updated 3/11/2014 11:48:41 AM ET 2014-03-11T15:48:41

THE ED SHOW
March 10, 2014

Guest: EJ Dionne, Michael Brune, Virg Bernero, Leonie Haimson, Michael
Eric Dyson, Angela Rye>

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: That would do something differently
than the president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drill baby drill.

PAUL: Imagine, imagine it went before a moment.

Immediately, every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and
gas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s Paul who was toast.

PAUL: My positions are very, very clear.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He used to got it. He used the small (inaudible).

PAUL: That would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place -
- every possible conceivable place.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now is the chance (ph) drill, baby, drill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Americans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drink it up.

PAUL: You know, I guess, I would just say that everybody has their
own style.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

Can you believe that Obama is out drilling Bush and the numbers prove
it? Didn`t get a mention at CPAC, they just can`t drill enough. They want
to keep on drilling. Keep on drilling. We ain`t drilling enough. This
guy was a big winner at CPAC over the weekend. That`s right. Rand Paul,
he think he can do more.

Tonight, we`ll try to explain why the Kentucky Senator Rand Paul`s
backwards energy policy makes him actually a big loser.

You see, Paul easily won this year`s CPAC Straw Poll by 31 -- with 31
percent at the vote. Canadian Senator Ted Cruz who resides in Texas was at
distant second with only 11 percent, then Ben Carson then Chris Christie.
He has some work to do. Paul is trying to stay at the top by basically
scaring America into more oil production. We`re actually not doing enough.

On Sunday, Paul said the United Stated should drill everywhere to
address the growing crisis in the Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: I would do something differently than the president because
that would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of
oil and gas. And I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable
place within our territories in order to have production that we could
supply Europe with, if it`s interrupted from Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Are you kidding me? Do you really believe that Senator Paul
-- do you really think that if we go under the Teddy Roosevelt National
Park in North Dakota, then all of a sudden, Putin`s going to take those?
Holy smokes. We`ve better change stuff over here on the other side of the
world. These folks are disconnected from reality. Rand Paul is not living
in the real world.

First, we should point out to the Senator from Kentucky that U.S.
domestic production oil -- production of oil is at the highest level in
decades. But wait a minute, charts to them don`t mean anything.

The red part of the graph is oil production under President Bush. I
can`t understand why was so flat for so long. We had to get a good
Democrat in there to move it up. The blue line of course is the production
under President Obama. Look at that, son of a gun, he`s doing what he`s
said, drill baby drill.

Since President Obama took office, U.S. oil production basically has
sky rocketed compared to the Bush years. No mention on that at CPAC.

In December, the United States produced 243 million barrels of oil.
It was the biggest month of oil production since 1995. In 2013, America
finally produced more oil than an imported for the first time since 1995.

Paul`s position, well, could reverse this strength. The New York
Times points out that Putin wouldn`t let America push him out of the oil
business or gas business. You know what he do? He would simply lower
prices of Russian gas to keep as many customers as he possibly could. Holy
smokes. It`s the free market screwing up the conservative philosophy on
oil and gas all of a sudden.

It would also take years, literally years, for the United States to
set up new refineries to supply Europe with oil and natural gas. But maybe
that`s why the steel industry is working 24/7 on that, so are the Koreans
by the way.

Paul`s drill everywhere idea is a political statement. It is not
based in reality. But he`s an attention getter (ph). He is the first guy
to jump in front of the parade. Meanwhile, the public comment period is
now over for the Keystone XL Pipeline, and of course, the debate continues
to heat up. It`s amazing to me, last week, we`ve seen more and more people
come out with statements about the pipeline.

On Friday, environmental groups hand-delivered over two million
comments opposing the pipelines in the State Department.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH SHOPE: We delivered more than two million comments that
people wrote over the last month to tell President Obama and Secretary
Kerry that the Keystone XL partisan pipeline is not in the national
interest and must be rejected.

REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD, HIP HOP CAUCUS: It`s not 200. It`s not 2,000,
two million comments.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Remember, President Obama has nothing to lose by saying no
to the pipeline. And later this week, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee will be holding a hearing on the pipeline -- New Jersey Senator
Robert Menendez. Well, he has pledged to put the project under the public
microscope. That`s going to be interesting because there really haven`t
been a whole lot of opponents to the pipeline in Washington.

There`s a lot of elected officials who were afraid of big oil. They
don`t want to become a target in this age of Citizens United. So, are they
going to wait for the very end to speak up on it?

Now, there`s a few and there`s going to be a big shindig tonight at
the Senate. But where do they really stand on it and why only 28?

We know where this guy stands on the pipeline. We know exactly where
he stands which is interesting. Rand Paul doesn`t want the National
Security Agency looking through your cellphone or listening to you but he`s
all about a multinational oil company putting a pipeline in your backyard
because they got eminent domain.

Talk about hypocrisy. Rand Paul wrote on his website, "My plan would
also approve the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. I have
consistently and repeatedly voted to allow this project to proceed."

Americans, won`t you find that a little bit interesting? I thought
all these Tea Partiers were all about the constitution. I thought they
were all about sovereignty. I thought they were all about states` rights.
I thought they were all about the ownership society and don`t get in my
way. I own it. I`m going to do whatever I want.

And here`s Rand Paul saying, "Yeah, multinational oil company, just
take that pipeline right on through America. Do whatever the hell you want
to do."

There is no way Rand Paul can call himself a Libertarian in support to
TransCanada take over of private property or cash sweep at everybody
through the Heartland. It doesn`t add up. Senator, where`s all the
sovereignty talk? Where`s all the liberty, and the rights, and the
freedom? And the American is among all of these.

Isn`t this bad pocket? It`s a calling card from TransCanada. This is
what we want. Turns out, Rand Paul, he`s no different from the rest of
them.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think tonight`s
question. Is Senator Rand Paul like hypocrite or libertarian? Text A for
hypocrite, text B for Libertarian to 67622. You can always go to our blog
at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring in the results later on in this show.

For more, I want to bring in E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post.
E.J., great to have you with us tonight.

E.J. DIONNE, WASHINGTON POST: Good to be with you Ed.

SCHULTZ: What`s happening here? Is Rand Paul`s position based in
reality? It`s rather politically confusing. He says one thing yet
supports something else.

DIONNE: Well, you know, I would like to say that raising the minimum
wage would solve the crisis in the Ukraine, but I don`t think anyone would
believe me. And I think that what you`re seeing here, and he`s not alone
in this, is that a lot of people who were for a policy before the Ukraine
crisis are trying to figure out how can they make a case for this policy
using the Ukraine crisis and that`s what Rand Paul and a lot of other
people here are doing.

They`re saying that this drill, drill, drill policy, it`s the
penalization (ph) of the Republican Party. These drilling policies, they
were four along, is now just the ticket to get to Russians out of Crimea.
But as Paul .
SCHULTZ: I mean, that`s the absolutely outrageous that they think that if
we announce that we`re going to be drilling in some new areas that somehow
it`s going to affect Vladimir Putin in his position with the Ukraine. Do
they actually believe what they`re saying?
DIONNE: In the notion that Ukraine, as you`ve pointed out, the whole
export issue that we can turn this around tomorrow morning and start
exporting atomic energy to Europe in time to affect this. But I think Paul
is up to something else which is that his non-intervention, his foreign
policy is not popular in all parts of the Republican Party.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DIONNE: And talking about drilling is a way to say something very
popular in large parts of the party without really having to talk much
about foreign policy, Russia, Ukraine. It`s just all about .

SCHULTZ: Well .

DIONNE: . oil.

SCHULTZ: It would seem to me that Rand Paul would be standing with
these landowners down in Nebraska saying that they have constitutional
rights to say no to what`s going to be put on their land. We`re not
hearing any of that. I mean it`s -- isn`t it hypocritical for Paul as a
Libertarian to support a multinational corporation that wants private land?

DIONNE: Well, especially if they use government, if they use eminent
domain to get that private land and that violates what a lot of
Libertarians say about using government to give up land for private
purposes. But I think this fight over Keystone is very interesting as I
think a lot of people may knew have reported on this. A lot of people have
been surprised of how many very loyal Republicans in states like Nebraska
are very uneasy about this.

Now, the truth is most -- nobody particularly wants pipelines going
through their neighborhoods or their land. But I think you`re right to
draw this link between a certain kind of Conservative Libertarianism and
folks saying they are against Keystone because I just don`t want this
impingement on their lives or their land.

SCHULTZ: E.J. Dionne, great to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. Thanks so much. I want to bring in.

DIONNE: Good to be with you.

SCHULTZ: . Michael Brune who is the Executive Director of the Sierra
Club. Michael, good to have you with us tonight. Two million comments
delivered against the Keystone XL Pipeline. What kind of impact do you
expect this to have?

MICHAEL BRUNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SIERRA CLUB: I think it will have
a big impact. Two million comments, that`s a lot of people who feel
strongly enough about this issue to actually take a stand and to fight
against the pipeline. And the oil industry has millions of dollars to try
to sway public opinion. And we have millions of people who believe that
this pipeline proposal -- it`s a boondoggle. A thousand-mile long pipeline
going through farms and ranches, all the way to the Gulf, and the oil
doesn`t even stay here. Most of it will be shipped overseas, much of it to
China. We get all the risks and the oil companies get all the rewards.

SCHULTZ: Is it .

BRUNE: So I think two million comments goes a long way.

SCHULTZ: . is it there a lot of political cloudiness to this? I
mean, it seems like everybody can justify a reason for this to go through
even people like Rand Paul who`s supposed to be the big constitutionalist
and Libertarian that sticks up from a little guy.

BRUNE: Yeah. Well, I remember, this is a fight that`s been going on
for about five years. So, people have had a long, long time to sharpen
their talking points and to get their justifications out.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well .

BRUNE: But in the end, it`s just a pipeline coming from a dirty
source of oil. And the question is, do we want to put billions of dollars
into more infrastructure or should we start to make a turn towards clean
energy that creates more jobs and doesn`t create all of these pollution at
the same time?

SCHULTZ: You were testifying at the hearing on Thursday.

BRUNE: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: And of course, the public comment period is now over with
this hearing and of course the senator from New Jersey says that he is
going to, you know, do this in a very open process under a public .

BRUNE: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: . microscope. How much more of a microscope does it need
and what are you going to say at this hearing on Thursday?

BRUNE: Well, so as far as I know, there will be one public hearing on
this before the Senate Farm Relations Committee. And we`ll have -- there
will be two representatives, two proponents of the pipeline, and two people
who are opposed to it. And so, my job as I see is to represent the
millions of people. Sierra Club members and people all across the country,
many of whom don`t want to see a pipeline go through their farms, through
their ranches, many of whom are concerned about climate disruption or
they`re experiencing extreme weather. And to highlight the fact that we do
have an opportunity to say no to this particular project and invest in
clean energy instead.

SCHULTZ: What is your response .

BRUNE: And we`re hopeful at this .

SCHULTZ: . what`s your response to Rand Paul`s drill everywhere
position.

BRUNE: You know, I think the senator is out of touch with basic
American values right now. We know we can`t drill our way out of these
problems. For natural gas, we wouldn`t be able to get the gas or the oil
all the way over to Western Europe. We don`t have the capacity to do that.
We don`t have the time to do it to actually make a difference on the issue.
And then most of the gas that the senator is talking about drilling, it
would be exported by private businesses, and those businesses would prefer
to sell the gas to Asia and make more money than they would to the Ukraine.

But the bigger problem in all of this is a lack of vision. Do we
really want to wed ourselves to another volatile fossil fuel for decades to
come or to .

SCHULTZ: You know, there`s experts on both sides, OK? And .

BRUNE: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: . there`s science on both sides in the political world as
well. And that this is a political decision. But why in the world would
we put a pipeline over an aquifer because it`s going to do irreversible
damage.

BRUNE: Right.

SCHULTZ: Now, I hope you get that .

BRUNE: Right.

SCHULTZ: . into the testimony. And I`m surprised that this is only
going to be one hearing with two people on each side which brings me to the
question, has the Senate done enough? Have they spoken up enough? I mean,
this have been going on -- where`s the opposition in the Congress to this?

BRUNE: Yeah. You know, we need to see strong leadership from the
Senate on climate generally. But I have to say that the event that`s
happening tonight will be an all night speech where a couple of dozen
senators will be talking about the need to act on climate change. So
Senator Schatz from Hawaii is helping to lead this charge. We have the
majority leader Harry Reid, Senator Boxer in White House. We expect them
to stand very strong for action on climate and also those four senators
have been very strong against this pipeline. And we expect them to
continue to speak about that tonight and weeks ahead.

SCHULTZ: From the scale of one to 10, what kind of pushback has there
been, you know?

BRUNE: Push back?

SCHULTZ: I mean well, there -- that doesn`t sound like there`s too
many anti-voices there. It seems like they`re in the 11th hour now,
they`re going to do a little stay up all nighty pizza and talk it over on
the Senate floor, I mean, come on. I mean this is a big deal.

BRUNE: It is a big deal. It is a big deal, but it`s -- yeah, I think
to be fair, it`s great that they`re having this session tonight.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BRUNE: It`s very good that there will be a hearing on Thursday and
there`s a lot more that the Senate can and should be doing both on Keystone
but more particularly on .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BRUNE: . climate generally. We need to see stronger leadership.

SCHULTZ: All right. Michael Brune, good to have you with us tonight.
Thanks so much. We`ll be watching the testimony .

BRUNE: OK.

SCHULTZ: . later this week.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @EdShow and on Facebook.
Always want to know what you think.

Coming up, conservatives are twisting the meaning of civil rights in a
new attack on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. The Rapid Response Panel
weighs in on the fight for public education. But first, the battle to
unionize continues for Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga. Lansing Mayor
Virg Bernero, joins us next as Volkswagen sides with the workers. We`re
right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Time now for the Trenders. Social media, this is where you
can find us, Facebook.com/edshow, Twitter.com/edshow and ed.msnbc.com. On
the radio, SiriusXM, Channel 127, Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00. You
can get my radio podcast at wegoted.com

The Ed Show social media nation has decided we`re reporting. Here are
today`s top Trenders voted on by you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want me to get started, I`ll get it.

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, bust a move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Attention, you have just entered a battle zone.
Protect (ph).

SCHULTZ: Darrell Issa, leaks some classified dance moves.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Protected by viper, stand back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s selfie time.

SCHULTZ: The number two trender, hashtag selfie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A star-filled celebrity selfie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The selfie seen around the world.

SCHULTZ: The tea party joins in, but they got nothing on Big Eddie.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s sort of the king of the selfies.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s obvious isn`t it?

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, the Volkswagen vote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The United Auto Workers is vowing to stay in
Chattanooga and continue organizing efforts at the Volkswagen plant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Union has filed an appeal at the U.S. National
Labor Relations Board.

LEO GERARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED STEELWORKERS: Corker misled the
community, misled the workers.

SCHULTZ: The UAW fights for a fair election in Tennessee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Government regulators are deciding now whether a
new election should be held at the factory.

GERARD: Irresponsible interference into a free election between the
workers.

GROVER NORQUIST, PRESIDENT/FOUNDER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: We put
up about 13 billboards around the plant in the committee.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we`re trying to do is intervene.

GERARD: With Corker`s attitude, they might have to revisit whether
they put any plants in the south.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: UAW`s Dennis Williams says UAW workers were scared
to death and threatened by outside comments from politicians.

DENNIS WILLIAMS, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS:
These officials who threatened the workers at Volkswagen had no problem
coming to the ribbon ceremony.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Joining us tonight, Mayor Virg Bernero of Lansing, Michigan.
Mayor, good to have you with us tonight. We`re seeing a lot of people come
out of the woodwork on this story. It is going to be a big decision coming
up by the National Labor Relations Board. Now, you`ve got Southern
Momentum, one of the groups and the National Right to Work Foundation.
What does this signal about Corker`s involvement that he`s trying to get
some allies involved in this?

MAYOR VIRG BERNERO, (D) LANSING, MICHIGAN: Well, I mean, obviously,
he had powerful allies to begin with. You know, what you saw was uncalled-
for unprecedented and really un-American tactics. This was Kremlin style
repression and really manipulating the media, creating, you know, the
untruths that we`re told that`s incredible to have this kind of
intervention. And of course, I`m sure he`s getting a little worried at
this point, because he looks as guilty as he is.

SCHULTZ: What do you make of Volkswagen now siding with UAW and
wanting these groups to keep their hands off on a letter issued to the
National Labor Relations Board?

BERNERO: You know, I`m really proud of how UAW has conducted
themselves. I mean, they have been example, a shining example of what a
company should do, in my opinion. Let the workers decide. And so, you
know, they really led the way, and it would have been a fair and free
election, if it had not been for this ridiculous, untoward intervention by
government officials. And it really is unprecedented Ed, and when I say
un-American, because the idea -- I think it`s unprecedented. I don`t think
we`ve never seen politicians weigh in. I mean, this -- you got to go back
to really the early ugly days in American history when people -- when the
government was against the working person.

And that`s what I guess guys like Corker want to go back to, you know,
there was bloods -- blood, toil, sweet, and tears spilled to create the
middle class in this country. And the Labor Unions were at the forefront,
and you know, maybe that`s the fight we`re going to be in again, because
you have those that want to destroy the unions .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BERNERO: . and to destroy the union is really to destroy one of the
most Democratic institutions in America.

SCHULTZ: Well .

BERNERO: I mean, small the Democratic.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. If the NLRB does not rule on this quickly and really
get involved in this, what does this say about future elections, what does
it say about the advocacy money? I mean, if they -- they, you know, Grover
Norquist is trying to say, "Well, we only took up so many billboards, we
only ran so many ads."

Bottom line here is if the NLRB doesn`t step in on stuff like this,
the floodgates are going to be open. And this is going to be the new enemy
of unions and it`s going to be the new tool against American workers.
They`re not going to be happy until everybody is working for seven bucks an
hour. That`s really what it comes down to.

BERNERO: Well, exactly. I mean, every union election will turn into
like a Citizens United style campaign where you have money coming in on
both sides and I, you know, I fear Ed that the worker loses in that because
look, we just don`t have the kind of money. We can`t counter (ph) the
corporate dollars that are out there for every time if they`re -- if the
corporations are allowed legally to weigh in through politicians and in
other ways to infiltrate what should be, you know, a sanction process, what
should be a clear, legal, and safe route for voters to go, really unscathed
by outside influence to allow that to be infiltrated and infected, tainted
with this outside political money is going to be disaster.

I mean, I really fear for the future working people. But again, I
think we`ve got to be ready to fight and stand up like the forefathers were
who helped create the middle class in this country. It was the unions and
it was allowing people free choice. And what you have was a standard of
neutrality and this -- the NLRB must stand for that standard of neutrality
so that elected officials and others know that you`re to be neutral. And
which, you know, the company was, to their credit, much to their credit,
let the workers decide, that`s a basic American principle -- the autonomy
of the voter and of the worker. And again, this is the most democratic of
American institutions, and unfortunately, that whole process was tainted by
Corker and others who weighed it and really lied. And have they told to
this day, has Corker given the source of his supposed .

SCHULTZ: No.

BERNERO: . knowledge .

SCHULTZ: No.

BERNERO: . this information with that (ph)?

SCHULTZ: No. He has done that. He has done that, but he, you know,
continues to say that it was a, you know, a serious conversation and he
wouldn`t have said anything how he had not had a conversation like that. A
conversation is fine .

BERNERO: For guy to just lie (ph) .

SCHULTZ: . (inaudible) pubic with it, that`s something different.

BERNERO: Oh please, to fly back from Washington, you`re telling me
this guy didn`t have anymore important thing to do in D.C. He had no
important .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BERNERO: . business that he had to fly back to his home state to
intervene and inject himself into a union election. It is preposterous.
It`s outrageous what he did.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BERNERO: And he should be made to account for it. He came back and
it is the big lie. He came back. He told a big lie to influence the
election and that`s exactly the effect it had. It`s ridiculous. It`s
outrageous. Really disgusting what he did, and he should be held
accountable for it.

SCHULTZ: And those elected officials who support labor need to be on
guard that this isn`t -- probably the last time, this is going to happen.
Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, it`s always great to have you with us Virg.
Great to have you on. Thank you.

BERNERO: Nice to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, a new chapter in New York City`s charter school
debate. The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on a new lawsuit with national
implications. And later, celebrating International Woman`s Day, the CPAC
way with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

But next, I`m taking your questions on Ask Ed Live here on the Ed Show
on MSNBC. We are right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: All right here we go, Ask Ed Live. Thanks for all the
questions. I wish we had time for more. But tonight in our Ask Ed Live
section, our first question comes from Nikki. And she wants to know, "Why
do Republicans like Darrell Issa continuously get a pass for their bad
behavior?"

Obviously, the question refers to him being a real jerk to Elijah
Cummings last week at a House hearing.

Look, Darrell Issa is empowered by an enough zealots (ph) to keep his
passion going to be dictatorial, to be a guy that simply will not back
down. Even in -- I thought it was worse. Even last week when he tried to
apologize to Elijah Cummings, he took another swipe at him, accusing him of
coming up with some kind of charade at that hearing and making it up and
what not.

So, look, Darrell Issa is a guy who has been gerrymandered and he`s
going to be around for a long time and he`s got the money to stay in there,
that`s the bad news. But they`ll always rip the scab off the Republicans.

Our next question is of from Sharon. She wants to know, "Will Bernie
Sanders run for president?"

I hope so. I think it would be great for the debate. All the issues
that we talk about here on the Ed Show a lot, parallel what Bernie Sanders
says. Let me ask you Sharon, do you want Bernie Sanders to run? Tweet me
at Ed Show. I think he`s going to run.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

MANDY DRURY, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Mandy Drury with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

Well, stocks finish lower today on worries about China. The DOW
winding down 34 points after falling more than 100 earlier on in the
session, the S and P shedding about a point, and the NASDAQ down just as
smidge as well.

And McDonald`s shares losing ground after the company reported a
steeper than expected decline in February sales.

And gas prices erupt about 10 cents over the past two weeks, that`s
according to Lundberg. The average price for a gallon of regular was $3.50
cents and that is the highest since last September.

And that is it from CNBC, first in business world wide. I`m Mandy
Drury.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Well, Conservatives are turning there efforts to destroy public
education into a federal case.

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio is caught in charter school
crossfire so to speak. Eva Moskowitz who runs the Success Academy Charter
school network is filling a federal civil rights lawsuit to overturn the
mayor`s decision to prevent a success middle school from collocating in a
public school building in central Harlem.

Mayor Bill De Blasio commented on one of the schools this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, (D) NEW YORK. PS 811, the Mickey Mantle School
is in that space, it is a school just for special education kids, kids with
very severe special education challenges.

If Success Academy went in, that school would have to be much smaller,
we could not reach as many special Ed kids. We believe we need to take
care of special education kids, this was a facility working for special
education kids, we want to reach more special education kids and there`s an
alternative we can find for Success Academy what will work for them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, New York NAACP President Hazel Dukes made a statement
blasting the Success Academy suit against de Blasio saying, "The lawsuit is
an outrageous and insulting attempt by Wall Street hedge fund managers to
hijack the language of civil rights in their shameless political attack on
Bill De Blasio."

At his hour, Hazel Dukes is attending a civil rights education rally
being held at PS 811 in Harlem.

Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response Panel Dr. Michael Eric Dyson
with us tonight and Professor of Physiology at Georgetown University and
Leonie Haimson is with us who is the Director of Class Size Matters, great
to have both of you with us.

Dr., you first tonight, Dr. Dyson, does Eva Moskowitz actually have a
civil rights case against de Blasio or is this just a smear campaign?

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I agree with Ms. Dukes,
the opprobrious use of civil rights language to try to justify an attack on
the civil rights of all children for that matter.

Look, what`s at stake here is the equal education and equal access to
education of all children. Charter schools in (inaudible) two-tiers, those
who are capable of being cherry picked from the lot and the lottery, to be
able to go to school and it reinforces the siphoning off of critical
resources from public educations of students to those in charter schools.
If we have enough for the charter schools, let`s have enough for everybody

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DYSON: Let redistribute the goods so that everybody has equal access
to a quality education and I think that`s with Major de Blasio is about
here.

SCHULTZ: I mean, Michael, how can you say that kids with special
needs don`t deserve the proper attention? I mean .

DYSON: Well, that exactly right.

SCHULTZ: . if this isn`t picking and choosing kids I don`t what is?

DYSON: Exactly right, because if her schools, Ms. Moscowitz`s school
are -- schools are successful then it would displace as you`re referring to
here some special education students.

So what are we saying now? There`s a hierarchy of needs established
by charter schools having a greater prestige and status, and those who are
in public school and of special needs really are persona non grata. This
is fundamentally uncivil and against every tenant of the civil rights
movement that we can think of.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Leonie now, Mayor De Blasio, he inherited 45
collocations decided to approve 36 of them.

LEONIE HAIMSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLASS SIZE MATTERS: Right.

SCHULTZ: Now, why are some public school parents why are they still
disappointed? I mean, he turned down nine collocations.

HAIMSON: Right, so we actually filed a suit --lawsuit against all 45
collocations back in December. The state`s highest court in New York State
said New York City kids we`re denied their constitutional right to an
adequate education because Class Size is way too large and since then Class
Sizes have only gone up and then the early grades are the largest in 15
years.

So this collocations whether charter schools or not and most of them
are not charter schools will actually deprive our children of their
constitutional right to a sound basic education.

Beyond that, they will push special ed kids out of the dedicated rooms
they need for their mandated services. They will subtract art music and
science rooms and sometimes access to libraries and gyms for our public
school population.

So we believe that it is the first priority of the mayor to address
the constitutional rights of New York City public school parents and not
allow these collocations to go forward.

SCHULTZ: OK. Is it because of the for profit?

HAIMSON: That`s not the only issue. I mean, there is a perception
out there among parents that charter schools got privileges, they do get
more per student in public funding collocated charters as the independent
Budget Office has shown, as well as the a lot more private funding, which
allows them to have smaller classes and more services and better
facilities.

But beyond that, the vast majority of these collocations are for non-
charter schools and we believe these are harmful as well and should be
withdrawn. And one more point I want to make, these decisions were made
back in the fall by a guy named Marc Sternberg, who is head of the
portfolio office for DOE. And shortly left to go to the Walton Foundation,
which is an organization specifically devoted to privatizing public
schools.

So he was making those decisions and knowing that he was .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HAIMSON: . moving over to the Walton Foundation.

SCHULTZ: So, Liane, have the charter school advocates said what they
want to do with these special need students? Does fairness enter the arena
at all with these people?

HAIMSON: No, they don`t. They want to take up more and more space in
our public schools, not only to save themselves money, because they have
millions and excess fund success academy.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HAIMSON: But also, we believe in some cases to undermine the
conditions of the public schools to allow them to argue that the entire
system needs to be privatized.

We`ve seen collocation after collocation in New York City, push kids
out of their classrooms, increase class sizes, make kids to have to have
lunch as early as 9:45 in the morning. This is an extremely overcrowded
system and we simply don`t .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HAIMSON: . have room to replicate all these new schools and give them
free space inside our projects (ph).

SCHULTZ: So Michael Eric Dyson, the poor kids get the poor education.

DYSON: Well, that`s exactly right.

SCHULTZ: That`s what this is and the charter school people are
apparently have the attitude. Well, not every kid is going to make it, you
know.

DYSON: Well, yeah, I mean like -- right, to be fair to them, there
are many people who are out there who are poor, who are thinking, "Look,
this would be a good chance for my student. If I can`t get a good
education in the actually existing public schools, then I`ll take my
chances with the charter school."

But that is the problem. It creates this two-tiered system where
access is granted upon faith, luck, choice, chance and it doesn`t give it -
- distribute it equally to all because there are many students who have
tremendous capacity, tremendous determination, tremendous talent and
tremendous skill who will never be chosen to succeed because they won`t be
permitted access .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DYSON: . in these charter schools.

So let`s focus out attention on making sure that all of the public
schools are up to snuff and up to standard as opposed to cherry picking
those few students who are able to succeed through a lottery. I think
that`s the fundamental injustice here.

SCHULTZ: We all know that this is the Conservative game plan to take
down the teacher`s union and we all know that this is the conservative
answer to make sure that resources go to families that want to make sure
their kids get educated and I think this is picking and choosing kids, is
what it is. And it`s only growing all the way across the country. Liane,
what do you want to throw out?

HAIMSON: I just wanted to throw in that not only does her schools
enroll fewer poor kids, English language learners and special education
students, but the attrition rates up to seventh grade, more than half the
kids leave before they get to seventh grade .

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HAIMSON: . because they`re essentially pushed out of the system.

SCHULTZ: You know, the great thing about this country and I say this
when I speak, the great thing about public education when the door is open,
everybody is welcome.

DYSON: Yeah, no doubt.

SCHULTZ: You know, and that, we`re getting away from that in America
and I think that is really, really dangerous. Michael Eric Dyson and also
Leonie Haimson thank you so much for being here tonight. I appreciate it.
Keep up the fight.

HAIMSON: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, Michele Bachmann says Conservatives are the real
intellectuals in politics.

In the meantime, this happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: I do not like this Uncle Sam, I
do not like his healthcare scam. I do not like this spying man. I do not
like -- oh, yes, we can.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, 2016 long shot, Dick Cheney.
That`s right.

The former vice-president had some new spring in his step over the
weekend. In fact this weekend, he decided to do what he does best, stick
it to President Obama over foreign policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are
military options that don`t involve putting troops on the ground in Crimea.
We could go back and reinstate the ballistic missile defense program that
was taken out, originally it going to go on Poland, Czech Republic. Obama
took it out to appease Putin.

We have created an image around the world not just for the Russians of
weakness and indecisiveness. The Syrian situations are classic. We got
already to do something. A lot of the allies sign on at the last minute,
Obama backed off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: We just need missiles everywhere, don`t we? Leave it to the
former vice-president to push America into another war of choice.

He`s got an inching to get his finger back near the red button once
again, don`t you?

If Dick Cheney thinks America will elect the architect of preemptive
war to the highest office again he can keep on pretending.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

This Saturday, Republicans at CPAC spent International Women`s day
with some of the party`s marquee names.

Failed presidential candidate and soon to be Former Congresswoman
Michele Bachmann kicked off today`s program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTTA: You see our movement at its
core is an intellectual movement. We are based on the greatest ideas that
have ever been conceived in the mind of man. And I would put those
magnificent ideas up against any other idea for freedom in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Absolutely. Like taking healthcare away from millions of
Americans. That`s a hell of an idea. Taxing the middle class,
deregulation, these are just great Conservative ideas. Intellectual? I
don`t think so.

Half-term Governor and failed vice president candidate Sarah Palin
went on to prove Bachmann`s point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his healthcare
scam. I do not like these dirty crooks or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their crony deals. I do
not like this spying man, I do not like, "Oh, yes we can."

I do not like this spending spree. We`re smart, we know there`s
nothing free. I do not like reporter smug replies when I complain about
their lies. I do not like this kind of hope, and we won`t take it. Nope.
Nope. Nope.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: My friends, it needs no commentary.

Joining me now is Political Strategist Angela Rye. Angela, good to
have you with us tonight.

ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: It`s good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: It seems -- you bet. It seems that green eggs and ham has
become the go-to-book for the Tea Party. Are exopolitical theater about
the best they can do at this point?

RYE: Well, Ed, you know, it`s kind of hard to make it through that
with a straight face. But I`m telling you what I think that we kind of
need to meet them where they are, Ed.

So I wrote a green eggs and ham rendition just for you and for Sarah
in case she`s watching because I know she has to love the Ed Show.

So if we do not like Palin politics sir and ma`am nor the CPAC version
of uncle Sam. But we do love our Obamacare plans and Ed you bet you yes we
can.

SCHULTZ: You know what?

RYE: So, yeah, and maybe all they have.

SCHULTZ: You got to fight fire with fire. So you got to meet them
with their own level I guess.

Here`s what, you know, the war on women. There clearly has been
legislation that has been put up on the state level that of course it is
going after women`s rights. None of these was talked about at CPAC what is
that signal to conservative women when they see performances like that and
conventions like that. It really is all about just being a token and also
entertainment.

RYE: Well, I think we talk about this often, right? They are talking
to their audience. They know their audience and the women that are part of
CPAC and the GOP went large. Ignore these issues. These are issues that
they divorce themselves from because they`re facing right Sarah Palin that
they`re cheap dates instead of acknowledging the fact that women do have
the right to choose, choose jobs, choose their wages to ensure they`re
fair, the long standing battle of women suffrage and all of these other
things that have ensured women`s advancement overtime.

The fact that the president signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law as
his first act as the president is a major deal that they ignore largely
because they`re not really ready to talk truth and what really needs to be
a woman in America in his day and age, Ed. So they`re meeting their
audience where they are, the rest of the women and the GOP aren`t really
ready to talk about these things.

SCHULTZ: Well, here is the numbers, 163 speakers according to the
L.A. times and panelist at CPAC. A 78% were men, 21% were women that`s a
57 point gender gap. I mean, isn`t that a statement?

RYE: It`s also a statement Ed. That most of these rooms were vacant
and during Michele Bachmann`s speech, there are a couple of "yeah" and
literally a couple.

So I think there`s also a larger problem of who they`re really
speaking to. They have a demographics problem whether they`re talking
about gender, race, young people, folks with disabilities and the rest of
the things in this country that make us diverse.

There`s nothing the Bit Ten about CPAC or the GOP party really are.

SCHULTZ: How outrageous was it Michele Bachmann`s comment about
intellectual? I mean, that just -- I`m stunned by that. But .

RYE: Well, it is a problem that she said that they were, you know,
they`re one of the party of intellectual ideas. It was also shameful that
she talked about the fact that President Obama was elected because there
was white guilt in this country.

So she`s all over the place as was Sarah Palin beyond just the green
eggs and ham reading but again they were talking to people who really
believe these things and we see these all time on Twitter.

The folks they`re supporting these ideals are not exactly sane.

SCHULTZ: Well, I but they`re, you know, not even remised about
addressing women`s issues. In other words, they think that they can just
make a political movement as if it`s not going to get noticed and the
demographics are only going to be worst for them in the future. How they
can not see that?

RYE: Well, Ed, again, I think that part of this is the fact that
we`re talking facts right now. You write off the numbers, you`ve talked
about the folks who are actually in the audience. They don`t deal with
facts and reality. These are people that out (ph) the talking points and
propaganda whether it`s Benghazi. I know that we heard that both from
Michele Bachmann and from Sarah Palin. The same Sarah Palin in the speech
who said well these folks -- the GOP has to get over and trying to repel
Obamacare as a strategy.

But then she had a green eggs and ham story about Obama care.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

RYE: So it`s not -- again, it`s not about, you know, what really has
any type of truth attach to it. It`s about what resounds well with this
group of people .

SCHULTZ: So .

RYE: And unfortunately, it`s not based on any type of .

SCHULTZ: So the Conservatives have any answer for Hillary Clinton?
We`re jumping ahead a little bit here, but do they have any answer for who
obviously would be a very powerful candidate if she were to announce?

RYE: Sure, it definitely did not speak at this CPAC conference this
week. It wasn`t from Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. They`ve got a long
road if they`re going to be any type of challenge to Hillary Clinton.

SCHULTZ: All right, Angela Rye, always to good to have you on the Ed
Show thank you so much.

RYE: Thanks, Ed. Always good to be here.

SCHULTZ: Story on steel tomorrow. I spent the weekend with some
great, tough middle class Americans who simply will not give up. We go
inside the steel mill at Loraine, Ohio.

That`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good
evening, Rev.

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

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.>