updated 5/13/2010 9:26:52 AM ET 2010-05-13T13:26:52

Guests: Jeff Bingaman, Reese Halter, Leo Gerard, Eric Burns, Laura

Flanders, Karen Hanretty, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

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

tonight from Charlotte, North Carolina.  I‘ll tell you all about that in a

moment. 

These stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour. 

Well, these big oil executives were back for another dog and pony show

on Capitol Hill today.  Congress really has a choice here.  They can side

with the oil companies, or they can side with the American people.  It‘s

really that simple. 

Going to have a commentary on that in just a moment. 

China‘s already taken more than two million American manufacturing

jobs.  They‘re not playing fair.  And I think it‘s time for the Obama

administration to take some action on all of this. 

President Obama has taken on a full plate this year, and he‘s shown

some success when it comes to health care and the economy.  But it may not

be enough to help Democrats who are running in November. 

We‘ll break it all down and I‘ll talk about the DCCC chairman‘s role

with Chris van Hollen coming up in the “Playbook.”

But first tonight, I want to make a correction right off the top. 

In recent days we have been reporting on this program on two different

occasions that Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana had taken $1.8 million

from BP.  And I want to come off the top tonight and correct that number. 

It is $752,000.

From 1996 to 2010, Senator Landrieu is ranked 14th out of the top 20

senators when it comes to taking money from big oil.  And the total number

is $772,000.  And I want all of you to know our apologies from me, Ed

Schultz, on this.  I don‘t like getting my numbers wrong.

Whereas I have a lot of differences with the senator when it comes to

this oil spill, she is correct when her office says that our number was

wrong at $1.8 million.  It is $752,000.

All right.  Now, to the oil spill, the president, I don‘t know if this

was kind of a mop-up job or whether it was a clarification on exactly where

the administration is, but the president and his administration today put

out, I think, a very detailed message to the American people on exactly

what they have done and what their plan is to deal with this major

ecological disaster that we‘re experiencing down in the Gulf.  A lot of

folks are going to get hurt. 

My focus is what we do now in the Congress, and I think all Americans

are focussed on one thing, that BP and whoever else was involved in this,

Transocean and also Halliburton, they don‘t stick you and me with the bill. 

This is a classic example of big corporate America dictating to the

Congress what they‘re going to pay and what they‘re not going to pay.  And

the bottom line is, you and me, out here in the heartland, outside the

beltway, we get stuck with the bill a lot. 

Now, what I find interesting in all of this is that the Republicans

have been ominously silent about who has to pay the bill on this cleanup

and restitution when it comes to a lot of Americans who are going to be

affected by this in the economy.  They were so concerned about Wall Street

bailouts.  They were so concerned about the auto industry getting a loan

from the federal government so we could save thousands of jobs in this

country.  But I don‘t see where the Republicans and the conservatives are

coming out saying, damn it, we‘re going to make sure that the people who

are responsible for this are going to be writing all the checks and it‘s

not going to be on the backs of middle class Americans, it‘s going to be

full restitution. 

I don‘t hear the Republicans saying that. 

Now, the president said today in his statement from the White House

that they are going to obviously make sure that there‘s restitution,

they‘re also looking at liability caps and changing all of that.  But let‘s

get the straight talk. 

I need the president of the United States and this administration and

every committee member to step up and say this is not going to be a

situation of corporate welfare, this is not going to be a bailout to big

oil, this is not going to be, all of a sudden, we get nailed with $4.50 a

gallon gas at the pump so we can make sure that BP can make their record

profits again.  It can‘t work like this. 

The word “oversight” is not a bad word at this point.  This is why we

have government.  This is what we expect the Congress to do. 

So, no big oil bailout.  Can you guarantee that?  Can the lawmakers

guarantee that to the American people? 

The other thing is, no liability limits.  Look, you make a mistake,

why should anybody be hurt from what big oil has been doing? 

And this idea that we have to have research and development and we

can‘t impede development, hey, listen, when it comes to the sake of saving

the environment, oh, yes, we can.  That‘s what this is supposed to be all

about, oversight, and you can‘t let an industry just go out and say, hey, I

think we‘re just going to shake the pockets of those in Washington to make

sure that we can be our own police agency when it comes to make sure that

we‘re dealing with safety standards at 5,000 feet below the surface. 

Now look at what we have on our hands. 

Now, of course, there‘s going to be another device that‘s going to be

put in place in the coming hours, and hopefully that will work.  But wait a

minute, I‘m not done yet on expenses. 

You pay a lot in tax, I pay a lot in tax.  We have a hell of a

military budget.  The National Guard is out there and the Coast Guard is

out there.  And I think BP and Transocean and Halliburton, they have to

come out and say to the American people, whatever the Coast Guard spends

we‘re going to cover, whatever National Guardsmen out there on the line

trying to save the shores, we‘re going to pay that bill, too. 

Let‘s get some full disclosure.  It‘s always about the money.  And

it‘s always about the little guy getting stuck by the corporate boys. 

As I said previously this week, you see, there‘s two Americas. 

There‘s one offshore that is just drilling the hell out of the economy,

doing whatever—they were down there for profit.  That‘s where they were.

They weren‘t down there to make sure that the United States of America

is energy-independent.  They were down in there because they wanted to make

a dollar.  And so now they make a mistake and we can‘t get guarantees that

you and I aren‘t going to pay for that mistake? 

That‘s where I am on this whole thing.  And I don‘t buy this theory

that they can go down that deep and they don‘t have to have regulation, and

there can‘t be any oversight, and they can take care of all of that

themselves.  I don‘t—do you know anybody in your workplace that can

operate independently like that and just do whatever the heck they want to

do? 

Get your cell phones out, folks.  I want to know what you think about

all of this tonight. 

Tonight‘s text survey question is: Do you trust Congress to hold BP

accountable?  Text “A” for yes, text “B” for no to 622639.  We‘ll bring you

the results later on in the show. 

Joining me now is Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy

and Natural Resources Committee. 

Senator, good to have you with us tonight.  It‘s always a pleasure. 

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN (D), CHAIRMAN, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMMITTEE:  Good to be with you, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  Did we make any progress the last couple of days?  Are you

confident that what I‘m talking about—and I do believe the American

people are in the same place, the majority of American—are we going to

get to where we need to be when it comes to full restitution? 

What do you think, Senator? 

BINGAMAN:  I think we are.  We had that question asked several times

yesterday, and I think it‘s clear that the companies are committing

themselves on the public record to pay all legitimate claims, to hold

people harmless from the damages that they suffer as a result of this

injury.  At least that‘s what they said.

And so I think you‘re right.  The Congress needs to try to ensure that

that be done, but the courts are also there to ensure that that be done. 

And we have got a very aggressive plaintiffs bar in this country that I‘m

sure will be working through the courts to see that it‘s done. 

SCHULTZ:  Senator, what about the expenses that are being incurred by

the Coast Guard, by the National Guard, by other local agencies that are

out there?  I mean, are they going to be paying the bill and restitution to

the military?  I mean, the Coast Guard didn‘t plan on this.  They didn‘t

budget for this. 

What do you think? 

BINGAMAN:  It‘s my understanding that they will be paying that bill. 

That‘s what I think the president was saying as long as a week ago, when he

said that BP is going to pay the bill on this.  And I think he included

those kinds of expenses in that. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the ecological damage?  I mean, there are a lot

of experts that have said that we are going to, you know, deal with this

for the next decade.  Maybe even beyond, which brings me to the point of

question of no liability limits. 

Seventy-five million dollars is chump change, $10 billion is chump

change.  Some in the Congress have said that that‘s an arbitrary number. 

Why not have, and why not advocate for, unlimited liability, and

they‘re just going to have to pay whatever the cost is? 

BINGAMAN:  Well, I think we have got that in most areas of human

activity.  You—if you‘re negligent and you cause damage, you‘re

responsible for whatever those damages are.  I think it‘s appropriate to do

that here as well. 

SCHULTZ:  There won‘t be any bailout of big oil?  Can you tell us that

tonight? 

BINGAMAN:  Well, I never heard anyone here in Congress, at least in

the recent weeks, suggest any bailout should be accomplished.  So I don‘t

know of any effort in the Congress to bail out big oil.  I mean, I‘ve heard

you say that a few times.  I‘m just not aware of any suggestion here in the

Senate or in the House to that effect. 

SCHULTZ:  And Senator, finally, who‘s at fault?  Who—after a couple

days of hearings, who do you think is the culprit in all of this?  What

happened? 

BINGAMAN:  Well, I don‘t know exactly what happened.  I don‘t think

anyone does yet. 

I would say that probably all of the above are at fault, and that we

will find there were problems in the technology that was being used, the

equipment.  There were problems with the mistakes that were made by the

individuals operating that equipment.  There were failures to adequately

regulate and supervise this by the government agency that was responsible. 

SCHULTZ:  Senator, great to have you with us.  I appreciate your time

tonight.  Thank you. 

BINGAMAN:  OK.  Good to be with you. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

I think this oil disaster will ultimately impact every American, and

not just in the obvious ways like gas prices. 

For more on that, let me bring in Reese Halter, a conservation

biologist at California Lutheran University. 

Mr. Halter, good to have you with us tonight. 

Put into perspective what you think we are dealing with and what the

ramifications are.  I mean, we have seen millions of gallons of oil that

have gone out, and right now there‘s nobody on the face of the earth that

says we can definitely stop this in a timely fashion. 

What are we looking at? 

REESE HALTER, CONSERVATION BIOLOGIST:  Good evening, Ed. 

Basically, the solution to pollution is not dilution.  What we‘re

seeing tonight is awful. 

There are over 250,000 gallons of oil dispersant being pounded into

the Gulf, and we know that the dispersant is far worse for the corals than

the oil.  And so what‘s happening right now, there‘s a mousse-like

substance headed towards our Floridian corals that is going to knock them

right on their rear.  In fact, it‘s going to kill them. 

Now, just so you understand why corals are important, corals have been

likened to the Amazon rain forest for two very good reasons.  One, we have

got a high amount of species diversity.  Two, we have got potent medicines,

cancer medicines. 

We have got medicines from cone snails that are 100 times stronger

than morphine for pain, the blockbuster Prialt.  We have got sponges.  The

sponges give us the blockbuster AIDS drug AZT.  And they‘re potent from

there. 

We have got Floridian sponges that have been helping people with

leukemia since 1969, Ed.  And we have got soft corals that give us the most

potent medicines on earth to fight cancers. 

SCHULTZ:  And Mr. Halter, you were telling our audience tonight that

all of this is in jeopardy if this reaches the coral reef. 

HALTER:  Oh, it‘s not a matter of just.  It‘s going to reach it.  Let

me just paint this picture. 

You‘ve got what‘s called this summer highway, the ocean highway, the

loop current.  The loop current will pick this dispersant up and drive it

to the straits of Florida, the beginning of the coral. 

To give you some idea, Ed, that‘s 80 times the volume of all water,

rivers on earth, that‘s going to go through—that goes through the

straits of Florida, and it carries it all the way into the Atlantic, where

the gulf stream picks it up and carries it all the way up to Martin County. 

We‘re talking about 12,000 square miles of corals. 

These corals are 6,000 years old.  There are 6,000 of them.  And

they‘re home not only to the corals, but to the American crocodile, to the

manatees, to at least four species of turtles, and life. 

And you know what?  That‘s our grandchildren‘s legacy we‘re talking

about. 

SCHULTZ:  Yes, it certainly is. 

Mr. Halter, I appreciate you coming on.  And come back on our program

again.  You‘re a wealth of information.  And I haven‘t heard anybody else

put it like this.  And I think the American people need to hear more of

exactly what we are dealing with.

And what you just said, I have no idea how we‘re going to put a price

tag on this.  I don‘t think we can. 

Mr. Halter, good to have you with us tonight. 

Conservation biologist from University of California Lutheran. 

Thank you so much. 

Coming up, a righty nut job in California is reading from

Palin/Bachmann‘s psycho book.  I‘ll have him fired right into the “Zone”

coming up. 

Plus, President Obama snubs “The Drugster.”  I‘m calling him out and

“The Maverick” for some false advertising. 

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. 

The U.S. trade deficit is at a 15-month high.  At $40.4 billion,

that‘s the biggest monthly gap since December of 2008. 

Now, the good news is a higher overall deficit means demand is picking

up, which suggests our economy is on the rebound, on the bounce. 

The problem is the U.S. trade deficit with China, and it‘s a big one. 

It‘s up 2.4 percent, at $16.9 billion, which is larger than our deficit

with any other country.  And American manufacturers are saying the deficit

with China has cost the United States 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. 

Joining me now is Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers, who is

an advocate, big-time, for workers in this country, obviously, and has been

sounding the alarm on this China trade deficit for a long time. 

Mr. Gerard, what do these latest numbers mean?  I mean, we hear the

economy is turning around, the stock market looks better, but the

manufacturing sector is still getting hammered by a country that cheats,

and that‘s China. 

What do you think? 

LEO GERARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS:  Well, I think the numbers

are, in fact, a combination of bittersweet.  Like you said, the reality is

that people are getting back to work and they‘re wanting to buy goods.  The

problem is, we‘re not buying any that‘s made in America. 

The fact is that the deficit with China is huge.  Unless we get

support from the Congress, both the House and the Senate, as well as the

administration, that deficit is going to keep growing.  And we‘ve been

bringing trade cases and winning trade case after trade case because China

has a business model that‘s based on cheating.  So, if you can get the

facts, make the case, they get caught cheating, because that‘s what they

do. 

SCHULTZ:  What does the Congress have to do?  What does the Obama

administration have to do, tariff anything that comes into the country? 

GERARD:  Well, I think one of the first things we have to do is tell

China that we‘ve had enough of their manipulating their currency.  They

have got about a 40 percent advantage because they deliberately undervalue

their currency. 

They also have an export rebate.  So they‘ll attract a corporation

into China, sometimes an American corporation or a Canadian corporation,

and then they‘ll give them a rebate if they export back to the country. 

I was talking to one guy, Ed, just last week who was moving plywood. 

And he said he could make it if he sold the plywood under cost just because

he would get an 18 percent export rebate.  I mean, that‘s clearly a

violation of the WTO. 

Why the heck should I have to be the one and our union have to be the

one to bring a trade case on that?  Our Congress should do it, our Senate

should do it. 

SCHULTZ:  I don‘t know why they don‘t do something about it.  I mean,

these numbers are staggering.  And every time we have some kind of an

improvement, it seems like China responds to cheat even more than they have

been.  Or am I wrong on that? 

GERARD:  No, you‘re absolutely right on that.  Look, we bought a 421

case on tires, and all the pundits said that Armageddon was going to hit. 

Well, Armageddon didn‘t hit because we proved they were cheating. 

And, in fact, almost every major tire company in the United States is now

more profitable, or profitable when they weren‘t, and the majority of them

have recalled workers back.  Some have invested in plant expansion. 

And we ought to be doing that in every sector of our economy.  And

given a fair shake, our members can play by the rules and win. 

SCHULTZ:  Mr. Gerard, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so

much. 

GERARD:  My pleasure.  Thank you, Ed.  Thanks for discussing it. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

Coming up, the psycho sisters have a new big brother.  A righty nut

job in California wants hunting permits to thin the liberal herd? 

I‘ll put him in the “Zone” next.  Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, Republicans just are not

giving up on the violent rhetoric against Democrats in this country. 

Remember these gems? 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  To the day I die, I‘m going to be a

progressive hunter. 

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA:  I want people in Minnesota

armed and dangerous. 

SARAH PALIN ®, FMR. ALASKAN GOVERNOR:  Or my favorite, don‘t

retreat, reload. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Folks, words do matter.  And let it be known, no doubt, the

Republicans, they‘re the ones that keep trying to push this rhetoric around

the country, all the way up to DEFCON 5 quite often. 

And now there‘s a newcomer to the violent talk brigade.  A righty

running for Congress out in California posted this on his Facebook page

yesterday. 

The quote is: “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially

declare today opening day for liberals.  The season would extend through

November 2nd and have no limits on how many taken, as we desperately need

to thin the herd.”

Now, he must have gotten definitely the Bachmann, Beck and Palin

talking points down pretty good, don‘t you think? 

Guerring (ph) must have gotten backlash from that posting, because he

took it down and threw this explanation up.  The quote: “I intended to

include the wording, ‘We would use votes, not bullets,‘ but hit the share

button by accident before I finished and decided to leave it, thinking it

would not be taken in a literal sense.  I‘m sorry if I confused anybody.”

Well, after all the calls for violence that we‘ve heard from the right

over the past year, how can this guy be so naive about the words he‘s using

and how they‘re received? 

Let‘s put it in perspective.  Let‘s put it this way.  I‘ll put me in

the box tonight.  How about if I were to go ahead and say that it should be

open season on anybody who works at Fox? 

Buddy, you can make all the lame excuses you want, but calling for

hunting season on liberals is some real serious and dangerous “Psycho

Talk.” 

Coming up, the righties can‘t find anything real to attack Elena Kagan

about, so they‘ve resorted to name-calling and cheap shots.  I‘m calling

them out straight ahead. 

Plus, “Mr. Tan Man” battling again, as usual. 

And the White House wants “The Drugster” to go play golf by himself. 

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  The Battleground story

tonight, the righties are determined to degrade Supreme Court nominee Elena

Kagan any way they possibly can.  Republican senators are attacking her

lack of experience, even though she works at the Supreme Court as the

solicitor general.  In the meantime, the right wing hate merchants are

working the base into a frenzy over Kagan.  They can‘t criticize her on

substance, so they‘re going after her appearance. 

Michael Savage was flat-out anti-Semitic, talking about Kagan before

her nomination. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Now they‘re talking about a

real prize.  The woman looks like she belongs in a kosher deli in—I

can‘t believe this.  Where do they get these people from?  Kagan, he‘s

going to put on the Supreme Court.  Isn‘t there such a thing about the

aesthetics of the appointee? 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Savage made another hypocritical comment about her looks

again yesterday. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVAGE:  Let‘s not comment on how her appearance is because although I

find it personally grotesque, there are many who find it attractive.  So

we‘ll leave that out about of it.  Let‘s avoid that.  Let‘s talk about her

radical Marxist policies. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Joining me now is Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for

America.  Eric, good to have you with us tonight. 

ERIC BURNS, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA:  Thanks for having me, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet.  Just another day at the office for the righties. 

What do you make of these attacks?  How unusual are they for a Supreme

Court nominee?  I mean, I don‘t recall these kinds of things being said by

any other nominee like Sam Alito or John Roberts. 

BURNS:  Well, it‘s certainly not unusual for what we‘ve seen recently,

for instance, with Justice Sotomayor.  We did not see this sort of attack

with, you know, conservative nominees, because I think, Ed, look, we‘re

three days into this.  The conservatives have nothing.  They‘re throwing

everything at the wall.  They tried to suggest that Solicitor Kagan doesn‘t

have enough experience or judicial experience to sit on the bench.  But the

fact is that more than 30 percent of our justices didn‘t serve on the bench

before being nominated.  Two out of last four chief justices had no

judicial experience before they were nominated to the court.  Both

appointed by Republicans. 

She has more legal experience than both Roberts and Thomas.  I‘m

sorry, than both Rehnquist and Thomas.  Then they‘ve also, of course, tried

to suggest that she‘s anti-military, and that she banned the military from

being able to recruit from students at Harvard while she was dean of the

law school there.  That also is a lie.  The military always had access to

the students at Harvard.  In fact, military—successful military

recruitment under her tenure was either constant and at one point actually

went up while she was there. 

So they just have nothing else.  And so they‘re just throwing this

nastiness at her.  You and I both know they love the politics of hate. 

They love to smear.  They love to kind of paint their political opponents

as someone other than them or other than what they think Americans want to

be.  And I think that the American people just need to not fall for it. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you make of the publishing of her picture of her

playing softball in the “Wall Street Journal?”  When I first saw that, I

thought that was pretty average American right there.  There are a lot of

young people that play softball.  Not to mention it kind of told me she

must be a competitor.  And then of course I wanted to know what her batting

was.  What‘s the mission of the conservative newspaper doing this? 

BURNS:  I thought it was a great photo of her actually.  There‘s been

this bubbling about Solicitor Kagan‘s sexual orientation from the right for

a couple days.  This photo, I think possibly deliberately, though I can‘t

know what the “Journal” intended, it certainly gave the mainstream media an

excuse to talk about Solicitor Kagan‘s sexual orientation. 

Ed, that‘s a question that‘s been asked and answered.  The White House

has been definitive on this.  And I‘ll tell you, Ben Smith has a fantastic

story today in the “Politico” that puts this issue to bed.  I just hope the

fact that Solicitor Kagan likes men is not going to be held against her

during the nomination process. 

It‘s time for the media to move on from this.  You know, it‘s

irrelevant anyway.  It shouldn‘t be an issue.  What they should be talking

about, what the Senate should be considering is her record and her

qualifications.  That‘s what the Senate‘s mission—it‘s the president‘s

choice to pick the nominee he wants and the Senate‘s job to make sure that

that nominee is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.  It looks like—

yes, sir? 

SCHULTZ:  Good to have you with us tonight.  Great to have you on. 

Always great insight.  Thanks so much. 

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

tonight.  We just mentioned this “Wall Street Journal” under fire for

announcing Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination with a 17-year-old picture

of her on the softball field. 

Another story we want to talk about tonight, 14-term West Virginia

Congressman Alan Mollohan got crushed in last night‘s Democratic primary by

a conservative Democrat who campaigned against health care reform. 

Minority Leader John Boehner says this is just a sign of things to come. 

Also, the city of Los Angeles votes to boycott Arizona over its harsh

anti-immigration law. 

Joining us tonight on the panel, Laura Flanders, author of “Blue Grit”

and host of “Grit TV,” and Karen Hanretty with us tonight, Republican

strategist.  Thanks for having you on the program tonight.  I want to

appreciate both of you being here.  We always have a spirited discussion. 

Let‘s talk about the softball picture.  Should we guess her batting

average, Karen?  Or what do you think the purpose is of this?  We haven‘t

seen any other pictures of any other Supreme Court nominees being in that

position before.  What do you think? 

KAREN HANRETTY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  I thought it was a really odd

choice.  You know, photos are—you know, make editorial comments.  Photos

stand alone as a story in and of themselves.  I thought it was a very

strange choice.  I thought almost as strange, perhaps stranger, is the

hubbub about this photo somehow indicates that she might be a lesbian,

because apparently women who play softball are all lesbians, which I think

will come to a surprise to, you know, just about every woman in America who

plays on their company‘s softball team, right, and who‘s straight? 

So all of the controversy around this is very peculiar.  I would like

to hear from “the Wall Street Journal” editorial board about—you know,

whoever made that decision, why they would put that particular photo of her

forget the sexual orientation.  What is that supposed to say about her

as an accomplished woman? 

SCHULTZ:  Good point.  Laura, what do you think?  What was the mission

here? 

LAURA FLANDERS, GRIT TV:  Ed, I‘m with you.  I looked and I thought,

this shows her strong commitment to Title 9, a women‘s right to play

sports.  You‘re right.  We‘ve had sort of suspect religions and suspect

languages.  What, now we have suspect sports?  It‘s a load of bunk. 

It does make you think, I wonder whether George W. Bush would ever

have been elected president if “the Wall Street Journal” or any other paper

had front-paged that picture of him cheer leading at Andover.  I just want

to know is she going to strike like that, wield that bat with similar force

for Constitutional rights?  Those are the questions we actually need to be

talking about in Kagan. 

SCHULTZ:  We are living in pretty interesting political times.  What

happened in Massachusetts, what happened in the gubernatorial races in New

Jersey and in Virginia.  What happened with Senator Bennett out in Utah. 

You‘ve got a big challenge in a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania and in

Arkansas.  And John Boehner says there‘s going to be more of this kind of

stuff, as Alan Mollohan last night, 14 term congressman from West Virginia,

was ousted by a conservative democrat who ran against health care reform. 

Laura, what do you make of this? 

FLANDERS:  Everything is being seen as a verdict on Barack Obama.  The

volcanic cloud off Iceland, the oil slick, you name it.  Now they‘re trying

to say this election result is all somehow a verdict on Obama.  Obama‘s

popularity ratings, let‘s be clear, are around about where they were at the

beginning of this summer—

SCHULTZ:  He doesn‘t seem to have any coattails.  He‘s short on the

coattails.  He‘s campaigned for a lot of people.  He hasn‘t turned in any

Ws as of late. 

FLANDERS:  This is a 14-year incumbent with money trouble and a very

well-organized anti-choice lobby that were out to get him.  If anything, it

reminds us that all politics really is local, and it‘s not coattails that

are going to win or lose elections.  It‘s local organizing. 

SCHULTZ:  Karen, are we going to see a lot of this?  Is Boehner right

on this comment, that this is just the sign of things to come? 

HANRETTY:  This is I think less a referendum on the man, Barack Obama,

the president of the United States.  I think it‘s more of a referendum on

the political establishment in Washington, D.C., an establishment that I

think Democrats, Republicans and independents across the country see as

very out of touch with their values, values of, you know, maintaining a

strong economy in this country, and not going the way of Greece, or even

more locally, California, where, you know, budget deficits are astronomical

and one wonders if we can—how will we ever get that under control? 

FLANDERS:  I don‘t know.  In West Virginia, one of the poorest states

in the country, it‘s stimulus spending that‘s helped to create some of the

only jobs that have been made in the last year.  I wouldn‘t be too quick to

connect those two. 

HANRETTY:  No, I don‘t think I am too quick to connect.  In fact, I

think a lot of polling nationally has connected those two things.  In fact,

just because a lot of voters in West Virginia are poorer than the rest of

the country does not mean that they‘re not very concerned about deficit

spending, and that they‘re not concerned about some fundamental issues that

are of concern all the way across the country, which is what role should

the government play in our health care?  I wouldn‘t dismiss—you dismiss

this at your peril. 

SCHULTZ:  What about Los Angeles?  Switching gears now to the anti-

immigration law that Arizona has passed.  You have the city of Los Angeles

votes to boycott Arizona over this law.  Laura, what do you make of it? 

FLANDERS:  It‘s a great American tradition.  An injury to one is an

injury to all the people of Los Angeles, through their elected city

council.  They‘re saying, you know, we‘re not going to take what‘s

happening in Arizona sitting down.  We feel a connection.  We‘re going to

act on that connection.  I think they‘re standing up for what‘s right and

we should be proud of them. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you think, Karen?  You have the majority of

Americans are in favor of what Arizona passed.  Now we have these parochial

feelings that are developing in certain pockets of the country.  Economic

sanction on a state, I mean, you have Major League Baseball, you have the

NBA making a statement about all this.  What do you think? 

HANRETTY:  I think the Los Angeles City Council is probably the last

governmental body I would take advice from in America.  You know?  By the

way, go to any county hospital in Los Angeles and see what their emergency

room waiting is like.  How many illegal immigrants are sitting in those

emergency rooms?  Something needs to be done in this country, and Los

Angeles is probably not the best indication of how we should fix our

budgets, manage our local, you know, municipalities.  L.A. is a land in and

of itself. 

FLANDERS:  But what the city council in L.A. is saying is you‘re not

going to solve any of these problems through finger pointing, racial

profiling. 

HANRETTY:  That‘s not what they‘re doing.  They‘re not doing racial

profiling.  And Los Angeles isn‘t going to solve anything by boycotting

Arizona. 

FLANDERS:  The boycott on Arizona—

SCHULTZ:  I will say this -- 

FLANDERS:  -- the Martin Luther King holiday in Arizona.  It‘s a

proven track record of success. 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s going to cause them a lot of problems economically. 

Everybody‘s got to meet their budget, or all of a sudden, you don‘t have

people holding events, whether it be conventions or sporting events or

tournaments or things like that.  We have not heard the last of this. 

Karen Hanretty, Laura Flanders, great to have you with us tonight.  Thanks

so much.  >

Coming up, President Obama has boldly gone for the whole enchilada

with his agenda.  But I don‘t know if his coattails are long enough to keep

the Dems alive and well and strong in the midterms.  DCCC Chairman Chris

Van Hollen will dish out the straight talk next. 

And remember rent a boy?  Well, he quits his day job. 

And the president snubs the Drugster when it comes to golf.  That‘s

all coming up in the playbook.  Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  In my playbook, President Obama‘s coattails aren‘t what they

were back in 2008.  I just don‘t get it.  Just yesterday, a 14-term

Democratic congressman from West Virginia lost in the primaries.  Obama‘s

Senate pick in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, well, could be next to go.  The

democrats couldn‘t even hang on to the Ted Kennedy seat back in November in

Massachusetts. 

Losses like those may be the political price the president has to pay

for his ambitious agenda.  In less than a year and a half, President Obama

expanded equal pay protection for women.  He rescued the American auto

industry and saved a bunch of jobs.  He passed an 862 billion dollar

stimulus package that is working.  He passed a 4.3 billion dollar education

initiative.  He nominated two Supreme Court justices.  He signed a deal

with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons.  He toughened up the rules for

credit card companies, with help of the Congress, obviously.  And of

course, he passed historic health care reform. 

Folks, that is a heavy lift.  There‘s a lot that has happened.  And

the president still has a lot more heavy lifting to do with the way things

are with the oil spill.  Up next, the broadest financial regulatory reform

since the Great Depression is on the table.  And they‘ll probably get it

done.  Joining me now is a chairman of the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. 

Congressman, good to have you on, tonight. 

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND:  Good to be with you, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s a list of accomplishments.  These are sellable items. 

For some reason, there just seems to be this angst out there across the

country, and it‘s going to be a tough run for incumbents or am I wrong on

that? 

VAN HOLLEN:  You‘re right.  It was a very heavy lift.  The president

came in 14, 15 months ago facing a huge economic collapse.  The economy was

in free-fall.  We had seen what happened on Wall Street with the meltdown. 

And in the space of about 15 months, we have begun to turn the economy

around.  We saw a great jobs report last month.  And we‘re working on

legislation to reign in Wall Street and hold them accountable. 

I think it will take a little bit of time for people‘s optimism to

return.  I do think consumer confidence is up.  I think people are

cautiously optimistic.  You know, we recognize that it‘s very difficult

when you‘re looking at the gross domestic product growing.  If you don‘t

have a job, it doesn‘t give you a whole lot of comfort.  That‘s why we‘re

working so hard to try to accelerate the job creation. 

SCHULTZ:  No doubt about it.  It is about the jobs.  The job market is

a heck of a lot better today than it was a year ago. 

VAN HOLLEN:  It is. 

SCHULTZ:  Why the voter skepticism?  Compared to other presidents,

President Obama has achieved 38 percent of the American people say more,

about the same 37 percent, then, of course, less the number is 22.  Is it

just that they don‘t like the Democrats, that they don‘t like what‘s

happening in Congress?  It seems that every candidate out there is

vilifying Washington.  And it seems to be working.  What do you think? 

VAN HOLLEN:  Well, I think what‘s happened, Ed, is that a lot of

changes are taking place.  People are very wary of change.  But the more

that they see what‘s happening, for example, with the health care reform,

the more they like what they see.  For example, they had their premiums

going through the roof for the last eight years.  They‘re finally seeing

some of that being reigned in. 

They saw that their kids were denied coverage because of pre-existing

conditions.  They‘re seeing that come to an end.  I think it takes a little

time, especially given all the misinformation that we know was put out

there by the Republicans, who, by the way, have been rooting for failure

day in and day out.  I believe we are an optimistic—we are at the

bottom.  We are an optimistic people. 

I don‘t think the American people like seeing the other team cheer

against the policies, especially now that they see them working. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you make of 14-term Democrat losing in West

Virginia? 

VAN HOLLEN:  Well, there are a lot of unique circumstances in that

seat.  Alan Mollohan served West Virginia very well.  But what happened was

his opponent in the Democratic primary took advantage of some of the issues

that had come up in the past with respect to Mr. Mollohan.  And he just

kept hammering away on these issues going forward. 

By the way, I should say with respect to that race, Ed, we still are

very confident the Democrats will win that seat in November.  And so, you

know, we are all going to miss Alan Mollohan.  But I wouldn‘t read too much

into that one race. 

I should point out that we did win two special elections in this past

year in the House, the House Democrats, even amid all that angst you‘ve

been talking about. 

SCHULTZ:  Make the call next Tuesday.  Arlen Specter or Joe Sestak? 

How do you see it? 

VAN HOLLEN:  Look, it is a tossup.  I‘ve been talking to people on all

sides of the decision.  It‘s a tossup.  Obviously with Sestak, you have a

Democrat who is newer and fresher.  On the other hand, you have Specter who

has the experience.  We‘ll see how those two different messages play out. 

SCHULTZ:  A tossup with a longtime senator like Arlen Specter, a

tossup I think that speaks volumes.  Chris, always a pleasure.  Great to

have you with us tonight. 

VAN HOLLEN:  It‘s good to be with you, but we‘re watching the other

special election as well up in Pennsylvania.  That‘s the open Murtha seat. 

We have Mark Fritz is the Democratic candidate, a very strong candidate. 

SCHULTZ:  Chris, good to have you on.  Thanks so much. 

Couple final pages in the playbook tonight.  Last week we told you

about George Rekers, a conservative Family Research Council co-founder who

rented a male escort off the Internet.  He claims all the media reports are

false and says he never had any sexual relations with the escort.  But this

morning he quit the National Association for Research and Therapy of

Homosexuality. 

Also, Limbaugh can play golf with himself.  That‘s how President Obama

responded to a request to play a round of golf with the Drugster.  Rush‘s

aide apparently encouraged his boss to reach out to the president last

July.  Top White House aide relayed the message to him, ain‘t going to

happen. 

Coming up, the oil is gushing into the Gulf and the righties have the

nerve to call for more drilling?  Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been

saying stop the drilling for years.  He joins me next on THE ED SHOW.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  Finally tonight, BP,

Halliburton and Transocean were back on the Hill today for another round of

the blame game.  The oil disaster in the Gulf provides more than enough

proof, in my opinion, on why we should ban offshore drilling in the United

States until we know exactly what they‘re doing at all times.  Some

Republicans and conservative Democrats are taking the old Rumsfeld attitude

that, hey, stuff happens. 

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is against offshore drilling across

the board.  He joins me again tonight on THE ED SHOW.  Congressman, good to

have you with us.  If this doesn‘t make the case, what would?  Where do we

stand?  What do you think the Congress is going to do about this? 

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH (D), OHIO:  Well, here‘s the thing: if you‘re for

offshore drilling, then you should be for the oil companies being honest

about the tests that they do on these rigs to make sure their blowout

preventers work.  What they‘re doing is they‘re either not providing the

proper tests or they‘re falsifying the results. 

So there‘s no system that can actually protect the ecosystem and the

taxpayers from another disaster that we had in the Gulf—similar to a

disaster we had in the Gulf.  You know, it just doesn‘t work.  If you‘re

for that kind of drilling, it doesn‘t protect us from a calamity.  So the

only thing we can do is to stop the offshore drilling and move to a place

where we really seize this moment to grab the wave of technology that

produces wind and solar, micro-technologies. 

We could create millions of jobs, Ed, put America back to work,

designing, engineering, manufacturing, installing and maintaining, tens of

millions of wind and solar micro-technologies on our homes and businesses,

lower the carbon footprint, lower the cost of energy.  And we would stop

ruining our ecosystem, which these oil spills do. 

SCHULTZ:  I think there‘s no doubt that there are a lot of

Congressional members who are in the back pocket of big oil.  Bill Nelson,

senator from Florida, said that big oil is a bully, they get what they

want.  What‘s the Congress going to do?  What‘s going to come out of all of

this? 

KUCINICH:  Well, you know, it would be good to take away the depletion

allowance.  It would be good to have a windfall profits tax to pay for the

damage to the ecosystem.  None of that is likely to happen.  The American

people are going to have to make a determination, collectively, that sooner

or later we have to move away from all these hydrocarbon products.  It‘s

ruining our children‘s future.  It‘s ruining our planet.  We won‘t have a

place to live. 

The whole ecosystem is damaged.  The food chain is damaged.  We really

have to recognize this is a national emergency and it requires strong

action, not just to keep investigating—

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, good to have you with us.  Come back and talk

on this issue. 

KUCINICH:  Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Text survey question tonight, I asked you, do you trust

Congress to hold BP accountable?  Twelve percent of you said yes; 88

percent of you said no. 

Finally tonight, I‘ll be off the next couple nights and back with you

on Monday evening from New York.  I‘m going to be playing in the Nationwide

PGA tournament with our son, Dave, who is on the Nationwide Tour.  The

charity golf tournament is down in Greenville, South Carolina.  The goal is

low score and no sun burn. 

That‘s THE ED SHOW.  Chris Matthews is next on “HARDBALL.”  We‘ll see

you Monday. 

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.

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,