Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Wednesday, March 5,2014

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

March 5, 2014

Guest: Ernest Scheyder, Raul Grijalva, Diane Ravitch, James Clyburn, Ruth
Conniff, Charlie Rangel

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


K.T. MCFARLAND, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: What President Obama could do
to get Putin`s attention is for example to start to build the Keystone

GREG GUTFELD, "THE FIVE" CO-HOST: Build the Keystone, start pumping
out tons of natural gas that undercut the price Russia charges for Europe.

RUSS GIRLING, CEO, TRANSCANADA: If U.S. doesn`t produce with some
place around the world (inaudible).

BILL O`REILLY, "O`REILLY FACTOR": The Keystone Pipeline must be
approved. Why? Because Russia is blackmailing Europe over energy.

GIRLING: Our customers continue to say that they need this pipeline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Cost of fuel industries always going to be able to
out stand pretty much everybody else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He only look to divide (ph) what`s happening in
the Ukraine to what`s happening in Keystone everywhere he have been.

PHIL FLYNN, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: The global game of power, it`s mainly
about energy.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST, "THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW": Great suggestion is when
the Keystone Pipeline.

GIRLING: The marketplace continues that pushes the bill the pipeline
is the right thing to do.

SARAH PALIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I`m right when I talk about that
impairment (ph) link between energy and security.

GIRLING: I know that pipeline is necessary.

PALIN: America needs pipelines.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight folks. Thanks for
watching. Well, we`re getting into the "say anything, do anything" phase
of the Keystone XL Pipeline. So, the smart people over there are really
saying that we got to have it. We must not be very secure right now. Holy
smokes. If we don`t build this pipeline, we`re not going to be very

You see, Conservatives, what they`re doing right now is that they are
exploiting a foreign policy situation overseas to get something that they
really want and they really don`t know a whole hell of a lot about. They
are shamelessly using the crisis in the Ukraine to push for the Keystone XL
Pipeline. I say, not so fast. The Conservative noise machine again is
incorrectly saying the completion of the pipeline would weaken Russia?


O`REILLY: The Keystone Pipeline must be approved. Why? Because
Russia is blackmailing Europe over energy. It supplies a third of oil and
natural gas to the E.U. The more oil and natural gas the USA and Canada
can produce and distribute, the weaker Russia becomes on the world stage.

GUTFELD: Let`s stretch up that awful phrase "drill baby, drill."
Build the Keystone, start pumping out tons of natural gas that undercut the
price Russia charges for Europe and will win a new Cold War the way we won
the last one by bankrupting Russia without firing a shot.

HANNITY: Europe has rendered impudent (ph) because 18 pipelines were
unright through the Ukraine and now Vladimir Putin has control over that,

PALIN: Right. See -- and that building of pipelines is an example of
developing natural resources and what they can provide to a region.
America needs pipelines just like at the other parts of the globe that
we`re just talking about need their pipelines. We need ours. And those
protesters griping about, I don`t know, perhaps an earthworm will be
displaced when a pipeline is built in America. That earthworm, it can take
win for the team.


SCHULTZ: All of these Conservatives who are so convinced that America
is going to be insecure if we don`t have this pipeline should go visit the
Bakken Shale. Go to North Dakota. Find out just how much oil is coming
out of the ground. We got so much oil coming out of the ground of this
country. A record amount, I might add, Warren Buffet can`t own enough

Now, if this crowd is pushing for the pipeline, well, that`s the first
thing that would bring me to the conclusion, it`s a really bad idea. They
are dead wrong.

And here`s mine -- the numbers. The global market consumes about 92
million barrels of oil a day. That of course was not reported over there.
If the Keystone XL pipeline is completed, it would deliver roughly 830,000
barrels of oil a day. Now, you`re going to make the case that roughly 1
percent is going to make Russia insecure in us that much more secure?
There`s no way that small fraction of global oil production would undercut
the Russian in any way, shape, or form nor it would tip us over the top to
be globally secure for generations to come.

I thought we were trying to get off oil. Make no mistake. The
Keystone XL Pipeline hotly contested in this country. Everybody`s lining
up choosing sides here in the United States and Canada, pressure on
President Obama to approve the pipeline. Well, it is growing every single

Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, no relation, has come out
in support of the pipeline. Now, Shultz told the Vail Global Energy Forum,
he is backing the project because it makes America less dependent on Middle
East oil.

Wrong. People tell me that this is going to replace oil coming from
Venezuela which they say is dirtier than the tar sands. Well, I don`t
believe that either. We got exports all over the place, don`t we?

Anyway, Shultz told the forum "that`s oil that doesn`t go through the
Straits of Hormuz." All right, let oil does go through that portion of the
world, but who says that it`s going to come to the United States.

The Canadian government is also stepping up its efforts to get the
pipeline approved. Canadian Ambassador to the United State Gary Doer, who
I think is a quality guy, a good guy, has been a great politician for the
Canadians for years has not been known to lie, he wrote a letter to John
Kerry on Friday urging the United States to support the pipeline. Doer
said, if the pipeline is approved, Canada will work to reduce carbon
emissions. The ambassador wrote, "Canada is committed to additional
actions to reduce its carbon emissions further."

Well, on Friday, the ambassador of Canada told me and told President
Obama, he says that if the president says no to the pipeline, he`s going to
be saying yes to greenhouse gases.


SCHULTZ: What if the president says no to this, what does this do to
diplomatic relations with Canada. Does it really.

the president says no, he`s saying yes to higher greenhouse gases because
the oil is coming down, whether anybody likes it or not, on rail.


SCHULTZ: So, it`s either going to come down on rail. It`s going to
come down on tracks or it`s going to be barged. OK?

All right. Meanwhile, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, he`s flying up
the rails. He does this about ones every six months. This guy is telling
the president of the United States basically what to do. At an energy
event in Houston, Texas, Girling said, "It is the next pipeline that is
going to be built. The marketplace continues to push us to build a
pipeline. It`s the right thing to do."

I`ll tell you what. It takes a lot of nerve for a CEO of
Multinational Corporation to announce to the American people and to the
president of the United States to tell that president of the United States
what`s going to happen.

Now, someone I think should inform Mr. Girling that he doesn`t run the
country. The people do. We`ll find out if the people do. The choice is
up to the president. The president of the United States alone, Girling.

Also, Girling took some slams at critics saying that the pipeline that
"they say that the Canadian oil sands is like the largest carbon bomb in
the world, it`s pure fabrication. It`s meant to scare an uninformed

This is a kind of stuff that these guys are throwing out across the
world. Now, I wonder if Mr. Girling would want the pipeline running
through his backyard. I guess not. He might be like that Tillerson dude
from Exxon, he retired.

And here`s the bottom line. President Obama is expected to make a
decision before the midterms. The public comment period ends in just a
couple of days. The environmental groups planned to hand deliver 1.5
million of public comments to the State Department coming up on Friday.
President Obama told a group of governors, he expects to make a decision in
the next few months. In the next months, that means the president would do
it before the midterm, that means the president would do it before the
agency comment closes.

Here`s a couple of things to consider. Number one, Mr. President, you
talked about being inclusive. The Native American tribes out there, the
Sioux Indians, the rest of them, they say that they have not been
consulted. Well, they`re going to be going to Washington. The last month
in April, they`re going to hold a massive protest in Washington. They`re
going to bring out TPs and everything else they plan on camping out. It`s
going to be interesting to see.

Now, this Russ Girling guy who is the head of TransCanada who wants
this, about every six months, he goes off the rails telling stock holders
that just wait a couple of more weeks, we`re going to get permanent right
through Nebraska. Don`t worry, we`re on schedule. He`s been saying that
for five years. So whatever he said at the Energy Conference down in
Houston is just more chatter.

Now, I can go out in this research of doing on the XL Pipeline. I can
go find an expert over here with the PhD who`s for it. I can go find
somebody over here a scientist who`s against it. Let me give you an
absolute tonight, something that you could really hang your hat on.

Show me the pipeline. Here`s what we`re talking about folks.
Existing pipeline, this is already built from the Nebraska border all the
way down to where it`s going to be refined in the Gulf Coast. This is the
only area where the pipeline has not been constructed -- the red dots. It
goes over this blue area which is the aquifer.

So let me give you an absolute. The aquifer is feet deep, not
thousands of feet, I mean, feet deep over this territory in Nebraska. This
pipeline if it`s constructed, just like every other pipeline, it will leak.
It`s an absolute. It will leak. The first XL Pipeline leaked. The first
XL Pipeline comes down here and then goes to Chicago. Well, this one is
going to be bigger. It`s going to be carrying something a heck of a lot
different. It will leak. You can count on it.

So the question is this America. Do you want to risk -- does the
president of the United States want to risk damaging the aquifer? And I`m
talking about irreversible damage. This isn`t something the oil companies
are going to be able to come in and fix the aquifer, no. When that oil, if
and when it does get in there, now, what are going to do? You are going to
make void the farm economy in this part of the country. That`s the risk.
That`s the absolute. No matter what any export tells you on the left, on
the right, on the blue, on the green, on the center, no matter what their
degrees are, this is where they want to put the pipeline. This is what is
going to over and this is the risk.

Mr. President, are we so energy void that we have to do this? I would
love to see the president of the United States go to Nebraska and talk to
the folks on the ground and find out exactly how far down that aquifer goes
and what an oil spill would do, and what the ramifications would be.

This right here, the Keystone XL Pipeline that would go over the
Ogallala Aquifer is one of the biggest energy risks this country will ever
take, ever, ever. It is going to be one of the most disasters things if it
does leak because it`s irreversible.

Mr. President, say no to this project. I turn this night on this
program. I was wrong. But after researching both sides and listening to
all the experts and seeing what`s out there, I don`t think America needs to
take this risk. That`s not even taking into consideration our diplomatic
relations with Canada, which I don`t think are going to be risky. All this
noise you`re hearing on the Right Wing about Russia, forget it. That has
nothing to do with or energy security and it will not affect the price, if
we`re worried about that on the global market.

Bottom line is this is American territory is what this is. This is
the land of the American people who are concerned about their future, who
are concerned about carbon emissions, who are concerned about their
stability. They pay taxes too. They claim that their representatives
won`t even listen to them.

Now, if Congressman Terry won`t listen to them, if Mr. Johanns sends
them out of the office, if nobody in Nebraska and the governor turns on
them, Mr. President, it seems to me like you`re going to have to go talk to
these people in Nebraska. You`re going to have to meet with them because
the other representatives won`t. You won`t have all the information Mr.
President unless you do what I did. It`s an eye-opener. It`s a risk.
It`s unnecessary. We don`t have to do this. There`s plenty of oil and
there`s plenty of waste to move it. Putting it over the aquifer would be a
huge mistake for America. And if you say no Mr. President, it will be a
huge symbolic symbol. It will be a huge symbolic statement to the country
and to the world. We`re serious about this climate thing.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think tonight`s
question. Is the Keystone XL Pipeline worth the risk? 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 this show.

For more, let me bring in Reuters reporter Ernest Scheyder who covered
the event in Houston with TransCanada CEO Russ Girling. Great to have you
with us tonight.


SCHULTZ: What was the tone of what was being said at that event? I`m
curious about that.

SCHEYDER: So, Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada really tried to
project a sentiment of inevitability around the Keystone XL Pipeline
extension and he sort of has too much of the capacity for the Keystone XL
has already been sold. So, you referenced in shareholders earlier and
certainly he wants to kind of calm their nerves. But at this major
conference, Serra, here in Houston, he also has many of these customers,
the companies that actually extract the crude oil from the ground and they
are nervous. And so, he wants to basically calm them down and let to know,
"Hey, this is going to happen."

SCHULTZ: What did they say about a potential oil leak of a big
magnitude over the aquifer and it could happen. And in business, you don`t
make this and you`re looking everything before you make a decision. This
is an absolute. Put the exports aside, pro-con, whatever, this is where
they want to put it. This is the potential damage if something goes wrong.
That`s irreversible. You can`t change that. What did they say to that?

SCHEYDER: You know, I actually, I asked Girling that very same
question, as I have a few minutes with him, and he said he goes, look, this
will be a brand new pipeline. So, he used that sort of analysis (ph)
defense against any potential spill. There is a broad acknowledgment in
the pipeline industry that yes, which do happen, but it`s a cost of doing
business. So Girling really says, "Look, this is going to be a brand new
pipeline." That`s how he views it.

SCHULTZ: Has new pipelines have no disasters, whatsoever. Does
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling thinks this is a done deal?

SCHEYDER: I would say that he`s trying to certainly project that. I
did ask him. I said, well, ultimately, President Obama could come back and
say no in a few months. He didn`t really want to talk about that. But
when I pushed him hard on it, he said, "Look, if we get a no, we`re going
to be there the next day with another application for a pipeline." So, he
is going to push hard on this. There are $2.2 billion into this project.
And so, they`ve got a lot on the line. The whole entire project is $5.4
billion. So, there`s a lot money at play here.

SCHULTZ: Ernest Scheyder thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate
it so much.

I want to bring in Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who is
questioning the entire credibility of the State Department report that came
out. Congressman, your reaction to TransCanada CEO saying the pipeline "is
going to be built."

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Well, I think you described it well,
Ed. That arrogance, also a tone of desperation, if I may say, that to try
to reassure his investors, not the American people, his investors, his
stock holders that this is going to be built regardless of what opinion in
this country is, regardless of what science tells us, and that`s the crutch
(ph) of our challenge to the State Department. The perceived conflict of
interests between the consulting company that did the report and providing
the findings for the State Department, we`ve asked the Government
Accountability Office to look into that, to look into the process State
Department used. Because we can`t go back to an era where Cheney and Bush
would decide in secret meetings what the energy policy for America needs to


GRIJALVA: If we`re going to base that in science, let`s make sure the
science is clean and certainly the organization being paid by the -- our
tax dollars also is clean and free of conflict of interests. And in this
case, this company did work for TransCanada in the past.

SCHULTZ: OK. And Congressman, what would be a good study for you to
point to? And I`ve seen a number of them. What would be a good study that
you would rely your integrity on?

GRIJALVA: I could go to American people would play some great deal of
integrity in a transparent process, in a process in which all the points
are vetted, and where there is no appearance and no direct conflict of
interest. I think you go to the Academy of Science, you go to those kinds
of reputable organizations to get the kind of independent, unbiased, look
at the reality of what this project means, to do to lessen that and to have
a cozy business relationship with the company and the consultant and his

The State Department, I think, is something the American people will
have no -- are not going to have any credibility, and you know, and this
pipeline is not going to deal with the occupation of Russia and then
Ukraine. This is not going to give us energy independence. This is all
about exporting that Canadian product out of in the Gulf, out to the rest
of the world.

And whatever that CEO said, that is a climate change bomb on a
missiles bomb that if those -- in those oil shades that is proportionally
marks larger than any other extraction going on at this point.

SCHULTZ: You mentioned desperation. The conservative narrative right
now is very desperate when they`re tied into Russia and our -- in our
energy-independent security. They just don`t understand the consumption of
it all. Congressman Raul Grijalva, good to have with us tonight. I
appreciate your time.

GRIJALVA: Thank you very much.

SCHULTZ: Thank you Sir.

Coming up, the fight for public education is heating up across the
country. The Rapid Response Panel will join me to discuss how
Conservatives are using children as political funds in the for-profit
education industry.

But first, more than 2 million Americans, the number is moving up, are
now without unemployment insurance benefits. Congressman James Clyburn
weighs in. Stick around. We`re right back at the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders. Social media action out there
would love your tweets on the last story. I`ve made the turn. I say no to
Keystone XL Pipeline.

This is where you can find us at, and We`ll talk a lot about this on the
radio tomorrow, noon to 3:00, SiriusXM, Channel 127. You can get my radio
podcast and my radio website at

Social media action, heavy again today. You have decided. We`re
reporting. Here are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) out of me.

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, seen, not heard.

LOIS LERNER, FORMER IRS OFFICIAL: I respectfully exercise my Fifth
Amendment right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Protected by right, stand back.

LERNER: I will decline to answer any question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I ain`t saying nothing.

have no expectation that Ms. Lerner will cooperate to this committee.

SCHULTZ: Lois Lerner takes the fifth and Darrell Issa takes off.

ISSA: Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a meeting like this.

REP ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D) MARYLAND: I am a ranking member of this
committee and I want to ask a question.

ISSA: We had a hearing, it was adjourned. I gave you an opportunity
to ask a question, you had no question.

CUMMINGS: I do have a question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait, stop, comeback.

CUMMINGS: Chairman, what are you hiding?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s taking the fifth, Elijah.


SCHULTZ: The number two trender, hard sell.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTA: Will we as the United States
cooperate in standing with Israel?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you are not with us, then by definition, you
are against us.

BACHMANN: The president of the United States was helped enormously by
the Jewish Community. He made promises that he would have Israel`s back.

SCHULTZ: Michele Bachmann slams American Jews for selling out their
home land.

BACHMANN: What has been shocking.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m shocked, shocked.

BACHMANN: Jewish organizations who it appears have made it appears
have made it their priority to support the political priority and the
political ambitions of the president over the best interests of Israel.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, uphill battle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 1.3 million people lost their benefits December

SCHULTZ: So far, absolutely nothing has been done to help these

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, 2 million people all together would have
eligible for these benefits. But instead, they are getting nothing.

SCHULTZ: Harry Reid plans another vote on unemployment insurance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At first you don`t succeed.

SEN. HARRY REID, (D) NEVADA: I`m going to try again, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Each week, another70,000 people would have been
eligible for those federal benefits.

SCHULTZ: Senate Republicans have flat out abandoned these unemployed

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They need one more Senate Republican to join them.

REID: I believe there`s a number of Republican Senators who want to
get something done.


SCHULTZ: Joining me how is Congressman James Clyburn of South
Carolina. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

REP. JAMES CLYBURN, (D) SOUTH CAROLINA: Thank you so much for having
me, Ed.

SCHULTZ: You bet. I want to show you the website from the House Ways
and Means Committee that is up right now that is keeping track of how many
Americans are losing their unemployment benefits. This website continues
to track at it changes and is updated every eight seconds. The number, it
started at 1.3, now, we`re over 2 million. A question begs congressman.
Do the Republicans want to do anything about the unemployed in this

CLYBURN: No, they don`t, and that`s a real shame. We`re talking
about hard working Americans who have find themselves out of jobs and no
fault (ph) of their own. What we`re talking about is trying to keep these
people above water until they can find a gainful employment.

This has a dramatic impact on these families, negative impact on my
dad, on these families as well as the cheap communities within which they
live. Those kind of insurgence or stimulus is needed for the families and
the communities, and what they do, they are shopping. So this is one big


CLYBURN: . that the Republicans refused to deal with.

SCHULTZ: And congressman, over on the Senate side, Harry Reid says
that he`s going to use some savings from the farm bill to offset the cost
of helping out the long term unemployed. Is there money to be found there?

CLYBURN: Yes. When we did the farm bill, one of the things that did
not get talked about was the -- a significant reduction in the deficit that
comes from passing the farm bill. And I wish we could do immigration
because there`s not a $58 billion to be saved if we were to pass the
immigration bill.

So, all of these bills are not just bills that deal with an apparent
problem, but they also have a tremendous passive impact on our economy and
Senator Reid is correct. If he can`t that money, we`ve already passed the
farm bill, so that money is there and should -- it should be used to offset
whatever the cost would be to unemployment. Though I don`t believe you
ought to do that. If this is an emergency.


CLYBURN: . you ought to treat it as an emergency and not worry about
finding to pay for at this particular jump shift (ph).

SCHULTZ: Congressman, what do you -- I want your -- I want to switch
subjects on you on healthcare. The Department of Health Human Services
today has told Americans that if they like their health insurance, they can
keep it another two years. The Affordable Care Act compliance is being
changed, is being extended. Doesn`t this cut to the spirit of the law and
break it down? That`s how I see it, is that, one of the reasons why we
pass the healthcare is to get some standards in the industry -- in the
insurance industry to make sure that people didn`t have junk insurance.
Why this set back for the law?

CLYBURN: Well, because six months is not enough time for people to
really understand exactly what it is that they have. A lot of people think
they like what they have because they have never tried to use it. When
they attempt to use it is when they find out that they`ve got deductibles
that they can`t afford, they`ve got co-payments that they cannot reach, and
that is the problem. But, getting people to understand that, sometimes
require that they have the experience. And so, if we can take time for
people to study their policies, get somebody to help them see exactly what
it is that they have got, then I think you`ll see a lot of them dropping
these policies on their own. These people would not have to worry about
canceling the policies.

I`ve seen it. I was in my hometown last Saturday night and a lady
came up to me and told me that she had a deductible that she could not
afford. She had a son who had seizure at the age of 25 and when the --
through Affordable Care Act, we need to effect.


CLYBURN: . as the first. She could not bring him on our policy
because he had this -- because he had already turned 26. Now, he`s got his
own policy and paying that might add $15 a month, where.

SCHULTZ: So, this is constituent motivated? That the Democrats are
making a move on this because this is what they`re hearing back home and
it`s not for any kind of to dodge it during the midterms?

CLYBURN: Absolutely not.


CLYBURN: We want people to feel that they are in fact in charge of
their destiny.

SCHULTZ: All right.

CLYBURN: And for them to think that we`re taking something away from
them is not good.

SCHULTZ: Congressman James Clyburn, great to have you with us on the
Ed Show. Thank you sir. I appreciate your time.

Coming up, Conservatives push today for a tax-payer money from public
schools to for-profit charter schools. Rapid Response Panel weighs in on
that as they fight for public education. And later, Republicans continue
to call the president weak on foreign policy. Congressman Charles Rangel
will join us tonight on that subject. But I`m taking your questions next
Ask Ed Live. Stay with us on the Ed Show on MSNBC. We are right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Love hearing from our viewers,
Ask Ed, our segment tonight.

I only got time for one question tonight it`s coming from Mike. "Why
are the Republicans so interested in a "do-over" of the Cold War?"

Well, when you think about it, what are the Republicans for? This
issue finally gives them something to advocate for something, another
confrontation. They`re against jobs, they`re against healthcare, they`re
against minimum wage, they`re against everything but they`re for war. It
warms your heart doesn`t it?

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel coming up next.

MORGAN BRENNAN: I`m Morgan Brennan with your CNBC Market Wrap.

A mixed day for stocks, the DOW falls 35 points, the S and P ends just
about flat and the NASDAQ is up six points.

Companies added 139,000 jobs last month, that`s according to payroll
processor ADP. The gain was smaller than expected and the report comes two
days before the government closely watched jobs data.

And the feds read on regional economic conditions shows most areas of
the U.S. experienced growth from January to early February. However,
severe weather did put a damper on gains in some places.

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


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Well, Progressives need to sound the alarm about high stakes testing,
mass school closures and the corporate take over of public education to
this country.

A new report by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools shows
600 new public charter schools opened nationwide between 2013 and 2014.
It`s the new wave. More than 2.5 million students now attend nearly 6,500
public charter schools nationwide. And charter school enrollment across
the United States has jumped 225 percent over the last decade.

What`s going on here? Well, New York City is one of the many areas
where charter schools are growing and the public schools are flat out
paying the price. They`re suffering for it.

Eva Moskowitz is the CEO of Success Academy Charter Schools in New
York. She is locked in a battle with Mayor Bill de Blasio. He announced
last week that he`s axing three planned charter schools in her network.


in a city at a state and the nation that has an educational crisis of
monumental proportions? We would welcome alternatives that have high
performance but instead, a so-called Progressive mayor and make no mistake
it is not progressive to disenfranchise poor minority kids.


SCHULTZ: What about accountability? You mean to tell me just because
it`s a charter school it`s going to be perfect because it`s for profit.
Sorry, folks, I don`t buy it. There are standards. Not every charter
school performs well especially against public schools.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, I think he is totally right and he
is not alone in this mission. Public school activist from every corner of
the United States met over the weekend out at the University of Texas to
launch a nationwide movement to defend public education against corporate
take over and phony test driven reform.

Texas School Superintendent John Kuhn took the stage to express his
concerns with the private sector CEO Formula.


JOHN KUHN, TEXAS SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT: Where do we go for redress of
our grievances once we`ve surrendered our elected school boards and our
constitutional guarantees? Do we march into the board room of a charter
management group or some foundation? School reform, the way it`s being
presented, is only backed by the assurances and sweet words of the American
corporate elite and their spokespeople. But the public education system is
backed by the full faith and credit of us, the people of each state.


SCHULTZ: So, what`s unfolding here is students, parents
administrators and teachers all over the country are building a new
movement of resistance to the corporate raid on schools.

Joining me now in our rapid response panel, Diane Ravitch, she is the
founder of the Network For Public Education who held the event in Texas
over the weekend and Ruth Conniff, Editor-in-Chief of The Progressive
Magazine from Wisconsin who attended and covered the event down in Texas
over the weekend.

Diane you first, and thanks for being here tonight. Why are charter
schools exploding across America right now?

they`re not public, they call themselves public charters schools because
they`re not public. They are privately managed, corporate owned schools
that get money from the government.

And what we are creating right now is a dual-school system. One school
system call charter system gets to choose its citizens (ph), gets to keep
those it wants throws out those that doesn`t want. And almost all of them
have fewer children with special needs, meaning kids with disabilities.
Eva Moskowitz`s school is a good example of that. Fewer -- half as many
kids with disabilities, half as many kids who don`t speak English and they
have more funding, her schools get $2,000 every year more in funding than a
regular public school.

SCHULTZ: So it`s a selected environment?

RAVITCH: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: Is Mayor de Blasio correct in doing what he`s doing. Why
did he shut these three schools?

RAVITCH: He didn`t shut any school. I mean that`s the irony. He was
-- the Bloomberg administration as it was leading swiftly approved 49
applications for charters. He approved 39 out 49, she got three new
schools. Three of her applications we`re denied. So she`s saying that
three of her schools are closed, they weren`t -- they don`t even exist.

SCHULTZ: Ruth Conniff, what did you take out of the conference down
in Texas? What is this movement going to do, and also what about the --
that`s kind of the belly of the beast down there when it comes to testing
and forming the test that our students across the country are going to be
taking isn`t it?

you know, as Diane Ravitch put it so eloquently at that conference this
weekend. It`s really the heart of the testing industrial complex. And I
think what we see is a nationwide movement, a public school activist of
teachers, of parents, of students themselves who are saying there`s
something wrong when we have this dual system, when we have corporations
sucking money out of the public school system to run -- to make a profit.
And we see that the results in these schools, whether they`re voucher
schools or charter schools are not even as good as the public schools.

Millions of dollars are coming out of our public school system to
finance these operations and it`s backed by this ideology that`s promoted
by a lot of think tanks like The Bradley Foundation here in Wisconsin which
had pushed the idea that the schools are failing. That the public schools
are failing, need to be broken up, privatized and hand it over to private

And that message is very toxic, it` very profitable for companies like
PIERS (ph) and the largest testing company in the world which is based in
Texas and has six full time lobbyist in the Austin state house and make --
as a $5 million contract to administer the test. But it`s really bad for
students and bashing teachers in order to promote. This is bad for teachers
as well.

SCHULTZ: So, Ruth, what is the game plan to fight back against this?
What was accomplished over the weekend?

CONNIFF: I think what was really moving about this conference and
you`ve played a little bit of that speech by John Kuhn who stood on the
stage with Karen Lewis was to see these people from all over the country
from coast to coast at a very grassroots level who have really gotten the
idea that there is a massive democratic issue here, that we need to fight
to preserve the idea that we have a public school system that`s there`s to
serve everybody. It`s for all kids, we`re all invested in it and that it
shouldn`t be broken up into, you know, smaller pieces of private industry
that profit a few people at the expense of this .


CONNIFF: . this great democratic thing that we have in the public
school system.

SCHULTZ: Diane, are definitely short (ph) changing public schools of
the charter system?

RAVITCH: Absolutely, every dollar that goes to a charter school,
they`re not all for profit by the way. But if you take for example Eva
Moskowitz`s it`s a shame, it`s not for profit but she makes a -- close to
half million dollars a year. To oversee a very small chain of about 7,000
students, that`s more than the president of the United States. They are
for a profit schools. Michigan for example, more than 80 percent of the
charters operate for profit. And Governor Snyder in Michigan wants to --
he really wants to get rid of public education.

SCHULTZ: What`s the connection to Teacher`s Unions here? I mean is
this just another way to try to get rid of them?

RAVITCH: Well, part of the game plan is get rid of unions. Many
states have passed laws making it illegal to have a union. Most teachers
no longer belong to union because their state doesn`t allow them to.

What the game plan is to break up the teaching profession and to have
low wage people, that`s the business plan. Law wage people who come and
work for two or three years, and then they leave. And somebody else comes
in works for two or three years, so there -- you have to pensions, but you
also have to profession, you have no experience.

This country is -- has been so horrible to teachers, we`re bleeding
teachers. Many states have lost their veterans and their experienced
teachers and they`re depending now on people with one year of experience.

SCHULTZ: All right. Diane Ravitch, come back. We`re going to talk a
lot more about this with Conniff. Thank you so much as well. I appreciate
your time tonight.

Coming up, Republicans are trying to paint President Obama as weak for
his position of the issues with the Ukraine. Where was this criticism when
President Bush was in office? A couple of examples we`re looking at. I`ll
talk to the New York Congressman Charlie Rangel about all of this. Stay
with us.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, party of whoa, Jim DeMint.
DeMint cut and run from the United States Senate, oh yeah, and now, he`s
doing the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party leaders are
plummeting in the polls and the ex-senator is in a spiral of denial.


Senate races when I was in the Senate, but not at Heritage, we`re

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you`re seen as one of the backers, one of
the intellectual godfathers of the Tea Party.

DEMINT: You can`t say one county is Tea Party and other one is not.
Because the Tea Party is not .


DEMINT: No, I`m called a senator Tea Party and I`ve never been a part
of a Tea Party in my life. I`ve been to a lot of meetings.


SCHULTZ: Really, been to a lot of meetings? Going to Tea Party
meetings isn`t a spectator sport. DeMint has spoken at countless Tea Party
conventions and rallies.

If the shutdown loving ObamaCare hating crusader for the wealthy isn`t
a Tea Partier I`m not Ed Schultz.

The Tea Party is in trouble and the president of the Heritage
Foundation, well, he don`t want a legacy. He wants donors.

Jim DeMint can jump a sinking ship, but if he thinks we`ll forget he`s
the captain, he can keep on pretending.



And we have clearly stated that we believe it is the wrong choice, that is
the choice to move troops into Crimea. Russia can now choose to de-
escalate this situation. And we are committed to working with Russia and
together with our friends and allies in an effort to provide a way for this
entire situation to find the road to de-escalation.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

In response to the situation in Ukraine, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck
Hagel announced the United States is increasing its military presence in
Poland and the Baltic.

As Secretary of State John Kerry makes a diplomatic push to ease
tensions, Republicans are just getting started in their push to pain
President Obama is weak.


wants to do and he does it in half a day, right? He makes a decision and
he executes it quickly then everybody reacts. That`s what`s you call a
leader. President Obama, you got to think about it, he`s got to go over it
again. He`s got to talk to more people about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he is basically come to the conclusion
after Benghazi, after Syria, after Egypt, after everything that Obama has
been engaged in. He`s weak indecisive leader.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The person to blame here is Vladimir Putin. He`s
the one responsible. He`s the one who did it. I think there`s a case
being made that the president has through weakness, chains the cost benefit
that Vladimir Putin would go through to decide whether to use force.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The world is never in a better place when you have
a week indecisive American president and Russia is a symptom of that

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama`s weak foreign policy is the real

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a tragedy that we`re led by -- we`re not even
that that we have such a weakling for a president.


SCHULTZ: For more, let`s bring in New York Congressman Charlie Rangel
who knows a thing or two about war and has been around a long time.
Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

What`s your response to this narrative that we have probably the
weakest president in the history?

REP. CHARLIE RANGEL, (D) NEW YORK: Well, unfortunately I think
Americans are aware that the people that spoke against the president of the
United States when he was going through delicate negotiations that affect
that national security that they just don`t have any credibility.

If I was going to be criticized, I would rather be criticized by those
people who are not president, who ran in laws, who are seeking
presidencies, they were on the outside, they have to be on television
saying something. But the truth of the matter is as we can see the
president and Senator Kerry has pulled all these pieces together, we got
Speaker Boehner saying that we are going to unite behind the president of
the United States during this crisis. I think that`s a step in a direction
that we have been seeing happen in a very, very long time.

Quite frankly, I was on the floor today as the Republicans put up for
the 50th time a bill that would destroy Obamacare or the Affordable Care

SCHULTZ: That`s all they`re about. They`re jumping on anything they
can. I want to put out that Hillary Clinton spoke out in a situation in
the Ukraine at a private fundraise in California. A reporter with the Long
Island Press telegram recorded Clinton`s comments despite the fact that the
organizers forbid recording.

Let`s take a listen to this.

HILLARY CLINTON: Now, if this sounds familiar, it`s what Hitler did
back in the 30s. All the Germans that were, you know, the ethnic Germans,
the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania
and other places, you know, that Hitler kept saying they`re not being
treated right. I must go and protect my people and that`s what`s gotten
everybody so nervous.

SCHULTZ: Hillary Clinton went on to clarify those remarks today
saying, "I just want people to have a little historic perspective. I`m not
making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can
learn from this tactic that has been used before."

What is your response to that, Congressman? I mean, I get the fact
that she`s talking about a political method to justify the action that
Putin is doing. Your take on this.

RANGEL: Well, listen, that`s the diplomatic thing. I think when
President Bush said look into Putin`s eyes and saw directly into his soul.
And so I don`t know what Former President Bush saw but there is no question
that once you`re a great power as the Soviet Union used to be, they have to
do certain things in order to create the fact that they are part of
international leadership.

But I think President Obama said it all that when you define the
international community and invade another nation, a sovereign nation for
whatever cause, it is totally unacceptable. And this is where the people
who disagree with the president should unite as it relates to not his
presidency but the security of the United States of the America. They
should cut this cans outside of the Republican Party and start trying to be
American for a change.

SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman Charlie Rangel, great to have you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you so much.

RANGEL: Always good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Thank you, sir.

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