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.