updated 5/24/2010 12:41:14 PM ET 2010-05-24T16:41:14

Guests: Brent Coon, Billy Nungesser, David Chard, Jesse Jackson, Jack Rice,

Heidi Harris, Jonathan Alter, Lizz Winstead

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

tonight from Minneapolis.

These stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour.

This oil spill in the Gulf, oh, gosh, now it‘s gushing more than

50,000 barrels of oil a day.  You know, BP has been lying about the amount

of oil spilled from day one.  The arrogance and the incompetence of this

company is absolutely stunning. 

Tea Party 101 now in session.  If Texas Republicans have their way,

the final vote on making Texas school books more conservative, coming up

real soon. 

Plus, Rand Paul.  I mean, this guy‘s a piece of work, isn‘t he?  He

just doubled down on to crazy.  Now he‘s blaming Democratic talking points

for the media flameout, and he‘s trying to change the subject to President

Obama for sounding un-American. 

Oh, I‘ve got commentary on that. 

But this is the story that‘s got me fired up off the top tonight. 

Oil has been pouring into the Gulf of Mexico for over a month.  There

has been really no progress whatsoever to date.  We‘ve been sitting here

for 30 days hearing filibuster after filibuster from BP. 

They really have no idea how to fix this thing, folks.  They‘ve told

us golf balls, mud balls, junk shots.  None of these so-called fixes have

done anything so far. 

First, let‘s remember, BP tried to act like it‘s really not that big a

deal, it‘s not all that bad.  Then they bullied us into trusting them

because, you see, they‘re a big corporation and their people are just


Well, the proof is now in the pictures for all of us to see who are

pro-drillers.  Right? 

Democrats fought to get BP to release this real-time camera showing

the oil gushing out.  These images flat-out don‘t lie. 

BP has no idea what in the hell it‘s doing down there.  They can‘t fix

this thing, and now there‘s 30 days worth of oil and toxic chemical

dispersants floating on our oceans and washing up on the coastline. 

Is it changing attitudes?  I think it is. 

Companies reflect the values of their leaders.  It‘s not a surprise

that BP‘s response has been incompetent and flat-out arrogant. 

The head of BP, Tony Hayward, now, this guy is a bona fide “psycho

talker.”  The guy absolutely gushes with arrogance.  I mean, it just pours

off him. 

Mr. Hayward‘s first response to the leak was—little lesson here—

“What the hell did we do to deserve this?”

I could answer that.  It‘s not about you, my man. 

Talk about tone deaf.  Mr. Hayward doesn‘t care if the entire Gulf

gets destroyed.  He‘s running a multinational.  All he cares about is BP‘s

bottom line and how the stockholders are going to fare. 

Three weeks after that comment, here comes another dandy on May 13th

This is how Mr. Hayward characterized the escalating catastrophe.  “We will

only win if we can win the hearts and minds of the local community.  It‘s a

big challenge.” 

No kidding.  Mr. Hayward apparently sees this as a PR problem.  The

problem is that BP dumps five millions of oil in the back yards of those

who live on the Gulf Coast. 

Now what are you going to do?  Forget their hearts and minds.  Just go

out and figure out how to clean this mess up. 

Tony Hayward says he‘s not having trouble sleeping at night.  That‘s

good to know.  Easy for him.  Hell, he‘s living in London.

Congressman Ed Markey hit the nail on the head today at a hearing,

where he said you can‘t trust these people. 


REP. ED MARKEY (D), ENERGY COMMITTEE:  BP has been lying about much of

what has gone on over the last month.  They said first it was 1,000 barrels

of oil, then 5,000 barrels of oil.  It is now clear that it is at least

50,000, 60,000, 70,000 barrels of oil a day that is going into the Gulf. 

It‘s time for us to stop listening to BP, to bring in real experts,

real scientists, to ensure that we are dealing with the facts as they

exist.  And that includes the dispersants, which we‘re putting into this

ocean in a science experiment.  We cannot rely upon BP to be making any of

these decisions at all. 


SCHULTZ:  What this oil spill is showing us, as Americans, that, you

know, not only is BP and everybody who‘s involved in this, in my opinion,

at fault, but our government‘s not doing enough. 

Now, think about this.  We have how many millions of Americans that

are unemployed in this country?  Would it make sense to maybe offer a job

to people who want to go down to the Gulf and get accommodations and get

meals, and just help with the cleanup?  Could BP write that check? 

Is there anything we can do to save our beaches?  Is there anything we

can do to keep the oil off shore, to at least give us a chance to maybe go

swimming a little bit? 

Now, this is a huge story right now, and it has been for 30 days. 

Wait until it starts coming up the coast, near Atlanta.  Wait until it

starts taking out the fishing in South Carolina and North Carolina.  Wait

until it gets into the Chesapeake Bay and then right on up into the halls

of the Congress, and maybe they‘ll smell it right on the Potomac River, and

then maybe they‘ll say, damn, maybe we‘d better do something about this. 

I‘m an Obama fan. 

Mr. President, I‘m a huge fan.  But this is now your oil spill.  It‘s

on your watch.  We need to come up with some kind of huge plan on what

we‘re going to do, because we‘ve spent 30 days waiting for BP, waiting for

Transocean, who‘s done a great job of just washing their hands of all of


Let me just say this, Washington.  It‘s time to get it on.  It‘s time

to get real serious about this. 

What are we going to do?  And where are all the engineers who are

working on this?  Where are the press conferences? 

The environmentalists, they have come out talking.  Some senators have

come out talking.  We‘ve had some hearings.  Media people are giving

commentary on it. 

I want to hear some engineers.  Are we just void of engineers in

America that have absolutely no idea?  Maybe they‘re afraid of a lawsuit if

they say something. 

I think the White House ought to just say, anybody got any ideas? 

Because we sure as hell don‘t. 

And it will be interesting to see the number of conservative

Republican senators that have all of those states in the southeastern

portion of the United States.  I wonder if they‘re going to change their

mind on offshore drilling. 

Folks, get your cell phones out tonight.  I want to know what you

think about all of this. 

Tonight‘s text survey question is: Do you believe BP has told the

whole truth about the oil disaster?  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 attorney Brent Coon.  He sued BP back in 2005 after

a refinery explosion in Texas, and he is involved in current lawsuits

against the company. 

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

I want you to put into perspective these comments of almost denial

from Mr. Hayward.  Where does that leave the company legally?  How do you

see this as it is right now? 

BRENT COON, SUED BP IN 2005 AFTER EXPLOSION:  Well, Ed, you know and I

know, we all know it, it‘s a mess.  I flew out over the Gulf again today to

look at it personally, and it is appalling, how bad the spill is out there. 

And it‘s appalling that so little is being done by BP and by our


I‘m like you.  I‘m a big Obama fan.  But they don‘t seem to be that

concerned about it at the White House.  And they should be.  This is a

crisis in the making, and it‘s a disaster that‘s going to impact the

economy and the coast, and maybe the Atlantic coast as well, for many


SCHULTZ:  Mr. Coon, I want to ask you this question.  I‘ve talked to a

few other attorneys, and they‘re telling me that this multinational

corporation, BP, may be so big and so powerful, they may be legally


Do you agree with that? 

COON:  You know, in some ways, yes.  In some ways, no. 

Obviously, BP‘s got a problem, and the problem is they use our natural

resources to make their money.  And we can stop that.  We should have

stopped it after we had the Alaskan pipeline failures.  We should have

stopped it after the Texas City refinery blew up, because we knew then that

they never took care of their business and we knew then that they cut


And so then you ask that question, why are we allowing them to drill

at all now?  Why are they still running our Alaskan reserves?  Why are they

in the Gulf of Mexico?  Why do we keep doing this?  And that‘s where money

does talk. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the fishermen?  The stories that are coming up

now, that a lot of people along the coast are getting sick.  And we should

point out benzene, not real good to smell. 

COON:  No, it‘s not. 

SCHULTZ:  What‘s that leave this whole situation? 

COON:  Well, you know, sadly, my firm‘s dealt with occupational

disease for many, many years, coming out of the refineries and producing

companies.  And what happens with oil is that it releases lots of


There‘s benzene, as you said.  There are other hydrocarbons.  They are

known to cause cancer.  They cause blood cancers and leukemias, and that‘s

what‘s in our water now. 

SCHULTZ:  It‘s unbelievable. 

Brent, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.

COON:  Yes, sir.  Always a pleasure. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

For more, let me turn to Billy Nungesser.  He is the president of

Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana.

This is just absolutely amazing, and it‘s gross.  And, Mr. Nungesser,

I know that you have been out there with Governor Jindal.

What did you see?  And what was it like?


marsh totally destroyed.  Everything in the area where the oil has reached

is dead.  And the marsh, within five days, will start turning brown, and

we‘ll lose about 24 square miles of coastal Louisiana from this one portion

of oil coming ashore.  And there‘s much more to come ashore, and it will

just pick us apart across coastal Louisiana, and we‘re doing nothing about



SCHULTZ:  How do you feel about—let me ask you about that.  You

said we‘re not doing anything about it.

Is this changing the mood and the attitude of the people of that

portion of the country right now?  What about that?

NUNGESSER:  Well, you know, 22 days ago, we asked for a special permit

for a dredge to build a berm like a beach across the barrier islands that

are under water that could catch most of this oil.  We told BP, the Coast

Guard, they would not clean it up at the marsh.  It‘s not a beach where we

can walk along and pick it up. 

Well, now I‘m—and we were told it wouldn‘t come ashore.  BP said it

will come ashore as tar balls, we‘ll pick it up. 

But what we saw out there is not tar balls.  It has destroyed that

area of Pass A Loutre, South Pass, North Pass, the outermost end of the


It will continue to creep in until it destroys all of the marsh.  And

we still don‘t have a permit to dredge.  And that is absolutely

unbelievable to me and to all of the elected officials across coastal

Louisiana.  It‘s totally unacceptable. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Tell us, where do you want to dredge, and what would it

do?  And maybe the White House is paying attention tonight.  Maybe you can

get that permit real soon, and maybe they‘re not aware of the permit

process, because they sure as hell let the permit process to let those

folks drill out in the Gulf, that was pretty lax. 

Tell us what you need. 

NUNGESSER:  Well, we need a permit to begin pumping the sediment that

is stored off of the—right outside of the islands there, to pump a berm

across coastal Louisiana, six foot high.  It will catch the oil.  We can

pick it up off the sand. 

We can work the areas where the passes are to keep the oil out.  This

will give us a fighting chance of keeping it out of these rich marshlands

of Louisiana. 

Without this, every time a storm kicks up it blows the boom ashore. 

That‘s a Band-Aid.  It‘s not working.  It hasn‘t worked. 

It will contain a little bit of oil here and there, but the masses of

oil that is out there in the Gulf is coming ashore piece by piece,

destroying areas of the marsh.  And it will continue to do so. 

SCHULTZ:  Mr. Nungesser, outside of prayers, it doesn‘t sound like a

whole lot is getting done.  Thank you for joining us tonight.  We‘ll stay

on the story.  I appreciate your time. 

Keep up the good fight. 

NUNGESSER:  Thank you for your help. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

I hope somebody who‘s in charge of something might be able to make a

phone call and get him a permit, or at least make an engineering statement

saying that that won‘t work.  It‘s amazing. 

Coming up, Kentucky fried nut job Rand Paul, I mean, this guy just

keeps digging himself deeper, doesn‘t he?  He‘ll shovel his way right into

the “Zone.” 

And the Tea Party mentality may rewrite history for our kids.  I‘m

taking the Texas Board of Education to school. 

Plus, there‘s a mole in the White House. 

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

it‘s Friday, thank God. 

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


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW, and thanks for watching


The overwhelmingly conservative Board of Education in Texas has just

voted moments ago on a new social studies curriculum, and it sounds

something right out of the Tea Party talking points.  Separation of church

and state is called into question.  Joe McCarthy‘s communist witch hunts

are shown in a more positive light.  Confederate leader Jefferson Davis is

put on par with former President Abraham Lincoln. 

Meanwhile, Martin Luther King‘s letter from a Birmingham jail was

removed from the reading lists. 

One board member wanted to use President Obama‘s full name, “Barack

Hussein Obama,” even though other president‘s middle names were not used. 

The Democrats defeated that portion of the proposal.  They also overcame a

push to leave the word “slave” when it was referring to slave trade. 

Children in Texas, basically, folks, will be getting a right-wing

slant when it comes to education. 

Joining me now is David Chard.  He is the dean of education at SMU

University in Texas. 

Dean Chard, good to have you with us tonight. 

This has been a hot issue in your state of Texas, but it is also going

to have ramifications because many states follow Texas because of its size

and its scope in education. 

Your thoughts on this story tonight?  How damaging is this, and whey

is it damaging, if it is? 


cause significant damages in a number of ways, Ed.  I think in some ways,

what the state board has done has narrowed the way that we present

historical facts, and what that does is presents a picture that will likely

change the way generations perceive of how things have really taken place. 

And that, of course, is built into textbooks, which can change people‘s


SCHULTZ:  Well, conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, the

Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association are going to be given

more attention. 

What do you think of that? 

CHARD:  Well, personally, I think it‘s a problem, but I think it‘s

important to look at this from a bigger—through a bigger lens.  And the

fact that what they‘ve done is emphasized those groups over other groups is

the biggest problem.  And, in fact, we live in a pluralistic state and a

pluralistic society.  And what the board has done is essentially narrowed

that view so that children begin to think that, in some cases, their view

and perhaps their cultural view or individual view isn‘t respected. 

SCHULTZ:  Now, this curriculum is going to be on board for 10 years,

4.8 million public school kids are in Texas.  But what kind of ripple

effect might this have in the classroom throughout the country? 

CHARD:  Well, Texas has always had a large effect on classrooms across

the country, because, one, it‘s such a large state, and that means that,

economically, they drive a lot of the market around textbooks sales.  Some

of that has changed because the state of Texas is not following what are

called the common core standards that the Obama administration has

promoted.  So, in many cases, textbooks won‘t be as easily marketed to a

broader audience as they used to be. 

But I think perhaps bigger than that is the issue that many of these

things that are now being part of the standards for history and social

studies in the state of Texas, again, narrowing the view that is being

promoted, in essence makes the rest of the country sort of look at Texas as

a place that‘s really quite different from the rest of the United States. 

I think that‘s a considerable problem. 

SCHULTZ:  How do you think this is going to go over with folks in

Texas that Martin Luther King‘s name has been taken off the reading list,

when he was in that Birmingham jail, the literature that he produced that

was very historic?  And also the fact that the co-founder of the United

Farm Workers of America is out because of arguments broke out in the board

that she is a socialist. 

What about the omissions here? 

CHARD:  Honestly, Ed, I think this is one more example of an instance

where voters have elected a fairly conservative school board.  This is a

conservative state, by and large, but as I mentioned, it‘s also a very

multidimensional state in many ways—culturally, racially,

linguistically.  And I think one of the concerns people are going to have

is, exactly who does the school board represent?  And I think maybe one of

the best things that could happen is people will start voting differently,

people will start taking control over electing people that will really have

a big impact on the way children think and multiple generations think. 

It reminds me a little bit of what happened in South Africa when there

was domination by a small white majority—minority, excuse me.  And what

they ended up doing was changing history textbooks and standards there to

try to convince the entire population that, in fact, the history there was

that whites had arrived first and—I mean, they really tried to revisit

history, change history. 

SCHULTZ:  Yes.  It‘s unbelievable. 

Dean Chard, thank you for your time tonight.  I appreciate it.  Thanks

so much.

CHARD:  My pleasure.  Thank you for having me. 

SCHULTZ:  Coming up, this just in.  Rand Paul has decided to back away

from TV cameras.  After calling the president un-American this morning,

he‘s just decided to bail out on his commitment on a big Sunday morning


Well, that‘s why we put him in the “Zone,” next. 


SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, a first.  We‘re taking someone

out of the “Zone.” 

You know, I have always been one to believe that if someone

apologizes, you have to recognize it.  Fox sportscaster Chris Myers was our

“Psycho Talker” on Wednesday for his disparaging comments about Hurricane

Katrina‘s victims. 

The mayor of New Orleans wrote a letter to the president of Fox Sports

demanding an apology.  And Myers, he came through, saying, “I would very

much like to apologize to you and the people of New Orleans for the

inappropriate and insensitive remarks I made.  Clearly, these remarks

demonstrated poor judgment, and I sincerely regret making them.”

You know, Chris, that‘s been a standup dude.  Chris, that apology gets

you a ticket out—a ticket—this is a first.  We‘re giving you a ticket

out of the “Zone” because you did the right thing.  Now, don‘t come back in

the “Zone.” 

Now, I didn‘t see the same thing happening for tonight‘s “Psycho

Talker,” though, in Kentucky‘s Republican Senate candidate, Rand Paul. 

He‘s at it again.  This guy just can‘t keep his mouth shut. 

And I told you this last night, folks.  This guy is an unguided

missile.  And I knew his crazy talking was going to keep going more on the

Civil Rights Act.  It just wouldn‘t be his last mistake. 

Sure enough, I was right. 

This morning, he was back on the tube running his mouth—an unguided

missile.  He started off playing the victim, whining about the media. 



period start?  I had a big victory.  I thought I got a honeymoon period

from you guys in the media. 


SCHULTZ:  Well, you better check out with the right-wing network

across the street about that honeymoon, buddy.  You wouldn‘t be getting it

anywhere else, especially after jumping to the defense of BP. 

Listen to this, folks. 


PAUL:  What I don‘t like from the president‘s administration is this

sort of, you know, I‘ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.  I think that

sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. 

I‘ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill.  And I

think it‘s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it‘s

always got to be someone‘s fault, instead of the fact that maybe sometimes

accidents happen. 


SCHULTZ:  No, those accidents, you know, they just happen.  Oh, glass

of spilled milk, that‘s kind of an accident.  We‘re talking, my friend,

about millions of gallons of spilled oil threatening thousands of miles of

U.S. coastline.  And saying it‘s un-American for the president to hold BP

accountable for a disaster that they caused, that‘s “Psycho Talk.”   .

Coming up, tensions have been boiling over in Arizona about the

immigration law.  Democratic lawmakers are flat-out blaming Rahm Emanuel

for the lack of action on reform.  Rahm, now is the time.  Reverend Jesse

Jackson sounds off about that in a moment. 

Plus, there‘s another crasher at the White House.  That‘s right, KFC

doubles down on its double down.  I can‘t wait to hear what “Daily Show”

co-creator Lizz Winstead has to say about the new psycho talker, Rand Paul. 

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


SCHULTZ:  And welcome back to THE ED SHOW tonight.  Thanks for

watching.  Our Battleground story tonight, there is a civil battle going on

right now in this country.  States are fighting states over Arizona‘s anti-

immigration law.  The White House, in a sense, you could make the case

they‘re sitting on the fence, although the president has been unusually

outspoken about this law.  He doesn‘t like it.  He doesn‘t like it at all. 

He said it will lead to citizens being profiled. 

The problem isn‘t the president of the United States.  It‘s the chief

of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and exactly how much influence he has.  The “L.A.

Times” reports Emanuel has argued privately that it‘s a bad time for

Democrats to push an immigration bill, a potential land mine in the midst

of the a crucial midterm election year. 

Every midterm is crucial.  Come on, remember that Rahm also didn‘t

want to do health care reform.  And he tried to convince the president to

gut his reform platform, all right?  Well, immigration reform could be a

political game changer, in my opinion.  It could lock up the Latino vote

for Democrats for an entire generation. 

But more than that, it‘s the right thing to do.  A lot of liberals

can‘t understand why such a bold and visionary leader like President Obama

has such a timid attitude when it comes to dealing with his chief of staff,

which apparently swings a pretty big stick on this issue.  Has members of

Congress reeling on it. 

Joining me now is Reverend Jesse Jackson, president of the Rainbow

Push Coalition.  Reverend good to have you with us tonight. 


you, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet.  What should President Obama do about this division

that is now starting to unfold in our country?  States against states,

regions against regions.  The numbers are starting to pile up.  What do you

make of it?  What‘s the play? 

JACKSON:  Well, time for a bold comprehensive statement.  At some

point he, himself, has to take the reigns of the health care initiative and

not just the House, even the Senate, nor his staff.  Because, at the end,

he takes the heat for it all. 

We need a comprehensive immigration plan.  There‘s one policy coming

down from Canada, another coming from Haiti, another from Mexico.  The

president has the obligation and the capacity to articulate his vision and,

in fact, inspire America to do what is now moral and our political self-

interest as a nation. 

SCHULTZ:  You know, I write in my book coming up that there‘s no way

that the Republicans are going to help out President Obama on this, with

the Democrats, because they love cheap labor.  They‘re addicted to it.  And

big business certainly doesn‘t want to do anything about somebody coming

through the door who‘s willing to take money underneath the table.  Now

with that climate, what should the Democrats do? 

JACKSON:  Well, you know, it‘s not just that the Mexicans has—Latin

Americans are coming across the border.  They‘ve been sent for by—the

employers are helping to drive this.  I remember working with Caesar

Caveres (ph) some years ago out in California.  And the farm workers were

about to have a boat sale on Tuesday.  The week before, they brought down,

like, 2,000 Mexicans across the board to undercut Mexican farm workers,

exporting cheap labor. 

Even in the New Orleans situation, citizens in New Orleans could not

get a job, they were bringing in by the droves Mexicans across the border

to exploit those workers and to play one worker against another worker.  So

no one can state quite as clearly as he can why that is illegal, why it‘s

morally wrong, and that 12 million undocumented workers in this country are

working and are generating revenue and paying taxes.  There should be some

path to the citizenship by the president.  And the Congress, House and

Senate, should join the president in such a leadership, because it‘s

morally right and politically sound. 

SCHULTZ:  These are a lists of the city that have joined in the

boycott against Arizona, and flat-out won‘t travel on official business and

are saying that they won‘t do business with the state of Arizona: San

Francisco, Los Angeles, St. Paul, Seattle, Boulder, Hartford, Connecticut,

San Diego, Austin, Texas, El Paso, Texas, and Boston.  Even the commission

in Arizona has gone so far as to tell Los Angeles that they may rework the

contract and actually threaten to cut their power off because they get

electricity from Arizona.  This is—this is really evolving into

something that we have never seen happen in this country.  How do you

intercede on this? 

JACKSON:  Well, we saw it happen in the Civil War, where states rights

challenged the federal government and they lost.  And, again, Arizona must

rejoin the union.  So people around the country have a sense of

conscientious outrage.  They want the borders fixed.  They want a pathway. 

They do not want the illegal process overrunning borders. 

So the federal government must act.  I mean, there‘s some anxiety and

fear that must be addressed.  On the other hand, states should not usurp

federal authority. 

I would hope that the one bully pulpit the president is that of his

own platform.  And he‘s articulate.  He‘s smart.  And he cares.  I think if

he takes the initiative, congress is going to join the president.  It‘s

always the right time to do the right thing.  To take people out of limbo,

out of anxiety, out of fear, to grant them their due citizenship rights—

I think about the Green Card, Ed, those who come from Mexico.  They

come here and go to the frontline in the war, that they get the front of

the line, the citizenship.  So we‘re using their workers, exploiting their

workers.  We‘re using them in the war to exploit them.  Let‘s be fair and

let‘s say that this is a human rights thing to do.  It‘s politically

correct.  And there‘s a sense of urgency about it.  It‘s only going to get

more volatile between the states unless we deal with it.  I think no one

has the authority and capacity to address this as meaningfully as the


SCHULTZ:  I totally agree.  Reverend Jackson, good to have you with us

tonight.  Thanks so much. 

JACKSON:  Thank you, sir. 

SCHULTZ:  Immigration is one of the topics that I dig into in my book

new book called “Killer Politics: How Big Money and Bad Politics are

Destroying the Great American Middle Class.”  It will be released on June

1st through Hyperion, and we‘ll have a series of town hall meetings and

book signings.  Go to my website, WeGotEd.com for the entire schedule.  We

hope to see you along the road as we tour across America. 

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

tonight.  Rand Paul is now avoiding the cameras.  He just canceled on “Meet

the Press,” says he‘s too exhausted.  The show‘s executive producer wants

him to reconsider and keep his commitment.  You know, in the 62-year

history of this show, “Meet the Press,” only three major guests have ever

canceled.  The other two are Lewis Farrakhan in 1996, and Saudi Arabia‘s

Prince Bandar in 2003.  Maybe he‘ll reconsider.  We hope he does.

Today, the Texas Board of Education voted for rewriting history to

reflect Tea Party values.  How exciting?  Some of the proposed changes

include Social Security is bad, McCarthy‘s communist witch hunt was good,

and never forget that the president‘s name is Hussein. 

The House Armed Services slapped down the president‘s efforts to close

Guantanamo Bay.  They just passed a bill that would prohibit sending Gitmo

detainees to a special prison in Illinois that costs 350 million dollars. 

With us tonight, Jack Rice, former CIA officer and criminal defense

attorney, and also Heidi Harris, radio talk show host out of the great city

of Las Vegas. 

Jack, start this off for us tonight.  What do you make of Rand Paul? 

I said last night that he‘s an unguided missile.  He certainly is great

copy for those of us in talk radio.  What do you make of this guy?  Is he


JACK RICE, FMR. CIA AGENT:  Of course he‘s not legitimate.  I think

it‘s genius that he actually shut his mouth at this point.  His PR guys are

saying, for god‘s sake, please, just stop talking.  The fact that he

actually has to go down this path—we look at what he said about BP. 

He‘s basically come out now saying, I guess what‘s most important is that

you protect corporations, even over individuals.  I guess that‘s what

America is now?  Really? 

I‘m thrilled that people are stomping on this guy.  I‘m curious to see

if Republicans are going to be willing to do the same thing, rather than

sort of cozy up to the Tea Party groups, because that‘s what they‘ve done

so far.  We‘ll see. 

SCHULTZ:  Heidi, you got the floor.  What about Rand Paul? 

HEIDI HARRIS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Well, I got to say, I understand

what he‘s saying from the concept of federal government getting involved in

business.  You know, for example, here in Vegas a couple years ago, they

passed an anti-smoking ordinance, which meant that if you owned a bar, you

weren‘t allowed to have smokers in there, depending on how many slot

machines you had.  I was opposed to that because it‘s government going

after business. 

By the same token, when it comes to race, I can‘t get on that.  You

cannot tell people they can discriminate here in America.  What if you‘re

driving through a small southern town and it‘s all white and you‘re a black

family and you break down and you need gas or food and no one will serve

you?  Can‘t have that in America, sorry. 

SCHULTZ:  Heidi, what do you make of the vote in Texas, where the

board of education is going to add the contributions of the Heritage

Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and omitting the speech, one of

the writings in that Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King.  What‘s

happening here? 

HARRIS:  Well, I think it‘s interesting because a lot of these books

are very, very tilted to the left, as you well know.  You may not think

they‘re tilted to the left, because you are, but the books are.  I think

people on the right are saying, hey, let‘s get a little more fairness. 

Let‘s get a little more equitable.  And let‘s talk about things that have

been purposefully left out. 

I don‘t have a problem with it.  I haven‘t seen one thing in there

that I would consider outrageous.  Why not?  They have the right to do that

if they choose to. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  They have the right to do it so we should rewrite

history and maybe we just throw Martin Luther King out of the book all

together?  Jack, what do you think? 

RICE:  I completely disagree with Heidi on this.  The real problem is

we‘re not seeing intellectual honesty here.  Some of the things that are

being said are flat-out false.  The idea that you are going to question a

sovereignty issue of the U.N., that they‘re trying to take U.S. sovereignty

that‘s a perfect example.  It‘s one of the things they‘re fighting for. 

And yet one of the P-5, the United States can veto anything that rolls

through the United Nations.  It‘s simply incorrect.  It‘s factually wrong. 

We can disagree with subjective things, opinions.  But you can‘t

disagree about facts.  Apparently, this school board thinks you can. 

SCHULTZ:  Jack, what do you make of the House Armed—go ahead. 

HARRIS:  Sorry.  I was just going to say, the U.N. is out to destroy

our sovereignty.  Are you kidding?  They‘re right about the U.N.  The U.N.

is a terrible organization.  Why don‘t they go somewhere else?  Why are

they here in America?  Why are we paying their bills?  They‘re out to

destroy America.  They‘re anti-America. 

RICE:  Heidi, here‘s the point, is that if you look at what the

Security Council is, anything of significance at the United Nations happens

in the Security Council.  Anything that happens at the Security Council,

the United States can veto by themselves and stop it.  So the ability for

sovereignty from the United Nations is completely ridiculous, because the

U.N. Can stop it unilaterally.   everybody knows that, if you actually

follow what they say, because the United States was fundamentally involved

in setting it up. 

SCHULTZ:  Jack Rice, Heidi Harris, great to have you with us tonight. 

Out of time.  Let‘s keep moving. 

Coming up, President Obama has been on a mission.  Health care reform,

equal pay for women, nuclear arms reduction, and now he‘s brought us to the

brink, right to the edge, of real change on Wall Street.  So why isn‘t he

getting any credit?  Why aren‘t the polls responding favorably? 

Jonathan Alter joins me next in the Playbook.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  In my playbook tonight, President Obama is nearing another

huge legislative victory.  The Senate finally passed financial reform. 

He‘s one step closer to changing the behavior on Wall Street.  If President

Obama gets this done, he‘ll add one more big win to an already impressive


In less than 18 months, the Obama administration has delivered on

equal pay for women, economic rescue measures, nuclear arms reduction, and

health care reform.  First, the expansion of S-CHIP, then the most sweeping

social legislation in decades.  Now it‘s a race to the midterms to convince

Americans that Obama and the Democrats are right on track.  But I want to

know when does he start getting some real credit? 

For more let‘s—I mean, what president has gotten this much done

this early on?  I guess is the real question.  Jonathan Alter, national

affairs columnist at “Newsweek” and, of course, author of the book “The

Promise: President Obama Year One.”

Jonathan, you had a lot of material to write about with this

president.  You know?  Now that Wall Street reform is—we‘re on the verge

of that, when‘s the credit start coming in for this guy? 

JONATHAN ALTER, AUTHOR, “THE PROMISE”:  You know, it‘s a great

question.  I think the key is that he has somehow not fully established

that connection to the middle class that you talk about so much on this

program.  We thought that he was going to ace communications, get an A in

that, and struggle in executive leadership, because he had no experience. 

It turned out to be the reverse of that. 

He was a star when it came to putting points on the board, getting

things done.  But he‘s really struggled when it came to explaining things

and connecting with the American public.  Part of it is it got too

congressional, Ed.  The sausage factory on Capitol Hill, it stunk so bad

that it kind of spoiled people‘s appetite for the meal.  And they just kind

of said, look, in Washington they‘re not doing anything, and it was hard to

pay attention to this Niagara of news, all the kinds of things that did get


When they start showing more results, then he‘ll start getting more

credit.  He already prevented a depression.  We were losing 750,000 jobs a

month when he came into office.  We‘re now gaining 250,000 jobs a month. 

But it‘s hard to get the credit. 

Let me just tell you a very quick story from Franklin Roosevelt that I

think tells you a little bit about what he needs to do.  When Roosevelt

died in 1945, his funeral procession was moving through Washington, a man

fell to his knees in grief.  Another gentleman helped him up and he said to

the grieving man, did you know the president?  The grieving man said, no,

but he knew me.  And that‘s the challenge for Barack Obama, is to get the

American people to feel that he really knows them and their problems. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, as this calendar plays out, let‘s say they get Wall

Street reform; there‘s no hitches from here on out.  Then, of course,

there‘s going to be the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.  And then

is there any better campaigner and fund-raiser and connector with people? 

You‘re going to have July, August, September and October for the president

to turn and do the sell job on what exactly they‘ve done.  Is that how it‘s

going to work out? 

ALTER:  Yes, he‘s going to go very political.  He already indicated

last week—his new line that he‘s using is they, the Republicans, drove

the car into the ditch; now they want us to turn over the keys to them; I

don‘t think so.  That‘s actually a pretty good line. 

One of the things this I talk about in “The Promise” is that he did

not find in the past the right vocabulary.  He has a kind of disdain for

sound bites.  Even though there‘s been this great accomplishment, he‘s had

a lot more problem conveying it and getting people to really understand

what he‘s trying to do.  I have a chapter called “Professor in Chief.” 

That‘s a little bit of his problem right now. 

SCHULTZ:  Jonathan Alter, always a pleasure.  The book called “The

Promise” by Jonathan Alter. 

Couple pages in the playbook tonight, bad news for Republican Sue

Lowden.  She‘ll have less chicken to barter with.  Kentucky Fried Chicken

is extending sales of its new Double Down Sandwich.  The sandwich has bacon

and cheese in the middle of two chicken fillets.  The promotion was

supposed to end this week, but the fast food chain says as long as the

demand is high they‘ll just continue to sell it. 

Finally, there‘s a mole in the White House.  We have proof.  Check

this out.  A rodent ran out in front of the cameras before President Obama

spoke yesterday.  The small furry creature made another appearance during

the speech.  The president never noticed it.  The big debate at the White

House today was what exactly was that critter? 

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thought it was something else. 



animal, based on the diameter of the seal, I got to tell you, that‘s a rat. 


SCHULTZ:  A rat in Washington?  How could that be possible? 

Coming up, look out, California, if a righty wins the next

gubernatorial race, he‘s promising to open up pedophile island?  “Daily

Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead will explain, and she‘ll have some comments

on Rand Paul.  That‘s next in “Club Ed.”  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back.  If it‘s Friday, it‘s time for Club Ed, with

Lizz Winstead, co-creator of the “Daily Show.”  You can follow her on

Twitter at Twitter.com/LizzWinstead.  In fact, you can follow her all over

the world if you want, folks.  She‘s amazing. 

All right, Rand—all I have to ask you is Rand Paul, our new psycho

talker.  You have the floor.  What about this guy? 


of things to start with.  First of all, let‘s just start calling him Rand

Polin, because he‘s just like Sarah Palin.  They seem related.  I don‘t

understand how really he can be an ophthalmologist with absolutely no idea

about blind justice.  That‘s the first part that completely freaks me out. 

The second thing I hope is that whatever happens to Rand Paul, that is

he is never going to be in charge with anything that has to do with lunch


Then you move on to this crazy blaming the president oil spill thing? 

And I don‘t—first of all, defending a foreign oil company over the

American taxpayers is beyond crazy.  Even libertarians should be putting

knives in their eyes right now.  But what‘s really nuts to me is, if he

believes that then maybe we should just rename this whole gulf disaster

Pauly Shore.  I‘ve been trying to figure out literally what‘s wrong with

Rand Paul.  Here‘s what I decided—I have a lot of friends that lived in

a very toxic environment and they‘ve developed something called Bell‘s

Palsy, when your face just kind of dies for a little bit and numbs.  I

think he might have Rand Paulsy, which means he grew up in a toxic

environment that deadened his brain, so he can‘t really tell the difference

between right and wrong. 

SCHULTZ:  Lizz Winstead, just keep it going.  Good to have you with us

tonight.  Thank you so much. 

All right.  You know, you‘re unbelievable.  You‘re great.  Great to

have you on.  Tonight, our text question survey is—I asked you, do you

believe BP has told the whole truth about the oil disaster?  Twenty seven

percent of you said yes; 73 percent of you said no.  I‘m a 73 percenter


That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  I‘m going north fishing.  When I

come back on Monday, I am going to show you a fish, a northern pike that‘s

over 40 inches.  And to prove that it‘s not a fish story, you‘ll have to

watch Monday night.  “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now on

MSNBC.  Have a great weekend.  We‘ll see you Monday. 




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

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

transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written

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

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>



Discussion comments