Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Thursday, September 5th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

September 5, 2013

Guests: Mark Pocan, Jon Soltz, Robert Greenwald, John Fugelsang, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, Adam Green


known, knowns. There are things we know we know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to know what you`re going to do.

RUMSFELD: There are known unknowns.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you have to provide the kind of leadership
that the men are going to keep with their lives.

RUMSFELD: That is to say we know there are some things we do not


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President is not in my team. Providing that
kind of leadership that I think almost any president in my adult lifetime
would be.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Fool me once shame on you.
Fool me, I can`t get fool again.


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: I agree. We can`t get fooled again.

You know isn`t this an interesting collection of folks right here.
What does it take together Republican to be against an air strike? What
does it take to get a Republican to be against the war or confrontation?
And correct me if I`m wrong folks you could do it on Twitter. Those are
Republicans who always run on foreign policy that they are the experts,
that the Democrats are weak and that they are the ones that are so
concerned about America`s security.

You know as the evidence comes in about the use of chemical weapons,
how can they oppose the President? In the growing number of far right wing
Republicans are coming out and opposing an air strike on Syria. Believe it
or not, the raid is like Rick Santorum and Marco Rubio and Michele
Bachmann. And then of course there`s Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Expert. They
are saying no to an air strike on Syria and I agree with them, but of
course completely different reasons, folks.

The Republicans, they don`t hate war. They hate this guy. Barack
Hussein Obama. They just cannot stomach the fact that they might be
agreeing with him `cause they`d have a lot of trouble back home. They have
fought this President, obstructed this President. Their whole focus is to
make him a failure. How in the world can they support him on going up
against Syria?

The level of spite in conservative hearts for this President is the
only reason they are against war for the first time ever.

Donald Rumsfeld, the man who lied our nation into a baseless, bloody,
8-year confrontation on Iraq is opposing military action because he doesn`t
like the President, that`s bottom line. Here`s what Mr. Faulty
Intelligence said earlier today.


RUMSFELD: It`s exactly the reason that there is not a large coalition
wanting to support the President. It`s a reason that the Congress is
confused because he has spent so much time saying what he would not do and
what it would not amount to.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Don`t you think a big obstacle especially
abroad is the legacy of how we got involved in the Iraq war?

RUMSFELD: I suppose its part of the problem. I think intelligence,
you know, if intelligence were a fact it would be called a fact. My
personal view is that what he has proposed is not something that will have
a sufficient effect that it`s worth doing. And I would personally not be
in favor of supporting what he is proposing.


SCHULTZ: I know it`s a liberal -- it`s hard to stomach watching that
guy and listening to him, but the bottom line is Donald Rumsfeld is flat
out wrong. The entire reason the President of the United States can`t
build an international coalition is because the Bush Administration lied to
the world about the war in Iraq. We now have a credibility issue because
of this crowd. We now have a credibility issue because they are the
obstructors. They are the architects of the project for a new American
century and you know what, the rest of the world does it.

Then of course there is this guy, Rick Santorum. He used to be all
for intervention in Syria until he realized the President of the United
States wanted action. Here`s what Rick Santorum said during the 2012
Presidential Debate.


SANTORUM: Syria is a puppet state of Iran. They are a threat not just
to Israel. They are a country that we could do no worse than the
leadership in Syria today. This President has obviously a very big problem
in standing up to the Iran as any form.

If this would have been any other county given what was going on and
the mass murders that we`re seeing there. This President would have
quickly and joined the international community which is calling for his


SCHULTZ: You mean you are for it before you were against it?
Meanwhile it`s not just media hogs (ph) this President on this issue. ABC
News whip count shows 199 members of the House opposed or likely oppose
military action in Syria. Interesting, 145 of those members what are they?
They`re Republicans and tea partiers.

And of the 115 lawmakers who voted for war in Iraq, 35 are against
striking Syria. Why have they had a change of heart?

Republicans need only 19 more votes to get a no measure coming out of
the house and of course that would be a defeat for the President in the
eyes of some who don`t look at the big picture. The conservatives, you
know what they did? They brought us war in Iraq. The conservatives
brought us the project for a new American Century. They have never turned
down a war, especially in the Middle East.

Let`s not forget, the Republican war cry for Iraq.


with us, either you love freedom, and with nations which embraced freedom,
are you with the enemy?


SCHULTZ: Now, either you`re with us or you`re against us. So much
for that tag line these days, I don`t hear them saying that. The
Republican Party`s hatred and that`s exactly what it is. Their flat out
hatred for this President is beyond the pail. The party of war is now the
party of doves, only because they despise President Obama and making him a
failure is a big part of all of this. Meanwhile, I think this is the one
time the hatred for the President might actually help out the country.

People like me, hey as a citizen, as a tax payer, you know, I don`t
like wars right now at all, OK, I`ve had enough of it, I don`t believe in
what this is all about. I don`t believe in international intervention.
And as a tax payer, as a citizen I don`t want to see more blood spilled
overseas, more money spent on things that we could avoid. And as I said
last night, we don`t know what the consequences are if we take action in
Syria. This is what lawmakers are wrestling with. If you`d listen to all
the sound bites (ph) of all of the Democrats who are out there, we really
don`t know what the end game is. We really don`t know what consequences we
could be facing. We don`t know what the reaction is going to be.

And we`re playing with a different set of toys here folks, OK. We
don`t know what chain reaction it could set off. Another American act of
aggression in the Middle East could lead to another attack on our soil and
I think we should be talking about that. There are all -- this -- I really
believe that everything that we have said on this show are reasonable
patriotic reasons to be against another war, another strike, another act of
war and that`s what it is. But hatred for our nation`s first black
president is not.

Now the President has all of these conservatives in a political box.
They can`t support him. They`ve been railing (ph) on this guy for years.
How are they going home into their Tea Party districts and say, "Well I
stood with the President," that doesn`t sound good. No, no, no, no, it
doesn`t sound good. And if President Obama does get their support, God
forbid if it turns out good, you know, then they would be, have sided with
the President. On the other hand they have got to go home and say, "I`m
against President Obama but I`m really strong on national security." How
are they going to do that?

The bottom line here is if they are allowing their personal interest
to get in the way of what President Obama believes is the right thing for
the country. Now I`m against the air strikes, I`m on record, I want a no
vote. I ask for the no vote order last night with Elijah Cummings, the
congressman on this television show. Because I believe that we should not
be doing this. But my motives are heck of a lot different than the motives
of these conservatives who simply are no experts on foreign policy and we
have the bills to prove it don`t we?

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Are Republicans voting against Syria because they hate President
Obama?" Text A for Yes, Text B for No to 67622, you can always go to our
blog at and leave a comment there, we`ll bring in the results
later on in the show.

For more on tonight`s subject let`s bring in Congressman Mark Pocan of
Wisconsin who is serving in his first term in the United States Congress
and all of a sudden he`s about to take a very important vote. And also
with us tonight John Soltz of who heads up an organization
that represents some 360,000 veterans in this country who have been in the
Middle East.

Congressman Pocan you first, do you think Republicans are opposing
this action that the President wants to take against Syria because of their
hatred for the President? Why all of a sudden are the Republicans against

REP. MARK POCAN, (D) WISCONSIN: Yeah, I think there are many
Republicans who are opposing the President simply to oppose the President.
These are the same people who support the sequester that when I asked the
General in the Budget Committee, if we are less prepared because of the
sequester, I was told definitively yes.

So, they`re weakening the military because of their budgetary policies
and if this case feel (ph) like you said, they`re not there on behalf of
the military like they normally are, they just want to oppose the

So it`s -- There`s some different messages on why this is happening
but you and I are looking it from very different perspective there.

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman if you take a look at what the Republicans
are saying it`s very similar to what some Democrats are saying. Aren`t
they in somewhat of a political box here, the politics of all of this?

POCAN: Well, for some of them because, you know, they represent
district. They`ve had a hawkish behavior in the past. They`ve had
bullying records and like that, but suddenly there`s a change in opinion.

I can just tell you from my perspective I`ve gone to the classified
briefing on Sunday. I spend an hour and a quarter on the phone with the
progressive caucus and the White House Chief of Staff yesterday. I`m just
not convinced that we`ve got enough information to tell us that this is the
right thing to do. I don`t think we`ve looked at every alternative, other
than a military strike. I don`t think we`ve engaged the international
community as we really need to. I just can`t at this point support what
the President is proposing.

But I think the Republicans, you know, there is a mix. Some people
just want to get the President and some people maybe they`re listening to
their constituents, because I`m getting 15 to 1 people contacting us
telling us don`t get involve in Syria.

SCHULTZ: OK. Jon Soltz I want to ask you, are there any good
players, any good scenarios that would come out of Syria if we attack them?
And that`s what it`s going to be. I don`t care if it`s one cruise missile
or 200. It`s an attack.

JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Well, the Administration is saying that
they`re not actually going to get involve in the civil war, but that`s
after we`ve already given weapons to the insurgent several months ago
because they already crossed the red line.

So they don`t want to really go up decisively after the Bashar Assad`s
most powerful military forces which surrounds in Damascus. So he`s going
to wake up the next day and he`s still going to have the same alternative.

So it`s very complicated. If they tip the balance to the war. The
insurgents, we know who these insurgents are. They fought us in Iraq.
They killed elements of units to that (ph) terrain in Iraq and on the other
side on the Syrian regime side you have Hezbollah troops who also were
involved in Iraq fighting US troops. So it`s very complicated and it`s
just not going to be decisive of action only further pull us in.

SCHULTZ: OK. Further pull us in. Do you think that a strike would
pull us further into ...

SOLTZ: Absolutely, because it`s not decisive. There`s 100 percent
chance we`re not going after chemical sites. We have to go after
deliverables, scud missiles, rocket launchers, artillery rounds. No fly
zone. He`s just going to resupply.

The question is if you really not going to hurt his hold operationally
on his power, why is it going to scare him to determine the future?

SCHULTZ: Do you think there will be a reaction from Assad? I mean
everybody thinks that this is the calculus that no one can figure out
exactly what the responds will be.

SOLTZ: Well, absolutely because the most likely course of action of
the insurgents is to try to exploit this and push forward operationally
within their own war.

So if the insurgents try to take advantage of the strikes, where
Bashar`s -- Assad`s assets are kind of sporadic and spread out or in
different locations they could try to see certain cities or certain terrain
and that would force a very strong response from the regime and further,
you know, escalate the conflict inside the country.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Pocan that really is the intangible here. We do
not know how to measure what kind of response Syria would give us which
could draw us into a greater conflict. What kind of answer are you looking
for on that to get a yes vote?

POCAN: Yes. I tell you the question that was asked on Sunday and I
asked again yesterday is what`s the end game? I don`t know if we have
enough of an end game response to know what could happen.

I was just at the Israeli -Syrian boarder at the beginning of August.
I`m fearful that if we corner someone by doing something like this the
reaction comes back to our allies, the Israel, the Turkey. It could have
something happen in the United States.

I just think that there hasn`t been enough discussed about what it
means when we go in, either unilaterally or close to unilaterally with the
military strike and what the implications are. It`s so important to -- I
think people are so war-weary in my district. You know, I have two nephews
who luckily came back from Iraq. However, their families didn`t continue.

This is a huge vote. Now, if we`re going to do something that could
have further implications and bring this country into war that`s Something
that we need to have an international debate about and I don`t think we`ve
done that.

SCHULTZ: Well, let me ask you. What if there is a no vote and the
President calls for strikes anyway? Where does that leave us?

POCAN: I think that`d be a huge mistake.


POCAN: I think the President deserves enormous credit for coming to
Congress, right? That hasn`t happen because of George W. Bush and others.
This is now setting a President for all future presidents and he deserves
respect for that. However, if he would do something with a no vote from
Congress big mistake.

SCHULTZ: Yes. John Soltz where are the veterans.

SOLTZ: Our membership, Ed is 78 percent against and there`s a lot of
veterans that I talked to. There are Republican to be frankly honest or
conservative or liberal progressive. It doesn`t matter.

So many veterans, the biggest question is, "Hey how many times did you
go to Iraq?" And if you say once it`s going to say, "Man how do you get so
lucky?" This is 10, 12 of years of war now people been to three times. I
think a lot of people are like, "We`ve seen this show before."

SCHULTZ: But what do you say to the President who brings up the issue
and the Secretary of State about it`s a moral obligation in our image in
the world.

SOLTZ: I would ask him really one simple question if I could, you
know, if I could talk to the President. And I would say, "You know, Sir,
you gave them weapons because they crossed the red line. And so, they use
the weapons again. So, what are we going to do when they use chemicals
next time? And what does that mean for our military?" And, you know, in
reality, the question is what is the best course of action to eliminate
their use of chemical weapons? Right now, this type of military operation
doesn`t do it. So, what do you do the next time they cross the red line?

SCHULTZ: All right. Congressman Mark Potan -- Pocan and also Jon
Soltz, great to have both of you with us tonight. Appreciate your time.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. We always like it when you share your thoughts on Twitter and Ed
Show, and on Facebook. We always want to know what you think.

Coming up, Wal-Mart workers stage their largest protest as Black
Friday. Robert Greenwald joins me on what they hope to accomplish. And
the health care misinformation campaign continues, but Republicans aren`t
the only one spreading the lies. We`ll have the details and more on Syria,
coming up. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Time now for the trenders. The Ed Show social media nation
has decided and we are reporting. Here are today`s top trenders voted on
by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our number three trender, it`s a girl.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We all took out a very good look at her cub and
I`m happy to report that she is absolutely beautiful. She`s got a fat
little belly. It`s very active. It`s very vocal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The DC Zoo has more details about its newest

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am standing in front of Chin Chiin (ph), one
of the two pandas who could be the father

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that the father is Chin-Chin (ph)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are the bod (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two trender, revved up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sales rate for autos in the US now and its
fastest rates since 2007.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number of automakers will be raising
production schedules in the fourth quarter because of this -- the bandits
out there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are heading back toward pre-recession levels.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Auto sales are on the fast track.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: GM had its best month since 2008. Forbes says it
sold an Ipisary pick up truck every 42 seconds in the month of August.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keiser (ph) sales rose for the 41st straight

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You mean the government loan worked?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let Detroit go bankrupt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wrong, sir. Wrong. You loose. Good day sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s top trender, wage against the machine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Walmart walked out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Workers in 15 locations are taking part and this
could have called are Walmart organizing in concert with other groups
organizing Walmart warehouse workers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The largest mobilization of Walmart employees
since last year`s Black Friday protest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walmart workers across the country hit the picket

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Demanding better worker right that`s better pay,
lower health care cost, more hours in just general better treatment at

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Always low prices. Always.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A recent government report found many Walmart
workers are less than $9 an hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walmart has still distinguished itself with the
zeal in its creativity in finding ways to suppress ordinance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what -- and I don`t think it would become to
avoid things are going right now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Raise the power.

SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Robert Greenwald founder of Brave New
Films. Brave New Films has done a very extensive documentary on Walmart,
Mr. Greenwald good to have you with us tonight.

Did you expect this to eventually happen? What you saw today in
numerous cities, a protest by workers saying that, "This is a bad place to
work and we deserve more."

I hoped for it. I`m absolutely thrilled and I think we all need to speak
and support those incredibly brave workers who are making, remember on
average $8.81 an hour, Ed. And the Walmart family is worth $150 billion,
they never worked a day in their life for that money.

SCHULTZ: How was Walmart a bad player outside of the wage? I
understand that they have been very adamant about fighting any kind of
collective bargaining situation. But how have they been a bad player to
their employees?

GREENWALD: Well, we spent a year working on the Walmart film. And
it`s basically built into the DNA of that company. The notion that you do
anything for another nickel. You squeeze the workers, you squeeze the
overseas factories, you bribe foreign countries as we saw the recent
scandal in Mexico that was reported by David Barstow in the New York Times.

But it`s all driven by capitalism run wild. No restraints, no
protections, and the justification that it`s OK for me to do anything to
you. So the CEO of Walmart makes $36 million this year and the workers
averaging $8.81 an hour.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Greenwald, do you think that this is the start of
something bigger when it comes to workers in America? I mean we saw the
fastfood workers, now we`re seeing the Walmart workers in protest, what`s
this mean?

GREENWALD: It`s absolutely thrilling, Ed, and I think it is the
beginning of something. But I think we all have a job to do. I think we
all have work to do to support these folks, to support our Walmart, to
support the fastfood workers to help them in every way we can to organize
them .

SCHULTZ: Well, what do you think they can -- what you think they can

GREENWALD: Well, I think what they can accomplish is first of all,
raising the issue and letting people know there`s a problem. And
ultimately I believe they will be able to accomplish higher wages, a higher
minimum wage, and changing this inequity that`s existing in our country
right now.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Greenwald, I would be remised if I didn`t
switch subjects on you because I know that you`ve done a lot of work in the
Middle East. I want to ask you about the handling of Syria by this
President and where the Congress seems to be going. Your thoughts on what
is unfolded.

GREENWALD: Well, you know, it feels in some ways, Ed, like a
Shakespearean tragedy. The President who many of us supported and worked
for to his credit took the issue to Congress. But now, as with all wars,
we`re seeing distortions, we`re seeing manipulation of the facts, and we`re
seeing an effort to scare the hell out of us, Ed. And we shouldn`t allow
the Administration to do that, and we should be pressuring our elected
officials who are hearing over and over again, this is not the solution .


GREENWALD: . to make the Syrian people safer, or to make us safer.

SCHULTZ: Vladimir Putin says that "John Kerry is lying and he knows
it, and it`s sad." What do you make of that?

GREENWALD: Well, it`s tragic if in fact he is lying and knows it. I
think what we need to do though and again it`s an extraordinary moment for
democracy, for organizing, and for so many Americans across the political
strike that you`ve been amazing in this, Ed, saying, "No. War can`t solve
the problems." We saw it in Vietnam, we saw it in Iraq, we saw it in
Afghanistan, and we`re going to see it again in Syria. We need to connect
those dots and have people say, "Enough is enough."

SCHULTZ: Mr. Greenwald, good to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. We`ll revisit the subjects with you later. Thank

Still to come, the Christian right continues its anti-ObamaCare
crusade. John Fugelsang and Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, well,
they`re back for round two of this debate.

And later, just say no. Adam Green of the PCCC joins me to discuss
the progressive pushback on Syria on Capitol Hill. But next, I`m taking
your questions live. Ask Ed Live, that`s coming up next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We love hearing from our
viewers tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment. Our first question comes from
Mary and she says, "Do you think President Obama is hoping for a "No" vote
on Syria?"

Well if he is, he`s got the best poker face I`ve ever seen. No, I
think the President wants a Yes vote. He wants the authority to do
something. He wants the Congressional approval and I think that he does
want to something about the use of chemical weapons in the country of

Our next question is from Debbie Roy. She wants to know, "What NFL
teams are your favorites this year?"

What do you mean this year? What do you think I change every year?
No, I was kidding.

Well, I`ve liked the Vikings for a long time but I might as well
declare to start this season. I`m done with the Vikings. I mean they`re
OK, but I think they`re pretenders. They`re a good corporate team, you
know, let`s spend a little bit of money, let`s pack all the way, let`s just
be competitive through the season. So my favorite team this year, a team
that plays with heart and desire and soul and is owned by the community is
the Green Bay Packers.
I`m with the Packers this year. And oh, by the way they`re on Sunday night
football here on NBC against the 49ers. Oh at 4:00 -- it`s a 4:00 game?
So you`re telling me I better learn the Packers` schedule if I`m going to
be their fan?

Well I didn`t get at that one. I`m still looking for them. Stick
around. Rapid Response panel is next.



misinformation that most of its political, paid for by either the
Republican party or various conservative groups. But the truth is the
Affordable Care Act ObamaCare is really straightforward.


SCHULTZ: It is really straightforward and it`s really straightforward
to tell the American people that we have a moral obligation to the 50
million Americans out there who do not have health care. A lot of
conversation this week about moral obligations and image in the world.
What`s our image at home? What does it say about our political system,
when we deny people Health care? Because that`s the way it is, until
ObamaCare stepped to the plate, which of course is a law.

Welcome back to the Ed Show. Now according to the numbers, it looks
like the misinformation campaigns, well they`re paying off. We are 26 days
away from ObamaCare`s October 1st launch, when you can start signing up for
the exchanges. 44 percent of Americans say that they don`t even know the
current status of the law. Back in March on the 3rd Anniversary of
ObamaCare`s passage, 40 percent of Americans still believe that the
government would establish Medicare death panels. And a lot of the
confusion stems from ad campaigns, like this one. Starring the Tea Party`s
favorite Canadian Senator and anti-ObamaCare crusader, Ted Cruz, paid for
by the Senate Conservatives Fund.

But it is very, very important to note. The misinformation campaign
from the right isn`t just political. It`s also coming from those in the
faith community including Senator Ted Cruz`s own father, Pastor Rafael


PTR. RAFAEL BIENVENIDO CRUZ: Our life is under attack, we already saw
what is happening with abortion. The same thing is happening at the other
end with ObamaCare. ObamaCare is going to destroy the elderly, by denying
care by even -- perhaps denying treatment on people that are in
catastrophic sick disease.


SCHULTZ: Going to destroy the elderly. That`s a pretty broad
statement isn`t it? In my opinion there is no moral or religious case for
taking health care away from 30 million Americans. And you know, we still
have more 20 more after that that we`ve got to take care of and give
options to.

One of my next guests will try to once again, convince me otherwise.
Joining me now is our Rapid Response Panel, John Fugelsang and also
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. These two gentlemen were with me
last week, it got so heated and so intense and so informative we have to
bring them back. So, John you`re going to get the first crack on this one
tonight as we started with the pastor, the chaplain last week first.

You know, we have heard a lot about moral obligations this week. I
mean, is it, is there a moral obligation to see this law through, now that
the people and our government has passed?

JOHN FUGELSANG, LIBERAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely there is Ed and the
three branches of government agree there`s now a legal obligation to see
this law through. And if people don`t like ObamaCare I respect some of the
folks on the left who would have rather seen single pair, I agree there`s
problems with it, the thing is so water down Dick Cheney could pour it on a
guy`s face in Gitmo, but the fact is that a lot of our moralizing friends
who try to repeal it don`t understand.

If you`re afraid of the competition that comes from exchanges or
cheaper Canadian drugs or a public option, stop calling yourself a
capitalist. And if you don`t care about 45,000 Americans dying every year
because they are not insured, stop calling yourself a patriot. And if you
don`t want to have a part in healing the sick, find a new name for your
religion, it`s time to stop calling yourself a Christian. Jesus commanded
His followers to heal the sick in Matthew 10:7, in Luke 4:40 he healed more
than could be counted. And don`t forget the good Samaritan paid for an
unknown immigrant`s health care out of pocket.

SHULTZ: Dr. James, you`ve had a week now to come up with the answer.
Please make the moral case for taking health care away from someone with a
pre-existing conditions and I just want to be very fair and clear about
this, I`m not looking for any Republican economic talking points. I want a
moral faith based case for denying the poor and sick health care.

Schultz for inviting me on your show. My compliments to John, although
you`re a comedian I can`t see your sense of humor. Although I really wish
I had your haircut I`ll give you that much.

FUSELANG: Thank you Chaplain Happy New Year to you too.

KLINGENSCHMITT: Thank you so much. Listen I -- as a chaplain, I`m a
member of the Knights Hospitaller`s, we invented the hospitals as
Christians a thousand years ago and my charity does care for orphans. We
built an orphanage in India last year. We care for widows, we send, you
know health care money to poor widows in America.

But I want to debate the false premise Mr. Schultz that you make that
somehow ObamaCare has given health care insurance to 30 million people and
that`s just false. And I think you`re the one bearing false witness here
and I`ll tell you why. Here`s a slide from the Gallup Polling
Organization, that shows that since January of 2009, since Mr. Obama took
office that 3 percent fewer working Americans between ages 25 and 64 have
health care.

So, here are the stats, yes, some college age people got more health
care because now they`re on their parent`s policies, right? But you took
health care from more working families. Those numbers translates to this,
16.6 percent had health care when Obama was elected, 19.6 percent -- excuse
me, these are people without health care, now don`t have health care.
That`s a 3 percent loss in health care .

SCHULTZ: OK. All right.

KLINGENSCHMITT: . which translates to 4.9 -- hang on let me finish.
4.9 million people in the stats .

SCHULTZ: No, no, no, no wait a minute. I got your point on the stats
and not care. OK. You have reversed this. You were asking me a question
about why these people have lost their health care? Well, we did go
through a thing a called recession and we lost millions of jobs, and that
of course affected people`s health care and only 3 percent.

So, the come back is very clear. 30 million more people will have
access to the exchanges. But let`s get back to my original question. I
need you to make the moral case as to why a Christian would believe that it
is the right thing to do to deny health care to someone after a country has
voted for it. That`s the moral. Is it the moral position of a Christian
to take health care away from people? Because that`s what your party wants
to do, sir.

KLINGENSCHMITT: Well, on one hand I agree with you and the other hand
I disagree with you. Jesus did say as John quoted in Matthew 10, "We
should heal the sick." The part that I disagree with you is that ObamaCare
actually gives more insurance.

Mr. Schultz, I`m going to offer a $1,000 reward today to the charity
health care .

SCHULTZ: Wait me minute. You mean ObamaCare gives more insurance?
ObamaCare makes it possible for people to get insurance. We`re talking
about a pre-existing condition, sir. What were talking about .


SCHULTZ: No, no, no, we are. Very clear here. This is the linchpin
of the entire bill, is that people who are sick are not going to be denied.
But your party wants to deny those people. And again, my question what`s
the moral case there, sir?

KLINGENSCHMITT: Well the moral case is that you`re living on fairy
dust and empty promises because that hasn`t happened yet.

SCHULTZ: It has been implemented completely, sir. It starts on
October 1st where people can sign up for the .



KLINGENSCHMITT: All of a sudden it admits it hasn`t happened yet.


SCHULTZ: Sir, the full implementation of the bill is going to provide
30 million more Americans health care coverage in this country. The
preexisting condition is a moral component that this country has made a
decision that if you`re sick we`re not going to deny your health care.
Your party, I think takes an immoral position in saying that we are going
to vote to deny that. How is that Christian for the third time?

KLINGENSCHMITT: Well, let`s compare the numbers. In the last three
years since Obama was elected 4.9 million working Americans have lost it
and zero have gained it.


KLINGENSCHMITT: You say 30 million have gained, you`re bearing false
witness, I`ll give you a $1,000 reward. These slides are on my website

SCHULTZ: OK. John, I`ll give you a response to that.

FUGELSANG: Yes, look, here`s the thing. These guys are going to keep
on telling conservatives to blame Obama if you lose insurance, blame Obama
if your premiums goes up. Just don`t ever, ever blame your insurance
company. It`s folks who want to worship Jesus and their private life but
they want government to worship the golden calf. And the worst nightmare
our right wing friends have, the people who were wrong about trickle down
economics, wrong about impeaching Clinton, wrong about Obama citizenship,
wrong about Iraqis greeting us as liberators. When the Republican voters
find out that this President does care about their health and cares about
their children`s health and their parent`s health, they`re going to lose
their last struggle hold on the gullibility of the fox view and

SCHULTZ: All right. Dr. Chaps, I want to commend you for the
volunteer work that you`ve done and the charitable.


SCHULTZ: . work that you have done. That is the correct moral
position. But I think that you are on shaky ground when you align
yourselves with a party that wants to take a health care away from someone
who is already sick and now being denied. That` the case and point of all
of this.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. I appreciate for your

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Always a pleasure. Thank you both.

SCHULTZ: This congressman is a master of destruction in his latest
conspiracy theory lands him in Pretenders tonight. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And in our Pretenders segment tonight, the truth hound, Joe
Wilson. Not enough conspiracy theories were thrown around in the House of
Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing on Syria. So the congressman, he thought
he`d pick up the slack.


REP. JOE WILSON, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Why was there no call for
military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today?
From the Benghazi IRS, NSA scandals, the failure of ObamaCare enforcement,
the tragedy of the White House draft sequestration or the upcoming debt
limit vote? Again, why was there no call for military response four months
ago when the President`s red line was crossed?


SCHULTZ: Well, Joe Wilson was just upholding his longstanding
tradition of keeping a meeting all in track. Here is the congressman
during President Obama`s Joint Session of Congress in 2009.


OBAMA: The reforms I`m proposing would not apply to those who are
here illegally.



SCHULTZ: Secretary Kerry pointed to the mounting evidence that was
not available in April and let Wilson`s fig scandal combo platter fall
flat. If Joe Wilson believes he`s being a watch dog, he can just keep on


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. This is a story for the folks
who take a shower after work. Liberals in this country by polling, show
that they do not want military action or intervention in Syria. There`s
been a major outcry from progressives asking Congress for a no vote to
President Obama`s resolution for a limited strike in Syria.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are starting to listen to their
constituents. Earlier today, Senator John McCain held two Town Hall
meetings to hear from constituents in his home state of Arizona, but
McCain`s motive seems to be to make President Obama look bad.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: The President of United States said
that he was going to respond to the chemical weapons attacks that Bashar
Assad committed. But then he said, "But I`m going to go to Congress for a
resolution." Now, why didn`t he say it the time? He said, "I`m going to
have a strike but I`m going to Congress." It -- You loose credibility.


SCHULTZ: Is that all you got on the President, Senator McCain? Give
me a break. The majority of Americans are glad he went to the Congress.

On the flip side, several Democratic leaders have come on this program
to express their concerns of the United States interfering in a civil war
in Syria.


REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D) MARYLAND: This President came in to office
and was elected twice based on getting us out of war not getting us into

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: If the effort does not go well,
sometime in the future it could. It could mean American troops on the

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT, (D) WASHINGTON: We ought to get an amendment
ready to put a tax on to pay for it.

REP. ALAN GRAYSON, (D) FLORIDA: We`ve got our own problems to deal
with. People don`t want us to be the policeman for the world any longer.
They don`t want us to be the judge, the jury, or the executioner.


SCHULTZ: The Progressive Campaign Committee, the Progressive Change
Campaign Committee the PCCC. This is a group that doesn`t shy away from
challenging Democrats when they don`t act progressive and they are sending
a memo to Congress saying that the base overwhelmingly opposes intervention
into Syria.

Adam Green, cofounder the PCCC joins me tonight. Adam good to have
you with us, do you have a sense where the liberal base is in this country
and is it at a fever pitch?

ADAM GREEN, COFOUNDER PCCC: We do have a sense, you know, I would say
first that the Progressive Change Campaign Committee was the first
organization to publicly praise President Obama for giving Congress this
option for following the Constitution and allowing the people`s
representatives to have a vote. But we had an intensive 72-hour survey of
our national membership, every state, every congressional district and by
an overwhelming margin the 57,000 people who took that survey said, "Do not
bomb Syria." The margin was 73 percent to 18 percent among the progressive
base, Ed.

SCHULTZ: So, why aren`t liberals with President Obama? They fought
so hard to get him in office, his handsome national security victories, he
is wind down -- took us out of war in Iraq, is winding down in Afghanistan.
All of the things that he wanted and campaigned on that liberals wanted him
to do he`s done.

So, where`s the division here?

GREEN: Yes, so what we found was that a lot of progressives totally
agree with the President assessment of the problem, nobody wants President
Assad, you know, to be doing what he`s doing to his people, chemical
weapons and even the 100,000 people that die beforehand. The problem is
with the solution, you know, we asked our members, what do you think the
goal is?

In Syria, and there were a lot of opinions some said, "We should have
-- be pushing for a seize fire." Some said, "We should depose the current
president of Syria." Some said, "We should deter him from using chemical
weapons." But they all agreed on one key fact which is that a limited
bombing campaign will not achieve their own goals and also many people
thought that once we bomb a little bit and declare a war on this country
that will escalate into a long-term fight. 81 percent of the people
thought that if we do this we`re in there for the long haul; it`s not
short-term operation.

SCHULTZ: You get a sense that liberals are concerned that the
President has backed himself into a corner with all the red line talk and
the talk of moral obligations and images in the world?

GREEN: Well, I think they agree with the moral obligation, you know,
there`s an impulse to do something but there are other things we can do,
you know, we can still engage in diplomacy with other nations. In
particular use our influence with allies that have some leverage with
Russia and China, try to get them to be part of the solution and not part
of the problem. We can do some of this stuff through diplomacy; we can do
a lot of humanitarian aid to actually help people on the ground. There are
many solutions out there, but for the President or any others to say there
is only one option and that one option is war. And therefore, if you want
to do something that is your only option and we`re going to do it for a
limited strike. That`s the false choice that many people are aware of even
many of President Obama`s own voters and supporters.

SCHULTZ: And what would it take to convince liberals that this is the
thing to do? You got a sense from your organization that has some million
members to it very progressive, very active supporting candidates in the
thick of it all the time, what would it take for the President to convince
them that this is the right thing to do you think?

GREEN: I think people would need a very clear sense of what the goal
is and a very clear argument of why a limited bombing of Syria would
actually achieve the goal. And unfortunately President -- when his
Secretary of State Kerry would ask some of these key questions, when he
testified before Congress he said, "Oh, we should talk about that in
classified committee." Meaning, we can`t tell the American people to --
the answers to these questions.

Honestly, the burden of proof is on those who are saying we need to go
war. It`s -- I think it`s completely acceptable for Americans and
Democratic members of Congress to have the default be, we`re not going to
war, and so you make the iron clad case that here is the goal, here is why
this is the only acceptable option to reach that goal, until we have that
case made, you know, they`re wrong and majority of Americans and
progressive say, "Don`t bomb Syria."

SCHULTZ: All right, and I would think that next week will be a very
active week for the PCCC, Adam Green good to have you with us tonight.
Thank you.

That`s the Ed show. I`m Ed Schutlz. PoliticsNation with Reverend Al
Sharpton, starts right now. Rev, take it away.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2013 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.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide