Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Monday, January 27th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

January 27, 2014

Guest: Chris Van Hollen, David Stockman, Goldie Taylor, Josh Marshall, Jan

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from New York. Let`s get to work.


night, it`s time to restore opportunity for all.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: If President Obama wants to give an honest,
candid State of the Union address that his economic policies are not
working and that they`re exacerbating income inequality.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president sees this is a year
of action.

OBAMA: I think 2014 needs to be a year of action.

CARNEY: The year of action to work with Congress where he can.

no, you can`t

CARNEY: And to bypass Congress where necessary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s so much easier just for the king to make things

OBAMA: Because Congress didn`t act .

DAN PFEIFFER, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: And he is going to work in every
way he can with his pen and his phone to try to move the ball forward.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In just a stroke of his pen, he`s the most powerful man
in the world.

OBAMA: I could use that pen to sign executive orders.

CARNEY: To lift folks who want to come up into the middle class.

OBAMA: Because Congress didn`t act.

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: That`s what he needs to be doing is building
consensus and not taking his pen in creating law.

OBAMA: I got a pen and I`ve got a phone.

PAUL: When the executive branch tries to assume the legislative powers
that that`s a form of tyranny.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for watching.

Gosh. With a stroke of a pen, the president can give somebody a raise. He
could do this executive authority kind of thing in a just a stroke of a
pen. You know what? America needs a raise and the Republicans need an
ultimatum after all we`ve been through. That`s what I believe.

Twenty-eight hours from now, the president will step to the podium in the
chamber and give his sixth State of the Union address.

We try to pull out some of the Republican highlight to the last five. We
couldn`t find any good comments.

The president will focus on income inequality and this is supposed to be
the year of action. Better watch the tone.

He`s going to touch on issues like raising the minimum wage, extending the
unemployment insurance, and college affordability. All very admirable.
All very important. The president is also making it clear that he`s not
waiting for Congress to act on Sunday.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the president will bypass


CARNEY: I think what we saw last year in 2013 was a Washington that did
not deliver for the American people. And the president sees this is a year
of action to work with Congress where he can and to bypass Congress were
necessary to lift folks who want to come up into the middle class.


SCHULTZ: Now, it sounds good. But really it`s a lot of generic talk,
isn`t it?

White House really hasn`t made fully clear when and where this executive
action is going to be taking place and on what. But Democrats want the
president to increase the minimum wage. We`ve been talking about that for
a long time especially for federal contractors.

Meanwhile, Republicans are already complaining. Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that the president is putting himself out on
a limb?


sort of hung out on the left and tried to get what he wants through the
bureaucracy as opposed to moving to the political center. We`re anxious to
help him create jobs but we`re not going to go over and endorse more
spending, more debt, more taxes and more regulation.


SCHULTZ: Hanging out on the political left. Gosh, if you really want
people to make more money that`s really a liberal policy, isn`t it? Income
inequality, the wealth gap in America, the president calls that the
challenge of our time but that`s hanging out with the left.

You know, the other Republican Senator from Kentucky pretty much saying the
same stuff. Rand Paul is taking this executive action stuff as a vague
threat from President Obama


PAUL: It sounds vaguely like a threat and I think it also has a certain
amount of arrogance in the sense that one of the fundamental principles of
our country where the checks and balances that it wasn`t supposed to be
easy to pass legislation. You had to debate and convince people.


SCHULTZ: Did he say arrogance? Well, sometimes arrogance is good
especially when there`s an absence of action. Consensus? Since when have
the Republicans paid attention to any consensus that the American people
might be projecting on any subject?

Rand Paul must not be reading the polls. We`re a culture of polls.

The American people are on the exact same page with the president of the
United States on a number of issues. He`s -- they want action.

Recent polling shows that 58 percent of the American people want
unemployment insurance extended. That would be almost six out of 10
Americans. 69 percent of Americans thinks that unemployment benefits
should be extended for a year or longer. That`s almost seven out of 10
people you run into on the street. 71 percent of Americans think that the
minimum wage should be passed. Lawmakers in 30 state said taking it upon
themselves and are now pushing minimum wage on a local level. Local
lawmakers are also fed up with the obstructionist Republicans in Congress.

President Obama is exactly right to take action without Congress and he
would be inept if he did not do it on the part of the Progressive movement
because that`s what he ran on. Hope and change. We done the hoping, it`s
time for the changing. There`d been a lot of good things but not enough.

I think that this is a moment of awakening for the president of the United
States, maybe a little personality shift, maybe a little shift impact.
Both the president and the county can only take so much obstruction and
inaction from people who by the way are on the payroll and get health care
and retirement benefits. That would be the people in Congress, the
Republicans, the people, the American people.

Have you noticed? They want everything the president wants in the
majority. It`s also important to point out that Vice President Dick Cheney
when you start talking about executive powers. He wanted to expand
executive power when W was in the White House. The big question is, just
how forceful will President Obama be tomorrow night?

Hey, I guess you could call this the pre-game show? Is he going to be Mr.
Nice Guy again and offer up a bunch of olive branches floating out of the
White House windows? Is he going to say that he wants to work with
Congress? Is he going to talk about bipartisanship? Give me a break.
C`mon. Mr. President, don`t let me turn the TV off tomorrow night. I
don`t want to see -- I want to see a different guy up there tomorrow night.

If you can call out the Supreme Court on citizens united, I think you can
do just about anything at the State of the Union and keep it real
interesting for the American people. And that is really the thing. The
president should show up with a very determined effort tomorrow night.

President Obama can`t be blowing smoke this time around because we`re
running out of time. The hourglass is pretty much turned on his
administration. I know we`re only in 2014 with plenty of time to go but
this is how it`s going to work. Next year, it`s all about the

So there`s a very short window of opportunity for the president to get the
attention of the American people, use the pen and actually do something,
because legislatively the Republicans aren`t going to give him anything.
The American people are counting on this president to be forceful across
the board tomorrow night.

Let`s go back to last year`s speech.

These are things that the president of the United States asked for after
being reelected.


OBAMA: Now is our best chance for bipartisan comprehensive tax reform that
encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit.

Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months and
I will sign it right away and America will be better for it. Let`s get it
done. Let`s get it done.


SCHULTZ: OK. So he didn`t get tax reform, he didn`t at climate change and
he didn`t get immigration. But this is going to be the year of action.
How about a year of reality?

The Republicans aren`t going to do anything, Mr. President, unless you do
use the pen. So don`t talk about it. You got to start doing it on
Wednesday morning 9 o`clock is a good time I think.

If this is a year of action, let it be a year of action. So what if the
Republicans don`t like it? The American people want you to do something.
They understand the obstruction. They don`t care about the tone at this
point. They want some Chicago politics nationwide, man.

The president needs to turn his finger to the Republicans and say, "You`ve
been obstructing me, you`ve been slowing the country down and we`re going
to leave you behind." And if they start talking about impeachment? Good.
We`ll have a lot to talk about.

There`s no downside to the president coming out, using the bully pulpit
tomorrow night and just taking it to the Republicans. After all, we have
to define what a year of action is.

Let`s start with some straight talk at the State of the Union address and
let`s talk about how they have behaved and done nothing to move the country

And when you say income inequality to a Republican, they think, "Wait a
minute. We might have to tax somebody to do that, you know? Those 25
percent of the corporations that have their money parked offshore that we
can`t get to." That`s where they are and that`s not where the country is.
How about it, Mr. President?

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think tonight`s question.
"Should the president call out Republicans for their inaction?" I mean
call them out for their inaction. Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622,
you can always go to our blog at We`ll bring you the results
later on in the show.

Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland join us tonight here on the Ed
Show. Congressman, great to have you with us.

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

SCHULTZ: Everybody has a wish list. You just heard mine. But -- what is
going to be different this year? The president called for action on tax
reform, climate change and immigration. He didn`t get any of that.

So what is going to make this speech in this year different?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, that`s a good question. Look, Ed, one of the reasons
that Congress as it historically low levels of public support is because we
have done nothing in terms of working with the president to try and move
the economy and jobs forward.

You laid out that list of things the president called for last year. Not
only we not move the ball forward on those things, but in the House, we
haven`t even been given a vote on those issues.

So the president is going to have to do two things. Number one, he`s going
to lay out that common sense of (inaudible) that you just talked about,
minimum wage increase, disgraceful that you can work full time in this
country and still be in poverty, invest in our infrastructure. You got
huge unmet needs. You got a lot of people still employed in the
construction industry. That`s a no-brainer, a win-win.

And the president has to say to Congress, "You got to do these things and I
want to work with you. But if you`re not working with me, I`m still going
to find a way to get important things done." And the federal government is
a major purchaser of goods and services. We can lead by example in how we
purchase goods and services on the behalf of the American people. And the
president has lots of leeway as the chief executive in that area.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, I get a sense that Democrats are behind closed doors
saying, "I hope he goes and text it to him. Go get him. It`s time."

How much more time do the Democrats have to spend on waiting for the
Republicans to try to move the country forward? We got such an ideological
split on Capitol Hill on how the country should be run. What are we
waiting for?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, we`re not waiting down here, Ed. We`re going to move
forward on it. We got our own budget proposal that lays out our priorities
in clear contrast to the Republican budget proposal.

Their proposal is essentially a declaration of class warfare. You know, we
hear the Republicans always .


HOLLEN: . talking about, "You guys are declaring class warfare." Take a
look at the House Republican budget from last year, major tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans while slashing important safety net programs. If
that`s not a declaration of class warfare, I don`t know what is.


VAN HOLLEN: And so the president`s got to layout these challenges, layout
the contrast, invite Republicans to work with them but make it clear that
we`re not going to go as slow as the slowest vote.

SCHULTZ: How far are you willing to see the president go before it would
raise some questions about his authority to do things? I mean, I think
it`d be a hell of a conversation for the country to engage in. I mean,
well they`ve already talked about impeachment in the past but it would seem
to me that the Democrats would be saying, "Mr. President, you go. You go
as far as you think you have to go." Was that attitude out there?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, Ed, look, obviously everybody wants to make sure that
everyone is -- works within their constitutional power. So nobody is
suggesting, I know you`re not, that the president take extra constitutional

At the same time, we know that the constitution gives the president lots of
flexibility within the powers that he is given. And we do believe the
president should exercise those powers for the good of the people.

Again, take climate change, for example. You could put in the place laws
that would be -- reduce climate change in a much smarter way if you get
Congress engaged. But if Congress is going to refuse to engage, the fact
is the president has lots of authority on his own to take certain actions.

So we`d all be better off if Republicans in Congress would work with the
president but that doesn`t mean he doesn`t have alternatives using the
executive powers.

SCHULTZ: Should the president point out some of the polls that are out
there consistently on minimum wage? And all of the different things about
income inequality and speak to the definition to it? And really frame it,
you`re on the wrong side Republicans and you haven`t wanted to move on
anything. I mean, how direct do you think the president should be and how
effective would that be?

VAN HOLLEN: No, that I think he needs to be directive about, Ed. Because,
look, the figures are startling and I think every American understands that
it`s unacceptable that we`ve had productivity gains over the last three
decades, we`ve seen a doubling in economic output and yet overwhelmingly
the majority of those gains have gone to people at the very, very top where
everybody else is essentially been running in place in terms of real wages.

The president has to take that on, head on. I think he will. Look, we
just saw the Conservative government in the UK, in England, say they
support a minimum wage and yet we`ve got Republicans here who for
ideological reasons, refuse to accept reality that the minimum wage will
first lift 5 million plus Americans out of poverty, will help tens and
millions more, and will help create more jobs by giving more people a
little spending money in their pocket.


VAN HOLLEN: People who will go out and create more jobs by buying goods
and services at their local grocery stores with local merchants. So this
is another no-brainer. And so I think, Ed, the president`s got to be very
direct on issues like job opportunities, economic equality. We need a
country where everybody shares in the growing prosperity of this country,
rather than what we`ve seen for the last couple of decades and certainly
the last couple years where all the gains have gone to folks at the very
top. And everyone is getting a sense that the rules are rigged against
most Americans


VAN HOLLEN: You see, you know, when people say they want performance pay
on Wall Street and yet you see these huge bonuses even when taxpayers had
to bail them out.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Chris Van Hollen, good to have you with us tonight.
I appreciate your time so much. Thank you, sir.

VAN HOLLEN: Good to be with you.

SCHULTZ: I hope the president talks about the TPP tomorrow night. I hope
that he steps out and explains exactly how that and supporting middle class
families matches up, because a lot of people can`t make that connection.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen,
share your thoughts with us on Twitter at Ed Show and on Facebook. We
appreciate it when you do that.

Coming up, disrespecting the presidency. A Tea Party Senator attacks
Former President Bill Clinton in a nasty way.

But first, Wall Street bull of one percenter (ph) plays the victims card in
Trenders tonight. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders, social media action this is where you
can find us, Ed Show and and
of course on the radio Sirius XM 127 Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00.
You can get my podcast at

The Ed Show social media nation has been very active today. We are
reporting. Here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, look. I can spin around.

SCHULTZ: The number three Trender, Super Bowl kickoff.

HAZEL SANCHEZ, CBS REPORTER: Super Bowl week has officially kicked off
here in Jersey City, home base for both the Denver Broncos and the Seattle

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Crews are working nonstop to transform this stretch of
Broadway into Super Bowl Boulevard.






SCHULTZ: Bad lip reading gets the side line scoop.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are something that could gross you out?

PEYTON MANNING, DENVER BRONCOS: Old folks allergies that could sure do it.
Voldemort, yes I said Voldemort. I`m a nervous wreck. I like that girl up

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why did I get this tattoo of a mustache?

CHRIS ROCK, COMEDIAN: What the hell did you just say?

SCHULTZ: The number two Trender, into the sunset.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congressman Trey Radel is resigning.

star was caught in a coke bust .

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Radel pleaded guilty late last year to cocaine
possession .

COLBERT: Apparently, he forgot the part of the Tea Party story where you
dump the product in the harbor before the cops show up.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Trey Radel heads back to the sunshine state.

most important and that`s my family and that`s getting healthy. And that`s
exactly what I`m doing.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top Trender, one percent persecution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s your typical football field size. Yeah. Somebody
has to have it right?

SCHULTZ: Venture capitalist Tom Perkins takes his persecution comparison
too far.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Tom Perkins warns of a dangerous drift in American
thinking from the left.

think something can even be considered an issue or a debate in this country
unless there`s been a Hitler reference.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Perkin`s right. I would call attention to the
parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to the progressive war on the American
one percent namely the rich.

THOMAS PERKINS, VENTURE CAPITALIST: You know how selfish is this guy is I
guess is the criticism. So the answer is pretty selfish.


SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight, David Stockman, Former Budget Director under
President Reagan. Mr. Stockman, great to have you with us tonight.
Appreciate you doing the interview.


SCHULTZ: Is this becoming an image problem for the Republicans that they
don`t know how to talk about or approach the wealth gap, the income
inequality in America? Obviously, this is the political conversation and
it seems like they`re having a hard time struggling, or dealing with it.

STOCKMAN: Well, I think what he said is down right appalling. The man
should have his head examined, have his mouth washed out with soap as my
mother used to say.

This is utterly wrong to say that kind of comparison but I also think it
should be a wakeup call for progressives. After all, how did someone that
blitheringly stupid become so monumentally rich.

It wasn`t simply because of genius adventure capital. It`s because there`s
been a massive continuous wind fall to the one percent as a result of the
wrong headed policies of bailing out Wall Street, cheap money, zero
interest rates year after year for several decades now.

And as a result, financial assets keep inflating to values that are crazy.
People, who are in the financial business capture those wind falls, think
they`re geniuses, and go around and make prognostications as stupid as the
one that you opened up with tonight.

SCHULTZ: Well Tom Perkins reiterated this point today in an e-mail to
Bloomberg. And he wrote, "In the Nazi area it was racial demonization.
Now it is class demonization." I mean some, you know, wealthy Americans
are making the case.


SCHULTZ: "Hey, this is just the way it is. And we shouldn`t be doing
anything about it." And going that far and saying something like that, I
think speaks to the core of what`s wrong with the Conservative movement in
America. They don`t care.

STOCKMAN: Well, I think it also goes to the core of what is this Federal
Reserve doing. It`s not helping Main Street. All of this cheap money is
just a mother`s milk of speculation in gamblers who buy things, you know,
with a yield.

SCHULTZ: So how do you change that?

STOCKMAN: You have to change the Federal Reserve. And this is where I
fought both Bush and Obama. They keep putting on the fed the Bernankes,
the Greenspans, now the Yellens and we could name others who somehow think
they are academic zealous that if they keep interest rates at zero forever.
That we`re going to become wealthier, that our economy`s going to grow,
we`re going to create jobs and none of this has happened. It`s wrong.
They are in the service of the one percent.


STOCKMAN: And we have to change that. That`s more important than anything
that`s going on on Capitol Hill at this very moment.

SCHULTZ: So I have always been a proponent of access to the capital for
the little guy .


SCHULTZ: . which of course is not really in good hands in America right
now .

STOCKMAN: Yes. But zero interest rates don`t help the little guy.


STOCKMAN: It goes to the big speculators on Wall Street.

SCHULTZ: But if the little guy gets access to the capitals, to the big
banks who are hoarding the money, hoarding the way they would have a chance
of being an entrepreneur in America. I think that`s really what it`s


SCHULTZ: It`s the concentration where the capitals go and it`s the problem
isn`t it?

STOCKMAN: Well, sure, because 10 percent of the households have 80 percent
of the financial assets, one percent has 40 percent.

When you have a speculative kind of environment, a casino in the financial
markets we are not investing for growth, for technology and jobs. For the
last 13 years, CAPEX, real CAPEX has been less than one percent a year.
That`s not creating the foundation for growth or jobs, all of it goes to
buy back, stock buy backs, big MNA deals, special dividends. The cash is
flowing up to the top to the one percent or so .


STOCKMAN: . out of the foundation of the economy.

SCHULTZ: So, the president`s going to talk about extending unemployment
benefits. He`s going to talk about the minimum wage and college
affordability. All very admirable things but certainly totally different
from what you`re talking about. I mean if you really want to .


SCHULTZ: . fundamentally make change to close the income gap. You`re not
going to do it in a short period of time, but over the long haul it would
raise wages in this country and bring it closer.

STOCKMAN: But this is not due, I might say Ed, to the dead hand of Ronald
Reagan 30 years ago.

SCHULTZ: No, I`m not. I`m not. I`m not.

SOTCKMAN: In other words, we have raised taxes. OK, we finally have. We
should raise the capital gains tax to the same level as income tax.

SCHULTZ: We can`t have corporations parking money offshore not paying
their fair share.

STOCKMAN: You know, I agree with all of that.

SCHULTZ: I mean that`s a big part of it. That would bring billions to the

STOCKMAN: Yeah, but Obama .

SCHULTZ: And treasury needs more money, right?

STOCKMAN: OK, I agree with that. And we need more revenue and we need to
get our fiscal house in order.

One thing Obama can do unilaterally is look hard at the people he`s
appointing to the federal reserve and ask are they Wall Street, you know,
oriented or are they more, you know, oriented to the main street economy
that has a totally different need than what this current zero interest rate
policy and bond buying and Bernanke choice.

SCHULTZ: I don`t hear much confidence in your voice, Mr. Stockman, that
anything is going to change anytime soon.

STOCKMAN: I don`t -- unfortunately, I don`t .

SCHULTZ: Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall would be a .

STOCKMAN: It would be a wonderful thing to bring Glass-Steagall back. The
big bangs are bigger than ever. We should be breaking them up. They can`t
be regulated. They spent five years, you know, basically baring the
Volcker Rule and everything else.

SCHULTZ: Break up the big bangs.


SCHULTZ: You`re talking like Bernie Sanders now.

STOCKMAN: You know the point is banks are not free enterprises .


STOCKMAN: . their words in the state, you can`t regulate them. They are
too big. They are too powerful.


STOCKMAN: The lobbyist are too strong. K Street will always override what
the regulators are trying to do. So, you need to go to the fundamentals.
He`s not addressing the banking problem. He`s not addressing the fed
problem. He`s not addressing the gambling problem.

SCHULTZ: All right.

STOCKMAN: That`s what he needs to do.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Stockman, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate
your time. Thank you so much. We`ll see if any of that shows up in the
State of the Union.

Coming up, new proof that righties are shaking in their boots over Hillary
for president.

And later, is John McCain a true Conservative? You bet you. I think he

But next, I`m taking your questions on Ask Ed Live. Stay ahead. Stay with
us, we`ll right back.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us here on the Ed Show. Love this
segment Ask Ed, got some questions coming in tonight. Our first one comes
from Charlie. He wants to know "Why isn`t the minimum wage automatically
increased every year to reflect the rising cost of living?"

Well, first of all the business community lobbies intensely every year to
make sure that the minimum wage does not go up. It`s the business
community. It`s the chamber of commerce. That`s the devil on the detail
bottom line.

Our next question is from a user who goes by the Twitter hander (ph)
Fearless. "Do the Republicans think that we are going to let them get by
without signing a Jobs Bill this year?"

Yes, they do. And I think that they will never sign a Jobs Bill with
President Barack Obama. It simply will not happen because it would
probably create jobs and that`s the last thing they want.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC ANCHOR: I`m Julia Boorstin with your CNBC Market
Wrap. Stocks start the week with decline. The DOW falls 41 points, the S
and P loses 8 points and the NASDAQ flies 44 points.

Today`s economic news fail to inspire any buying in new homes that drops 7
percent last month, more than expected.

Caterpillar shares that were at bright spot. Earnings exceeded the
estimates ascending the stock up about 6 percent.

And the Apple shares are plunging in after hours trading after the closing
bill profits came in stronger than expected with iPhone sales disappointed.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Republicans, clearly, are desperate. They have no clear presidential
frontrunner insight right now. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton hasn`t declared
whether she`s running and already has a support of a top Democratic Super

It`s apparent. The only hope Republicans have for 2016 is to go on off
fence. And when the Benghazi conspiracy well runs dry, though resort to
acts of political desperation like this.


SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: The Democrats, one of their big issues is
they have concocted to insist Republicans are committing a war on women.
One of the workplace, laws, and rules that I think are good is that bosses
shouldn`t prey on young interns in their office, and I think really the
media seems to be -- have given President Clinton a pass on this. He took
advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office.
There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior. And it should
be something we shouldn`t -- on one of associate with people who would take
advantage of a young girl in his office. This isn`t having an affair. I
mean, this isn`t me saying, "Oh, he`s had an affair. We shouldn`t talk to

Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office, I mean,
really, and then they have the gal to stand up and say, "Republicans are
having war on women." So yes, I think, it`s a factor. That`s not
Hillary`s fault and I mean.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But it should be an issue.

PAUL: . but it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton in history.


SCHULTZ: Well, folks, it`s 2014 and there are no boundaries. You heard it
right folks. Senator Rand Paul accused former president of predatory
behavior in order to diminish the accomplishments of his wife and deny
Republican war on women. I mean, it don`t get anymore desperate than that,
does it?

Hillary Clinton, United States Senator, former Secretary State, and
presidential candidate, her resume`s as long as your arm, regardless to the
opinion you may have of Hillary Clinton, she should be judged on her own
qualifications and her performance and we shouldn`t be talking about
something her husband was involved in decades ago which the country has
clearly forgotten.

Maybe Rand Paul missed the news, but I do believe that Bill Clinton was
impeached in the house. I think that Rand Paul is just trying to get the
country thinking about the bad times with the Clintons in connecting the
two. It`s a cheap shot.

Joining me now is our Rapid Response Panel, MSNBC Contributor and Columnist
for the theGrio, Goldie Taylor and Josh Marshall, Founder and Editor of
Talking Points Memo, great to have both of you with us tonight.

Goldie, what do you make of this tasteless tact that a sitting United
States senator is doing -- and I should point that Senator Paul`s comments
were a follow up to his wife, Kelley, who was recently profiled in an
article in Vogue. He called Bill Clinton`s behavior "predatory and
offensive to women." I mean, is this the Republican`s only hope to get
women`s attention in the upcoming election year and just trying to smear
Hillary by association? Your thoughts on all of these.

GOLDIE TAYLOR, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, you and I talked about this a
few days ago in the idea that Republicans really, were going to have to
find themselves a brand new leading candidate, you know, after sort of the
demise of -- well, what`s happening with Chris Christie. And it looks like
Rand Paul wants to step into that slot as the so called frontrunner in the
GOP field.

It`s an unfortunate strategy that he`s taken to reach back some 20 years to
blame whatever President Clinton did in this White House on his wife and
try to connect it in that way. Hillary Clinton`s resume is longer than
both of Rand Paul`s arms and both of his legs and toes and his neck to go
along with it.

She ought to be judged on that record and that record alone. But, you
know, he really ought to be talking about policy at the end of the day. He
ought to be talking about his opposition to the vows of this Woman`s Act.
She ought to be talking about his opposition to, you know, the Lily
Ledbetter Act. He ought to be talking about, you know, really his
opposition to, you know, equality in income when it comes to, you know,
paying men and women equally in this country. He ought to be talking


TAYLOR: . women having access to, you know, feminist health care services
in all kinds of equality health care.

SCHULTZ: Well, he`s and Goldie--

TAYLOR: He ought to be talking about those things.

SCHULTZ: Goldie, but, Rand Paul, sitting senator from Kentucky, says that
liberals have concocted this war on women, that all of this legislative
stuff attacking women`s rights, I guess, is just a fairy tale to him that
it really hasn`t happened.

I find it absolutely amazing. I don`t even know if the guy watches the
news at all. Josh Marshall, is the only thing that they can find negative
on Hillary Clinton, if everything else isn`t going to work, they might as
well attack Bill?

JOSH MARSHALL, TALKING POINTS MEMO: Well, I think, you know, Democrats, I
have to imagine, think it`s great if Rand Paul takes this line because,
look, I am not myself to won (ph) but I`m going to go out on a limb and say
that I don`t think you appeal to women by attacking a female candidate
because her husband cheated on her. That`s stupid.


MARSHALL: That`s really -- that makes no sense at all. (Inaudible) side
effect that this happened almost 20 years ago. The press -- but Rand Paul
said about the press who went light on it, I mean, man, does he remember
1998 and 1999? I was down -- I was down in D.C. covering that impeachment
trial. It was crazy. You know, this kind of thing is, it is offensive but
it`s so silly and I don`t know where -- I can`t imagine Rand Paul in any
sort of like media strategist who thought this was like.


MARSHALL: . a great idea.

SCHULTZ: And that`s what struck me -- is when I saw this, I thought --
now, I wonder if Rand Paul went into that studio knowing he was going to
say that or he just got diary of the mouth then it just came right out and
he just didn`t -- ain`t just thought (inaudible) just keeping rolling
against the Clintons any way. He possibly could, so he thought and take a
step. But then I see that this article in Vogue clearly, it`s a strategy.

MARSHALL: Well, I think there`s two things. I think, partially is you`re
right. Sometimes, you just start talking and you just end up going in a
really weird direction and I assume you went out the studio and wanted to
know what he was saying.

Here is the thing. I think, with this, applies. If you already hate Bill
Clinton and you already hate Hillary Clinton, then this kind of attack
makes sense because that means Hillary`s a hypocrite.


MARSHALL: . because she stayed with her husband after he did -- look, this
was not Bill Clinton`s greatest moment. We can all agree to that. But it
does not appeal to anybody outside of the, you know, that Clinton-hating
core of the GOP.

SCHULTZ: Well that`s -- and Goldie, that`s a thing. It just appears to me
that Rand Paul is trying to show the base. "Hey, I can hate the Clintons
better than anybody." You know, "So, you got to go along with me, I`m your
guy. I can hate them. We all hate in everything what the country went

It`s a cheap shot, isn`t it?

TAYLOR: It`s a cheap shot. I mean, I was sleeping in this very studio,
the night that they, you know, voted to impeach Bill Clinton in the House.
You know, our congressman here in Georgia, Newt Gingrich, sort of led that
charge. And so, you know, and he certainly did not get a pass. No one
gives him a pass for that. Certainly, people are looking at the full body
of work that Bill Clinton has behind him on a global scale and certainly,
that has been impressive, you know.

And it isn`t as if this kind of behavior, you know, has an ideological or
even a partisan bias to it. It happens on both sides of the House
especially when you got men in power. But what also typically happens when
you`ve got a lot of men and power is that they tend to attack women as if,
you know, they are the victims in some of these situations, as if they
were, themselves, you know, the predators. And I think that`s what he`s
trying to cast Hillary Clinton as a predator and that`s simply not going to

He`s got to give himself one out of a Republican primary and this may help.
But he would have to then win a general election and if he win a general
election, win many, many, many of the votes in this country, half of them,
are women and women aren`t going to be sitting, you know, quietly while you
attack another woman like that running for office.

SCHULTZ: But he`s given women in this country credits saying that they`ve
won the war on women. I don`t know if he`s paying attention and, you know.

TAYLOR: Maybe the women in his family.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. That`s right. All the radical legislation that has been
out there in numerous Republican states. Goldie Taylor, Josh Marshall,
great to have you with us tonight. Appreciate your time.

Next up, John McCain`s conservative. CRED (ph) is on the line. We`ve got
them average back tonight in Pretenders. Stick around.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, the maverick meltdown with Arizona
Republicans. Arizona`s GOP condemned their Senator John McCain for his
voting record. They are labeling the former Republican presidential
nominee as too liberal. Let me remind you why John McCain is not a


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

JOHN MCCAIN, SENATOR OF ARIZONA: At the moment of conception. I have a
25-year prolife record in the Congress, in the senate.

Complete with dying fans.

I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And
I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.

Here comes this attack on Benghazi and there`s so many questions that are
unanswered when.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you tell it`s a cover up?

MCCAIN: I call it a cover up.

I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor
Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FRM PRESIDENT OF US: By the way, I enthusiastically


SCHULTZ: John McCain is a failed presidential candidate, but not a failed
conservative. The senator`s record is just as sorted as the rest of the
other GOP stars.

But if the Arizona Republicans want to paint John McCain as too liberal,
they can keep on pretending.

And oh, by the way, this big liberal gave us this vice-presidential
candidate that ain`t liberal.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show. This is the story for the folk who
take a shower after work. President Obama is promising to take on a new
strategy on 2014. That`s the executive powers. Well, in tomorrow`s State
of the Union address, the president were reportedly double down on his
goals of addressing income inequality in advancing the middle class in this

As we highlighted in the beginning at tonight`s program, the president may
use his executive power to bypass the Congress and get things done.


going to tell to American people that he`s going to wait for Congress.
He`s going to move forward in areas like job training, education,
manufacturing on his own to try to restore opportunity for American


SCHULTZ: Well, the one place he should not use his executive power is to
push for fast track authority, on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now,
we`ve been spending a lot of time talking about this for months and there
is no question it is a job killer. Just like NAFTA was 20 years ago. It
would completely counteract President Obama`s goal to a little class wage
earners in America.

Ugly enough, the Obama administration has some kind of code of silence on
this issue. Silence appears to be their strategy. The deal has been
negotiated without any congressional input, and now the Obama
administration and corporations are trying to ram it through the Congress.
The American middle class can afford for secrecy or silence on this issue.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky joins us tonight from Illinois.
Congresswoman, great to have you with us. I appreciate your time. You

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, (D) ILLINOIS: And happy birthday Ed. Happy birthday
to you.

SCHULTZ: Well, thank you for reminding me that my fishing days are now
even more numbered. Well, thank you very much. That`s very kind of you.

Congresswoman, this is a huge deal if it goes through. It`s a huge piece
of authority fast track. It does -- as we have documented, circumvent the
Congress in a representative government. Should this be in the State of
the Union tomorrow night? Are you looking for the president to give some
explanation here?

SCHAKOWSKY: You know, I have mix feelings about this Ed. You know, this
is the largest trade deal. It makes NAFTA look small. There are 12
countries. They represent about 38 percent of global economic activities.
And yes, it is a bad deal for Americans. But I have to tell you Ed that
time is on our side. A group called the Citizen Straight Campaign just
denounced 550 different groups that have come out against it. The more
people know about it. The more they don`t like it and are organizing
against it. And so, I don`t know that we want to stir the pot right now,
and hopefully, we can postpone this deal. I haven`t really seen a ramming
through right now.

And in the mean time, a lot of really good organizing in education like
you`ve been enjoying can be going on. But there is no question that when
you talk about income inequality, or getting our economy growing, inviting
countries like Vietnam that have a minimum wage of $0.28 an hour.


SCHAKOWSKY: . we should not be inviting them to be with us.

SCHULTZ: So, Congresswoman Schakowsky, you think the Congress has gotten
out in front of this that the trade groups have got out in front of this,
that there is enough of word astounded (ph) to really slow the momentum
that the White House was looking for?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I have to tell you that I`ve talked my friend across the
aisle, Michele Bachmann. There are many Republicans as well that are
really not interested in this kind of fast track authority. As you can
imagine, they`re not interested in giving the president more authority to


SCHAKOWSKY: And we have to agree with that because it takes away the power
of the Congress to amend or to change in any way the provisions of a
negotiated agreement. So, I think we have the votes or soon will to defeat
fast track and that`s what would bring us right to the Trans-Pacific

SCHULTZ: And tell us more about this trade group that has come out in the
-- I think you said 500 different organizations, where are they -- how
powerful are they? And what does it mean?

SCHAKOWSKY: Yeah, I mean, the really great thing about the Citizens Trade
Campaign is that it is so diverse when you have human rights groups because
we know we`re dealing with countries that have human rights abuses -- the
faith community, the labor community, and the environmental community,
because we could have our own environmental laws being challenged by
corporations. And you know, the big winners -- let`s face it, once again,
are the multinational.


SCHAKOWSKY: . corporations in Wall Street. So this kind if a coalition is
going to be out educating their members as well as, you know, the work that
you`re doing, and members of Congress are doing, I think, are going to slow
down the whole process, and hopefully, just put it to sleep.

SCHULTZ: Last year, the president talked about climate change. He talked
about tax reform. He talked about those that he didn`t get any of it in
2013. OK. It didn`t get tax reform at all. So what`s makes us believe
that anything is going to change on the heels of these State of the Union
address? And beyond that, how aggressive do you want the president to be
tomorrow night in pointing out the obstruction that he has had to put up
with, that the countries had to put up with, and how we have it move
forward? I mean, when does the president run out of patience when he has
the attention to the American people which is the State of the Union?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, the president is going to be talking about action
tomorrow. And that action is going to -- includes his power of the pen,
the executive authority for him to act without calling on Congress and the
phone. And what he means by that is calling up.


SCHAKOWSKY: . organizations like the college presidents to come in and
work with him and not.

SCHULTZ: But I`m saying, he`s got to make sure the American people and the
guys that are sitting on the other side of the aisle, they know he means
business and he is going to do it. And I think that that`s really where it
all sits for tomorrow night.

SCHAKOWSKY: I`m looking for that too.

SCHULTZ: Yes. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, always a pleasure. Good to
have you with us.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you Ed.

SCHULTZ: That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with
Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening Rev.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2014 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