updated 5/27/2010 9:27:30 AM ET 2010-05-27T13:27:30

Guests: Henry Waxman, Mike Papantonio, Frank Sharry, Rep. Luis Gutierrez,

Al Sharpton, John Feehery, Laura Flanders, Bill Nye, Steve McMahon

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

from New York tonight.

These stories are on the table and hitting “My Hot Buttons” tonight. 

Don‘t you think the American people are sick and tired of BP winging

it?  It‘s time for the president of the United States and the experts to

take over. 

Plus, an explosive report from Congress shows BP ignored multiple

warning signs in the hours before the rig exploded. 

Arizona‘s anti-immigration law is dividing this nation.  That is for

sure.  The Republicans may have won the battle, but they‘re losing the war. 

Reverend Al Sharpton will give them a little bit more to worry about

at the bottom of the hour tonight. 

Plus, a Republican senator says the president of the United States

needs to take a valium?  The president fighting back on that one, as he

should. 

This is the story that has me fired up tonight. 

It is day 37, and at this hour, once again, BP is trying to stop the

leak.  They got the green light from the federal government to start the

top kill earlier this afternoon. 

You are looking live at a picture of BP‘s third attempt to stop the

mess that was really created by greed. 

BP CEO Tony Hayward talked about it this morning on “The Today Show.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY HAYWARD, CEO, BP:  Our expectations are if we determine we should

proceed, it would happen today.  I have to say that it won‘t be a day or

two before we can have certainty that this worked. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  The people of the Gulf don‘t have a couple of days, and the

American people are sick of BP acting and winging it.  I mean, that‘s where

they are.  From day one they‘ve been winging it.  The public trust is not

there. 

And BP and the president, how are we getting along here?  Who‘s really

calling the shots with this whole mess? 

The president addressed this thing last night. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Nobody is more upset

than me because ultimately, like any president, when this happens on your

watch then every day you are thinking, how does this get solved? 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Well, the disaster did happen on President Obama‘s watch,

but there‘s only so much the government can do. 

I was on a conference call this morning with Admiral Allen of the

Coast Guard.  He told me the Department of Defense does not have the

infrastructure to stop the leak.  It‘s all up to BP.  He said it‘s up to

the private sector. 

Admiral Allen also told me that he‘s headed to the Gulf tomorrow

because he‘s not happy with BP‘s onshore relief efforts. 

Tony Hayward knows what Admiral Allen is talking about. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYWARD:  I feel that we have let people down in our defense of the

shore.  And we are going to redouble our efforts in that endeavor.  And

even if a cupful of oil gets to the beach, it‘s a failure, so I feel

devastated that that‘s the case. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Aren‘t you kind of curious to know what BP‘s brand of

redoubling the efforts is going to look like?  Under federal law, BP is

responsible for the booms and skimmers the people of Louisiana have been

begging for on this program in recent nights. 

Admiral Allen and the Obama administration, they have got to put the

hammer down on this organization called BP that‘s doing this to the

environment.  They‘re not moving fast enough. 

BP is also under fire in the halls of Congress, and they should be.  A

memo by Congressmen Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak shows that there were

major problems on the Deepwater Horizon rig hours before it blew up.  The

memo said that BP data showed that there was an unexpected loss of fluid in

the well‘s riser pipe nearly five hours before the explosion. 

And the thing about all of this, folks, is the terminology that‘s

coming out of this known as “cozy relationship.”  And “cozy relationship,”

I‘ve never liked that.  It bothers me. 

Where I come from, it‘s known as fraud and bid-rigging, and maybe even

extortion. 

Americans, I think we have to remember just one thing about this whole

thing.  BP wasn‘t down there trying to make the United States of America

energy-independent.  They were down there digging for a dollar.  And now

they have got to dig deep for a dollar and make restitution for what is

happening for those folks on the Gulf and their livelihoods. 

Get your cell phones out.  I want to know what you think about all of

this tonight. 

Tonight‘s text survey question is: Do you believe the president can

stop the corruption in offshore drilling?  Text “A” for yes, text “B” for

no to 622639.  I‘ll bring you the results later on in the show. 

Joining me now is Congressman from California Henry Waxman, chairman

of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has produced this

blistering memo and report.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. 

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA:  Thank you.  I‘m pleased to be with

you.

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

You have got a lot of information, and I just want to get right to it

as far as BP‘s responsibility.  What do you believe they are culpable for,

knowing that the rig was not safe before the explosion? 

WAXMAN:  What we have now found out, and what we had a hint of at our

hearings, was that BP had a number of red flags indicating something wasn‘t

right with this—with the blowout preventer and the rig that was set up,

and the well that was underneath it.  It was leaking fluid.  There were

three or four times before they actually started the well up that they had

a warning that something was wrong. 

They saw more fluid than would otherwise be expected.  They did a

negative pressure test that turned out to show abnormalities from five

hours before, to one hour before, to 15 minutes before.  They had a clear

message not to go forward, and yet they went ahead and made the decision to

get this thing moving, and the result of that was the blowout that we‘re

now suffering from in the Gulf. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, isn‘t this the smoking gun, that this industry

cannot be in charge of oversight, that the United States government, the

Congress, is going to have to put the hammer down on the oil industry, that

they can‘t fill out their own reports and then get them OK‘d by somebody

that could be on the take? 

What do you make—isn‘t this the smoking gun? 

WAXMAN:  I think you‘ve jumped to a lot of conclusions for which we

don‘t have sufficient evidence. 

What we do know is that the government agency should not have trusted

BP to do so much on their own, but let‘s say they smelled it out.  They had

to have the blowout preventer, they had to do these tests, they couldn‘t go

forward until they got confirmation things were up and operating the way

they‘re supposed to be.  That could have been already a regulator telling

them that is what they needed to do. 

And even if they had done that, there was some reason that they were

negligent.  They just didn‘t pay attention to what was clear. 

The red flags were right there in front of them, telling they had a

huge abnormality.  They were going to face a big problem, and they went

ahead anyway. 

They need to be held accountable.  BP has to be responsible for

cleaning up this mess.  And I pray what they‘re trying to do today will

stop this leak.  That‘s the first thing we have to do.  But they have to be

accountable for failing to know what they were up to when they had the

responsibility to do the test and to follow the results of those tests. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, the president wants to announce tomorrow some new

regulations.  And I—some safety requirements.  You can have all the

regulations and all the safety requirements in the world, but if you‘re

dealing with people that are—and there are reports out there of hunting

and fishing trips, and cash and all kinds of benefits. 

If you‘re dealing with a system like that, if you can‘t clean that up,

what difference does it make? 

WAXMAN:  Well, the regulators were not doing their job, and in the

last eight years there were lots of reports of, as you said, a cozy

relationship between the regulators and those they‘re supposed to be re-

regulating.  In fact, very serious scandals in the relationship between the

two. 

So the regulators didn‘t do their job.  And I think the president is

going to propose a way that will have a Minerals Management agency that

won‘t have this conflict where they want to encourage more drilling because

they get royalties, at the same time they are supposed to be responsible to

stop the drilling if there‘s a safety problem. 

We have to separate those two functions, and we cannot trust BP or any

other oil industry to just operate on their own.  They‘ve got to set out

their plans of how they‘re going to handle it and how they‘re going to

handle a problem if it comes up. 

BP has no idea what they‘re doing with this kind of a catastrophe, and

yet they submitted documents to the government saying they could handle it

easily, they know what they‘re doing.  Well, they didn‘t even know what

they were doing when they started that well.  In light of all the evidence

that they had, there was a serious problem. 

SCHULTZ:  Yes.  Well, that speaks volumes of what we‘re dealing with. 

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. 

Chairman Waxman. 

Thank you so much.

WAXMAN:  Thank you.  Pleased to be with you.

SCHULTZ:  For more, let me bring in Mike Papantonio, environmental

lawyer, whose firm is leading the class action lawsuit against BP. 

Mike, your take?  Is this the smoking gun?  There‘s a lot of evidence

in this memo, a lot of condemning stuff. 

MIKE PAPANTONIO, ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYER:  Well, I‘ll tell you—let me

tell you what else the congressman is going to find as he looks further. 

He‘s going to find they didn‘t even test at depth this blowout valve that

was supposed to sheer itself and stop the leak. 

As a matter of fact, when they did any testing on these valves,

generally, they found that they only worked three out of 17 times.  So, as

this continues we‘re going to find a lot more. 

You mentioned something to the congressman I think is right on point,

Ed.  It‘s this—you can have all kinds of rules and regulations.  I come

from—I started out being a prosecutor, and I know this—rules and

regulations don‘t mean anything unless you perp-walk a few of these people.

Look, let me tell you, Minerals Management and the relationship with

BP, there‘s a statute right on point here.  It‘s 181346.  Maybe if the

congressman is still listening, he‘ll know to go to that statue.  There‘s

plenty to prosecute these people for. 

And you know what, Ed?  That‘s the only thing that‘s going to change

anything.

I saw an article in the paper a couple of weeks ago.  A teenager was

put in jail, locked up for 30 days, for stealing a Hostess Twinkie, for

God‘s sakes.

Here, we‘ve got companies that have killed 11 people, they‘ve

destroyed an entire ecosystem, and we‘re still relying on this idea that

rules and regulations are going to do something.  Eric Holder needs to

understand rules and regulations don‘t do anything unless you use them.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ:  Well, that‘s the point I‘m making.  I mean, when you‘re

dealing with billions of dollars, and you‘ve already got a history of

people being on the take, what are new rules and regulations going to do?

The Congress, they don‘t know anything about drilling for oil or

safety mechanisms.  You‘ve got a totally corrupt system, in my opinion.

Now, when  you take a look at what Mr. Holder said today when it comes

to liability caps, do you think it‘s time for the Justice Department to

kick it into high gear?

PAPANTONIO:  I don‘t think—the Justice Department needs to kick

something else into high gear.  It has nothing to do with these

limitations.

We‘re going to get past limitations without that.  All I have to be

able to show in court is that they were reckless and they were wanton in

the way that they—

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ:  Criminal investigation.  You want a criminal investigation?

PAPANTONIO:  That‘s the only thing that‘s going to solve this problem,

Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Yes.

PAPANTONIO:  You‘ve said it on this show—rules and regulations

don‘t mean anything until you perp-walk some of these people like they are

on Wall Street right now.  They‘re not even doing enough of that there.

But here, they‘ve got to look at the petroleum industry.  They‘ve got

to say it‘s dysfunctional, it‘s criminal, it has a character of a felon,

and we have to treat them like a felon. 

And the only way to do that is to have Eric Holder ignore issues like

caps and limitations and start paying attention to his job.  His job is to

be the top policeman in this country.  And right now he has plenty in front

of—if I just took what I have in front of me right now, Ed, if I just

had the documents and the evidence I have right in front of me, I would

tell my lawyers, I would tell—if they were prosecutors—go get them. 

That‘s enough. 

That‘s the only thing that‘s going to change them.  You can‘t regulate

criminals. 

All these criminals are going to do is go out get silk-stocking

lawyers in Armani three-piece suits, paid $700 an hour to lie for them. 

One way or the other, they‘re going to get around rules and regulations,

but they won‘t get around criminal prosecutions. 

Some of the prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney‘s Office are the best in

the country.  And all you have to do is unleash those prosecutors and this

will stop.  We won‘t have this happen again, because you won‘t have sex and

drug orgies with petroleum industry and Minerals Management.  You won‘t

have that happen again.

SCHULTZ:  Mike Papantonio, always telling it like it is. 

We‘re staying on the story, my man.  Thanks so much for joining us

again tonight. 

PAPANTONIO:  Thank you.

SCHULTZ:  Coming up, tensions are boiling over between the presidents

and the righties.  One Republican senator wants the president to take a

chill pill. 

Here‘s my prescription: Mr. President, just quit talking to the

Republicans.  They‘re not doing anything for us. 

And “The Beckster” is back in the “Zone.” 

Bill Nye, well, he tells us what a top kill is. 

And this just in—all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary have

asked Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to

investigate the Sestak story.  We‘re not too worried about what‘s happening

in the oilfield, you know, down there and what‘s happening with the

environment, but damn it, we‘ve got to get this Sestak story right.  That‘s

where the Republicans are. 

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. 

We‘ve stated on this program in the past that the immigration fight

sparked by Arizona‘s anti-immigration law really could be a political game-

changer for the Democrats.  It could lock up the Latino vote for the

Democrats for a generation. 

And now a new poll out with numbers confirms just that.  More than

half, 54 percent, have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.  Only 22

percent have a favorable view of the Republican Party. 

When Latino voters were asked, “Which party will do a better job

protecting the interest of minorities?” only 11 percent said the

Republicans, 58 percent said the Democrats. 

Joining me now is Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of

America‘s Voice. 

Mr. Sharry, good to have you on tonight. 

FRANK SHARRY, FOUNDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICA‘S VOICE:  Good to

be with you, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  You bet. 

What do these numbers mean?  And how damaging are they to the

Republicans? 

SHARRY:  If the Republicans don‘t get right with the Latino community,

,they‘ll never to able to win the White House in our lifetime. 

SCHULTZ:  Plain and simple. 

SHARRY:  Simple as that.

SCHULTZ:  Simple as that.

SHARRY:  Look, Bush won states in the Southwest and Florida in 2004

with strong Latino support.  He won 40 percent overall.  He did incredibly

well with Spanish dominant or with Latino immigrants, in particular. 

Four years later, John McCain couldn‘t get past 31 percent.  Smart

Republicans know if you don‘t get 40 percent of the Latino vote, you‘re

going to lose the presidency.  And right now the Republicans are down in

the low 20s with Latinos.  They‘re not going to be able to win the White

House unless they sue (ph) for peace. 

SCHULTZ:  So, obviously, this Arizona law is driving the Latino vote

right into the Democratic camp.  But I think it should be pointed out that

there‘s low voter registration with Latinos. 

What does this mean? 

SHARRY:  Yes.  The good news is that voter mobilization efforts in

2006, 2008, brought a surge.  I mean, 2008, there were 2.5 million new

Hispanic voters that showed up.  These are—many of them are first-and-

second-time voters. 

If that trend continues—and the demographics suggest it will—the

voter mobilization efforts, no doubt, will continue—you‘re going to have

this sleeping giant dictate who wins in this 50/50 political nation.  And

right now it‘s looking pretty bleak for the Republicans. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, 18 states are now signing on to what Arizona is doing,

and cooking up legislation that will parallel what the state of Arizona has

done.  I mean, we are as divided now as we‘ve ever been.

Or is that too much of a stretch?  What do you think?

SHARRY:  No.  But, see, Republicans are playing to their base.  This

is what Pete Wilson did.

Remember, he famously supported an anti-immigrant ballot measure in

1994.  He won re-election as governor, and he was going to run for

president.  But I don‘t think we ever saw President Pete Wilson. 

Why?  What happened was that in California, he took a purple state,

and it‘s become bright blue.  It has become a Democratic state.  Arnold

Schwarzenegger, the only exception. 

The reason is, is that Latinos became voters, became citizens, and

changed politics in California forever.  That is going to happen in Texas,

it‘s already under way in Florida.  It‘s under way in Nevada, Colorado, New

Mexico and Arizona. 

It‘s only a matter of time before Latinos, if they‘re so strongly a

base vote for Democrats, for Republicans to be in real trouble on the

electoral map when it comes to winning back the White House. 

SCHULTZ:  America‘s Voice founder and executive director, Frank

Sharry. 

Good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.

SHARRY:  Thanks for having me. 

SCHULTZ:  Coming up, “The Beckster” is chalking up the “Psycho Talk.” 

He‘s accusing the president of not respecting our troops? 

That lands him right in the “Zone,” big-time. 

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, Memorial Day is coming up, and

“The Beckster,” well, he really needs the break.  You can tell. 

He‘s way too stressed out about President Obama‘s Memorial Day Weekend

trip to Chicago. 

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Obama is skipping out on a Memorial

Day ceremony at Arlington Cemetery because he‘ll be in Chicago on vacation. 

I have no problem with the man taking a vacation, but I am sick and tired -

sick and tired of people believing the lie that this administration has

respect for the police or has respect for the soldiers of our country.  I‘m

tired of it. 

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Oh, you‘re so tired of it.  Are you tired of the truth? 

First of all, Glenn, Washington, D.C., isn‘t the only place you can

honor fallen soldiers.  President Obama is going to a Memorial Day event in

Illinois at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.  And he‘s not the first

president to spend Memorial Day away from the nation‘s capital.  Not even

close. 

In fact, the last three Republican presidents did the same thing. 

In 2002, George W. Bush was in Normandy, France.  Bush Senior went to

Kennebunkport in 1992.  And Ronald Reagan spent Memorial Day in 1993 in a

summit meeting, a political summit meeting, in Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Glenn, aren‘t you supposed to be, like, a history buff and kind of

know this stuff?  Your completely baseless rant against President Obama is

vindictive, saying that he is anti-military, and it is complete “Psycho

Talk.”   

Coming up, here we go again.  “The Maverick” has found a new way to

warmonger.  This time he‘s talking about boots on U.S. soil.  Congressman

Gutierrez is involved in one heck of a deportation battle.  And “The Rev”

is fired up over the boycotts. 

That‘s all coming up. 

Plus, outrage over a Muslim community center near Ground Zero here in

New York, and the president is talking tough. 

We‘ve got all that coming up on THE ED SHOW next half hour.

Stay with us.  You‘re watching MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA:  I appreciate the additional 1,200

being sent of the Guard, as well as additional 500 million, but it‘s simply

not enough.  We need 6,000. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  That is the Battleground story

tonight.  The Republicans want to militarize the U.S./Mexican border.  The

president responded by sending 1,200 troops.  But, of course, it‘s not

enough for the Republicans.  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wants a surge in

Predator Drones, the kind that the military has been smoking out al Qaeda

out of the mountains of Pakistan. 

Border security is important as part of a comprehensive immigration

reform bill.  That‘s what the American people want.  They know we can‘t

solve the country‘s immigration problem by just building a fence.  So where

are we? 

Let‘s move now to Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, member of the

Hispanic Caucus.  Congressman, how do you feel about the troops being on

the border?  And give us, in your opinion, some clarification.  What are

they there for? 

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS:  I‘m not quite sure.  Look, if I

thought that putting troops on the border were going to lead us to ending

this insane immigration system that is so destructive that leaves us unsafe

in our nation, then I would say we would coordinate it.  The fact is, Ed,

you should understand this, in the last eight years we‘ve doubled the

number of border patrol agents from 10,000 to 20,000.  We have an

additional 6,000 Ice agents.  We have spent billions securing that border. 

It will never be enough for those who want to pander and use the

immigration issue to pander to our worst fears in this country. 

SCHULTZ:  Are they going to be doing a law enforcement mission?  Or

are they going to do a military mission?  Are they going to be involved in

some real high-tech operations?  I think there‘s a real disconnect—we

understand border security, but, I mean, is this shoot to kill?  What is

this? 

GUTIERREZ:  Well, I think it‘s very, very dangerous when we interlope

our military with civilian—look, the border is still cross and is still

engaged.  Our civilian community is there.  Look—but let me just say,

Ed, to answer your question, if they‘re there in a supportive capacity,

fine, but we already know a couple of things.  Crime is down in Arizona. 

The border isn‘t any less safe today than it was when George Bush was

president of the United States.  And I don‘t remember McCain demanding and

pleading with George Bush to send troops to the border. 

The president, for whatever reason—let‘s just say he did it out of

good faith.  He said to the Republicans, you want more enforcement, you say

the problem is a criminal problem, I‘m going to send you 500 million

dollars to help secure that border, to give you more agents and more stuff. 

I‘m going to send you 1,200.  What do they say?  No, it‘s not enough.  You

want to know why it‘s not enough?  Because they‘re not dealing in good

faith.  They want to use the immigration issue to exploit it politically,

not to the resolve problems of our nation.  Otherwise they would say thank

you, Mr. President, you came from the White House, you came down to the

Republican senators, even though we‘ve treated you badly, never supported

you. 

Even though you‘re doing something that we know is going to upset Luis

Gutierrez and a whole bunch of Democrats—but what do they do?  They slap

him in the face.  They‘re not serious about the issue.

SCHULTZ:  They‘re using it as a political football, no doubt. 

GUTIERREZ:  That‘s it.  Why not deal with it? 

SCHULTZ:  I want to talk about a personal situation you were involved

in.  There was a U.S.-born citizen detained in your state of Illinois. 

What happened here? 

GUTIERREZ:  OK, look, he‘s detained by the police.  Mom comes down,

bails him out.  Our federal government decides on Friday that they don‘t

believe he‘s an American citizen.  I guess at the Department of Homeland

Security they go to work—you know, they go home at 5:00, especially on

Fridays.  So they just left him in jail Friday night, Saturday, Sunday.  I

guess after they brewed coffee on Monday morning, they finally came around

and checked.  He was an American citizen.  Of course, that was 72 hours-

plus later. 

Look, if the federal government cannot figure out the citizenship of

an American citizen, and it takes them four days to figure it out, because

it was on the fourth day they figured it out, imagine what a mess there‘s

going to be in Arizona. 

SCHULTZ:  This is an interview from the NBC affiliate in Chicago with

Eduardo Caraballo.  Here it is. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDUARDO CARABALLO, DETAINED IN ILLINOIS:  I am a U.S. citizen.  I have

my state I.D.  I have my Social Security Card.  I have my birth

certificate.  All the documents they need so I can be proved a U.S. citizen

were ignored by them.  I‘m pretty sure they know Puerto Ricans are

citizens.  But just because the way I look—I have Mexican features—

they pretty much assume that my papers were fake.  And they were asking me,

you know, all type of questions that make no sense to me. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, this is the very issue that could prop up in

Arizona with this law.  Don‘t you think? 

GUTIERREZ:  It‘s—look, Ed, let‘s be very clear.  Given the

sophistication that the federal government has, in order to—no-fly list,

all the sophistications that they have to track down, they can check a

Social Security number.  They can check an I.D., a state of Illinois

driver‘s license?  They can check a birth certificate.  They can check all

those things.  The fact is they were unable to verify. 

If you think the federal government that has all the resources to get

it done can‘t do it in less than four days, imagine the problems that are

going to exist in Arizona.  It‘s a case of—listen to that man‘s voice. 

Doesn‘t he sound like he‘s from here?  That‘s the problem.  People won‘t

believe us. 

SCHULTZ:  Great to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much. 

For more, let‘s bring in Reverend Al Sharpton, president of the

National Action Network.  Reverend, good to have you on tonight. 

REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTINO NETWORK:  Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  This is our worst fears that‘s already played out in

Illinois.  Or am I wrong on that?

SHARPTON:  No, I think you‘re absolutely right.  That is the point

that all of us have been saying.  This isn‘t about protecting illegal

immigrants that we‘re protesting this Arizona state immigration law.  It‘s

protecting legal citizens.  I think the congressman had it right.  If legal

citizens can be held four days with the federal government not being able

to really stop and verify their citizenship, what do you think‘s going to

happen with people with less funding, on a state level, with less

technology?  You‘re going to have droves of these kind of cases of citizens

because of being profiled.  They‘ll be detained. 

This is horrific from a human rights and civil rights level for

American citizens. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you make of the boycotts, Reverend?  There are 13

cities now that are legally working against or commercially working against

Arizona.  And there‘s conflict, obviously, and conversation back between

Los Angeles and Phoenix.  Where‘s this going in your opinion? 

SHARPTON:  Well, the first thing I think about is it shows real

momentum.  I think when many of us came out that Friday that the governor

signed this law, we never thought you‘d have major cities like Los Angeles

and other major cities announcing officially a boycott.  I think this is

probably the most momentum you‘ve seen across country on a civil rights-

type issue like this in a long time. 

I think it should not be underestimated.  There are people saying we

will not spend money where people are going to be profiled and where

American citizens are going to be subjected to a different standard just

because of how they look, color of their skin or language. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you make of the number of states?  The numbers keep

mounting that they‘re going to parallel the Arizona law and do something

similar to what they have.  And then also looking at the NBC numbers, that

a lot of Latinos are going right into the Democratic camp, and the

Republicans just are not in favor with this portion of the population of

this country.  Where are we going?  It sound so divided to me. 

SHARPTON:  It‘s very divided.  The division started when they decided

to divide the rights of people that are American citizens in Arizona, from

other American citizens, based on how they look or how they think they

look.  That‘s who started the division.  Then you have all these other

states now that want to jump on, play politics on this, and try to play to

people‘s base fears and worst fears, rather than try to deal with the fact

that none of this is about really solving the immigration problem. 

The fact that a lot of Latinos are moving to the Democratic party I

think is understandable.  They were told by many of the Republicans they

were their friends.  You don‘t profile your friends.  You don‘t set up a

different standard for your friends.  Obviously, people go where their

interests lie.  And I think a lot of them see their interests do not lie

with people that speak Spanish to them, and are saying the ugliest things

in those terms. 

For McCain to talk about 6,000 troops now, he didn‘t say that in ‘08. 

He didn‘t say that when George Bush was president, when he was running

around saying, I‘m your friend, I‘m your Amigo.  Now I‘m trying to do

everything to race bait my way some votes.  I think that‘s atrocious. 

SCHULTZ:  Reverend Sharpton, always a pleasure. 

SHARPTON:  Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Now let‘s get some rapid fire response on our panel tonight

on these stories.  Community leaders in Manhattan vote in favor of building

a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, but many people think it‘s

offensive to put an Islamic center in a place destroyed by Islamic

extremists. 

The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the

Justice Department to investigate Joe Sestak‘s claim that the White House

offered him a job if he dropped his Senate bid against Arlen Specter. 

And the president is sending 1,200 troops to the border.  John McCain

wants five times that number.  We‘ll get our panel‘s take on the

immigration fight on this one. 

With us tonight, Laura Flanders, author of “Blue Grit” and host of

Grit TV.  Also John Feehery, Republican strategist. 

Let‘s start with this facility that‘s going to be built in lower

Manhattan.  The people voted for it, but then there‘s a lot of folks that

think it‘s an insult.  Laura Flanders, what do you think?

LAURA FLANDERS, “GRIT TV”:  It‘s kind of a non-story.  They voted 29

to one for it.  And, you know, we‘re not—we didn‘t ban buzz cuts after

Oklahoma City.  We‘re into tolerance.  Is there possibly better uses we

could put the land to than another tax-exempt church?  Yeah.  But, hey,

this is about tolerance.  I say good values win over the other kind. 

SCHULTZ:  John Feehery, what do you think? 

JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  I think it‘s needlessly

insensitive to folks who lost loved ones in the bombing—the attack on

9/11.  I think it was offensive, really.  They could have built that mosque

anywhere in New York City.  To put it so close to Ground Zero I think is

needlessly offensive. 

FLANDERS:  You know, the only important thing about this whole

discussion is you want to talk about offensive, is that there was a Tea

Party leader engaged in this debate who talked about Islam as having a

monkey God.  That‘s offensive. 

FEEHERY:  That‘s offensive.  I agree with that. 

SCHULTZ:  Joe Sestak has caused quite a stir for the White House.  How

big of a problem is this?  Is there some political piling on going on here,

John Feehery, now that you have Republicans wanting an investigation. 

FEEHERY:  There should be an investigation.  Joe Sestak admitted that

he got offered a job, which is illegal under the law.  I think, therefore,

this is an investigation that needs to go forward.  Frankly, this is

Democrat on Democrat violence.  This is a campaign issue with Arlen

Specter.  Joe Sestak admitted it happened.  And there needs to be an

investigation. 

I think the White House is really stonewalled on this whole thing.  I

think it‘s outrageous. 

SCHULTZ:  What do you think, Laura? 

FLANDERS:  We have a catastrophe.  What looked like all sorts of

grounds for criminal prosecution, at least federal investigation of British

Petroleum.  This is really what the GOP senators want Eric Holder to be

focusing on.  Give me a break.  Eric Holder needs to be sending criminal

investigators to the offices of British Petroleum today.  We need to be

debarring that corporation, a repeat offender, from receiving any more

federal contracts or leases of any kind. 

FEEHERY:  Laura, there will be plenty of investigations into what

happened in the oil spill.  This is political corruption at the highest

level.  It needs to be investigated.  Joe Sestak admitted that it happened. 

FLANDERS:  It‘s not destroying our environment.  It‘s not destroying

our beaches.  We can stop this company right now before they spill again. 

FEEHERY:  They can do both.  They should do both. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the 1,200 troops, John Feehery, that the

president has sent down to the border?  Here are the Republicans calling

for more border security.  So he sends 1,200 troops down there and John

McCain is still not happy.  Does the president win anywhere with the

Republicans? 

FEEHERY:  Well, listen, I‘m not sure why the president made this

announcement this week, when we have, as Laura points out, this terrible

situation in the Gulf.  I think he‘s—I think he‘s trying to make

political hay, trying to play politics with this thing.  For the

Republicans, the difference between 6,000 and 1,200, it‘s a significant

number but not an overwhelmingly significant number. 

SCHULTZ:  Where was John McCain all these years?  John McCain‘s been

in the Congress since the ‘80s. 

FEEHERY:  During the Bush administration, there was 6,000 troops on

the border.  I don‘t think—the fact of the matter is that you need to

secure the border.  Everyone admits that.  You have to do it quickly.  I

think the president—

SCHULTZ:  What about that, Laura? 

FLANDERS:  We have precious resources here and we have crime going

down in Arizona.  We needs those Guards on the Gulf coast beaches, period. 

SCHULTZ:  Great to have you us tonight, Laura Flanders, John Feehery. 

Thanks so much.

I talk a lot about the immigration battle in my new book.  This all

ties into one of the four pillars I believe that is essential to a great

country, defending the nation.  “Killer Politics, How Big Money and Bad

Politics is Destroying the Great American Middle Class” comes out June 1st

I‘ll have book signings around the country.  Go to my website at

WeGotEd.com and get your copy about this book.  Sign up for it. 

Coming up, the top kill procedure is under way 5,000 feet below the

surface.  This is a live picture.  I want you to know what the heck they‘re

actually doing down there.  Bill Nye the Science Guy will break it all down

for us next in the playbook.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ:  In my playbook tonight, the top kill procedure is happening

now.  This is live picture, 5000 feet below the surface.  British Petroleum

is hoping they finally have the answer to stop the oil from gushing into

the Gulf of Mexico.  The procedure involves forcing thick, muddy fluid

straight into the blowout preventer.  BP CEO Tony Hayward gave it a 60 to

70 percent chance of success, but said it may be a couple of days before

they can tell if it‘s actually working and has worked. 

To tell us more about this technique, let me bring in Bill Nye the

Science Guy.  Mr. Nye, good to have you with us tonight. 

BILL NYE, THE SCIENCE GUY:  Good to see you. 

SCHULTZ:  Is this an old technique? 

NYE:  It‘s a modification of an old technique.  So when people talk

about drilling mud, they talk about drilling fluid in the oil field—and

in the oil field, the oil patch, they use this kind of terminology.  This

is a material that is unusual, out of your everyday experience.  The harder

you push on drilling mud, the stiffer it gets.  The more pressure you put

on it, the more it locks up. 

So what these—what they‘ve done is cut some of the hoses off the

blowout preventer, the BOP, this thing that sits on top of the well that

has two valves that were supposed to close and they didn‘t close.  They‘ve

cut some of those pipes off, and they‘re forcing drilling mud, if you will,

from the bottom up.  It‘s called top kill because you do it from the top. 

You‘re not doing it from deep in the well.  If this procedure works, the

well is killed.  You can‘t use it anymore. 

The idea is that if you get enough of this drilling mud, this drilling

fluid, into the well, it will lock up.  It will stop the flow.  So the

balance—the thing that has to be figured out—and I imagine the BP

engineers and others have been working on this for a few days—is you

have to get the flow of drilling mud into the blowout preventer fast enough

to get enough mud in there to seal the leak.  But you can‘t go too fast,

because if you push on the mud too fast, it locks up in its own hose and

you don‘t get anywhere. 

This is an old problem or feature or thing you have to deal with when

you work in the oil field.  And seeing that brown cloud next to the black

and gassy cloud indicates to me that the mud is flowing and we‘ll see—

there, you see the tan and the black mixed together.  If enough of it is

flowing, it will seize, lock up, virtually stop the flow.  And then to make

sure they‘ll pour cement on top and kill the well. 

SCHULTZ:  You agree with the CEO of BP, a 60 or 70 percent chance of

working? 

NYE:  Well, if it were on the surface, it would be—let‘s say, 90

percent chance.  So the guy is, I think very reasonable, just cutting that

in half. 

SCHULTZ:  Quickly, what about the pressure on the other end, where the

oil‘s coming from?  I mean, obviously they dug down and hit something.  The

-- how do they measure the pressure coming up the pipe?  I mean, it seems

to me that‘s where the big concern should be, and they ought to be able to

measure that, shouldn‘t they? 

NYE:  Well, I imagine they have measured it.  If they haven‘t measure

it directly with pressure censors on the blowout preventer, they‘ve

measured it by inference, by watching the flow and how far the bubbles

travel before they dissolve.  But it‘s around 6,800 psi.  So your car tires

are a 20th of that. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Mr. Nye, good to have you on.  Thank you.  Thanks for

the explanation. 

NYE:  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  Hopefully it will work. 

NYE:  A 200th of that. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Final page in the Playbook tonight, the White House

party crashers won‘t let their 15 minutes of fame go.  The Salahis were at

it again last night.  This time they steered clear of the White House, but

the couple made a visit on “Late Night with David Letterman.”  Take a look. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMAN, “THE LATE SHOW”:  On—look at that.  All right. 

Bye.  See, it‘s interesting to me, for all practical purposes, they‘re

trespassing. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Couldn‘t agree with you more, Dave. 

Coming up, President Obama is finally starting to understand what the

party of no is all about.  He‘s letting Bob Corkers of the world know the

game is over.  For more on that, stick around.  We‘re talking about it

next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA:  The last thing I said to my Republican colleagues was you

don‘t even have to meet me half way.  I mean, you know, the day has passed

when I expected this to be a full partnership. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  President Obama may have finally realized Republicans are

not interested in working with him.  He had another meeting with Senate

Republicans and really accomplished nothing.  At a fund-raiser in

California last night, the president got tough. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA:  When we talk about bipartisanship, what we mean is that

there‘s going to be some negotiation.  And no, the Republicans aren‘t going

to get their way on everything.  If we‘re not doing everything the way they

want and they say I‘m going to take my ball and go home, and I won‘t vote

for anything, that‘s not a failure of bipartisanship on our part.  There‘s

got to be some give on the other side, particularly when you drove the car

into the ditch. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ:  Don‘t you want to hear more of that from the president?  I

do.  Enough is enough.  Trying to work with the Republicans is just simply

a waste of time.  Let‘s just get to the midterms and get some more seats. 

For more, let‘s bring in Democratic strategist Steve McMahon.  Steve, good

to have you with us tonight. 

Has the light bulb now gone on?  Is it going to be different from here

on out?  What do you think?

STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  I think the president is

starting to contextualize the behavior that Americans are seeing from the

Republicans.  He came to office saying he was going to bring about

bipartisanship and he tried.  He likes to say that it‘s up to the president

to be inclusive, and it‘s up to the opposition party to be constructive. 

The opposition party hasn‘t been constructive.  They‘ve chosen to take

their ball and go home.  And he‘s now starting to explain that to the

American people. 

SCHULTZ:  So the campaign‘s on.  He‘s at a fund-raiser last night. 

The campaign has to be on.  This is a new tone from the president. 

MCMAHON:  The campaign is on.  What he has to do, and what he‘s doing

very effectively, I think, is frame the Republicans‘ opposition as not

principled opposition but politically oriented and politically motivated

obstinance that is designed specifically for some political gain.  They‘re

not really interested in solving the nation‘s problems.  They certainly

aren‘t interested in compromising to get it done.  The Obama administration

faced with either doing nothing or getting something done is choosing to

get it done with Democrats. 

SCHULTZ:  Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said this, “I told him I

thought there was a degree of audacity in him even showing up today, after

what happened with financial regulation.  I just wanted to tell him how—

tell me how when he wakes up in the morning, comes over to a luncheon like

ours today, how does he reconcile that duplicity?” 

Of course, Bob Corker has never been one for bipartisanship.  It just

seems that the Republicans are ready to draw the line and go to the

midterm.  They‘re not going to work with him at all.  I mean, that pretty

much was a cheap shot, wasn‘t it? 

MCMAHON:  It was a cheap shot.  Frankly, the president took a year on

health care reform because he was trying to get some Republicans to come

along.  Last week, on financial regulatory reform, he got four Republican

to come along and he basically did a year‘s worth of effort on that bill as

well.  Bob Corker and his Republican colleagues didn‘t come.  They‘re not

going to vote for anything this president wants.  This president is going

to continue to pursue an agenda that the American people voted for.  And

the Republicans by saying no, I think, are actually hurting their chances

in November and not helping them. 

SCHULTZ:  How many people do you go to lunch with, and what you get in

return is a senator—Pat Roberts from Kansas says “he needs to take a

Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans.  He‘s pretty thin

skinned.”  Is the president thin skinned?  What do you think? 

MCMAHON:  Actually, I think the fact that the president has gone to

see the Republican senators on their turf, went to the House Republican

Caucus and answered their questions and engaged in a dialogue with them,

demonstrates not only that he‘s not only thin skinned, but that he‘s still

trying to extend a hand. 

Every time he extends a hand and the Republicans slap it, I think the

Republicans are hurting themselves.  If you look at the approval ratings

for the Republican party and compare them to the approval ratings of

President Obama, you can see that‘s true. 

SCHULTZ:  Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, always a pleasure. 

Great take.  Thanks so much. 

MCMAHON:  Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Tonight in our text survey, I asked do you believe a

president can stop the corruption in offshore drilling?  Fifty one percent

of you said yes; 49 percent of you said no. 

That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  Back tomorrow night here on THE

ED SHOW, 6:00 Eastern.  “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now on

the place for politics, MSNBC.  We‘ll see you tomorrow night. 

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

BE UPDATED.

END   

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

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

transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written

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

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,