment, the president, the
vice president, Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, told us on this
program months ago that Joe Sestak would get killed if he decided to go
against Arlen Specter. I mean, just grassroots hard working makes a
difference, and people right now, it seems to me, are ready for change. So
and Bush, of course, is good copy if you want to put somebody in a bad
place.
SHRUM: Yeah. Ed Rendell should have understood, and probably did
actually when he was on the program, that running with the endorsement of
the whole Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania doesn‘t guarantee you
victory, because he got nominated for governor when he didn‘t have that
endorsement.
All of that said, and after everything I said, the Democratic party
does have to welcome converts. We do have to recognize that without Arlen
Specter, the Stimulus might not have passed. Health care probably wouldn‘t
have passed. And I don‘t think going out and going after people who come
over to our side is a good idea.
Specter, himself, has created some of his problems. First by standing
up and saying, well, I switch parties because it was the way to get re-
elected. And secondly I think by launching an ill-advised attack, which I
don‘t compare to Swift Boating, by the way, on Sestak‘s service, not his
bravery, not his character, but his temperament when he was in the Naval
chain of command. I think it‘s a dumb ad, because a lot of Democrats think
it does resonate with Swift Boating and I think it reacted against it.
SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, always great insight, appreciate your time
tonight.
Couple final pages in my playbook tonight. It seems like Tiger Woods
just can‘t seem to catch a break. He withdrew from the Players
Championship yesterday with what he fears might be a bulging disk in his
upper back. Tiger said he was having a hard time with back pain and that
he had a tingling sensation down his right side.
This was only his third tournament back after a five-month break from
the sport. There‘s no word yet on when Tiger may be back in action.
Also, it was quite a Sunday for the Oakland A‘s pitcher Dallas Braden.
The 24th-round draft pick from the 2004 draft pitched the game‘s 19th
perfect game in Major League history, beating the Tampa Bay Devil Rays four
to nothing. Dallas lost his mom to skin cancer when he was a teenager.
His grandmother raised him after that. He celebrated Mother‘s Day in the
stands. Watch him with the victory. Pretty cool.
Finally, Betty White took the stage this weekend to host “Saturday
Night Live.” White got the invitation to host “Saturday Night Live” after
a Facebook group calling her the host gained almost half a million members.
But that didn‘t stop Betty from taking a shot at the popular website.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BETTY WHITE, ACTRESS: When I first heard about the campaign to get me
to host “Saturday Night Live,” I didn‘t know what Facebook was. And now
that I do know what it is, I have to say it sounds like a huge waste of
time. People say but Betty, Facebook is a great way to connect with old
friends. Well, at my age if I want to connect with old friends I need a
Ouiji Board.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: At 88, Betty was the oldest person ever to host “Saturday
Night Live,” and she managed to bring the show its highest ratings in
nearly two years. I wonder if she‘s coming back.
Coming up, big problems for BP. They‘re in full-blown damage control
mode. The dome isn‘t working. They can‘t stop the oil from flowing. And
lawsuits are gushing from all sides.
I‘ll talk with a lawyer that sued BP five years ago after refinery
explosion. That‘s next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And finally tonight on THE ED SHOW, BP says that they have
already spent 350 million dollars cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. Some analysts say the final tab could reach into the tens of
billions. But the clean-up cost isn‘t the only thing that they have to
worry about. Class-action lawsuits are already on the table. And the Gulf
Coast has yet to feel the full effect of the spill.
Joining me now is an attorney who knows all about dealing with BP,
Attorney Brent Coon. He sued BP back in 2005 after a refinery explosion
killed 15 people.
Mr. Coon, good to have you with us tonight. Earlier in this
broadcast, we had the attorney general of Mississippi, Jim Hood, tell us
that he‘s got it in writing that BP is willing to go along with raising the
caps. We were also told minutes ago that Robert Gibbs, in a statement,
says that President Obama is willing to go along with updating the law and
dealing with caps.
Based on your experience, take us down this road. What do you think
this means?
BRENT COON, SUED BP IN ‘05 AFTER EXPLOSION: First of all, you want to
ask, Ed, why are there caps? How did the caps get there in the first
place? Why should we be raising caps? Why are there caps at all? That‘s
the first thing we ought to be asking.
SCHULTZ: What could this end up being? We‘ve seen BP in action
already with some of their attorneys along the Gulf Coast trying to get
people to sign off and say they‘re not going to take legal action. Is this
standard operating procedure?
COON: It really is, Ed. What we learned from the explosion case,
that killed 15 people, injured hundreds—in that case, we obtained seven
million documents. We deposed everyone in the BP organization, from the
janitors in Texas City to the CEO in London. What we find out is that BP
as a company had a very poor safety record and a very poor safety culture.
They didn‘t really care about safety.
SCHULTZ: Let‘s not forget the 11 people that died in this explosion
as well. When you take a look at them trying to move this to a Texas
court, what‘s that tell you?
COON: It tells you they may be more comfortable at home. BP is a
Texas-based company, a Houston-based company. The other involved entities,
Halliburton, Trans-Ocean, those are also Houston-based companies. So they
may have a little more comfort being back here. But obviously they‘re
looking to get their arms around the litigation. The whole purpose of all
of this would be to form what they call a multi-district litigation group
to get their arms around the crisis they‘re facing with lawsuits.
SCHULTZ: Quickly, this is going to be a heavy lift to get it right,
isn‘t it?
COON: It‘s going to be a terrible lift to get it right. The problem
we have, now, Ed, we don‘t know how bad it‘s going to be. It looks like
the oil spill is going to take months before they can cap it. They‘re
talking about shoving golf balls, shredded tires down an oil well.
Frankly, one point I want to make today, if they really want to look at
golf balls and tires because they have to find a dense material to shove
down the well holes, I can tell you right now, from our experience, there‘s
nothing more dense than head of the BP executive. Put those down the holes
to plug them.
SCHULTZ: Got to run, Mr. Coons. Great to have you with us tonight.
Reminder, don‘t miss tomorrow night‘s show. Senators Mary Landrieu
and Frank Lautenberg will be here to join me about the BP oil spill.
In our text question tonight, I asked you, do you have confidence BP
will stop the leak? Eight percent of you said yes; 92 percent of you said
no. See you tomorrow night. “HARDBALL” is next.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2010 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.