Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Friday, February 6, 2015

Read the transcript to the Friday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: February 6, 2015
Guest: John Garamendi, Lori Wallach, Scott Paul, Zerlina Maxwell, Raul

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Let`s get to work.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ISIS is saying that an American female hostage has been

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tonight, President Obama is asking Congress to get in

vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable
acts of barbarism.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: Go out there and make the case to
the American people for why we have to fight this fight.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The unemployment rate is 5.7 percent.

SCHULTZ: America is back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean this has been unbelievable, the trajectory

SCHULTZ: The only thing standing in the way is another bad trade deal.

CHRIS PAUL, CLIPPPERS, NBA PLAYER: We try to get the ball out fast every
time down the court and when we did that she said, "Uh-uh", and I said,
"Why uh-uh?"

SCHULTZ: And an NBA superstar is in hot water because of what he said
about a female official.

PAUL: When she gave me tech, that`s ridiculous.


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

We start this evening with international news and breaking news.

ISIS claims a 26-year-old American hostage was killed as a result of an
airstrike today. NBC News has not verified the report.

The terrorist group claims the hostage is a humanitarian worker named Kayla
Mueller. She was taken hostage by ISIS in 2013 while leaving a Doctors
Without Borders Hospital.

Through Twitter, ISIS claim Mueller died in a building hit during a
Jordanian airstike. Military Intelligence of the State Department have not
confirmed the message.


MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: I cannot confirm those reports
in any way.


HARF: Obviously people are looking into them but I cannot confirm them.


SCHULTZ: Jordan has outright disputed the report. A Jordanian official
tells NBC News, "ISIS is being illogical and they are lying."

Jordan has taken a lead on airstrike since ISIS killed a pilot in their air
force on Tuesday by burning him alive.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice says this will not change U.S. Policy
on hostages.


SUSAN RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: It is our strong view in our
experience that when you make concessions and pay ransom, you`re only
generating greater incentive for additional acts of hostage taking.


SCHULTZ: President Obama will formally ask Congress to authorize the use
of military force against ISIS. The United States has conducted airstrikes
against ISIS since August but the law requires Congressional approval for a
prolonged operations and that is the question tonight.

What`s the definition of prolonged operations? When does the President
have to get approval and where will the Republicans be in all of this?
Will they say boots on the ground or no help?

Joining me tonight is Congressman John Garamendi. He is a member of the
House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

First of all, I`d like to get your reaction to the unconfirmed report that
an American hostage has been killed in a Jordanian airstrike. What`s your
response to that, sir?

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI. (D) CALIFORNIA: Well, I think you just heard from
others that it`s not at all confirmed. It would be tragic if we`re to

And these are obviously a very, very dangerous situation there both for --
because of this ongoing fighting war really in some very serious. And at
the same time, hostages are just simply being executed, murderously so by
these -- by ISIL.

So it`s extremely dangerous. Hopefully, not true. Hopefully, we`ll be
able to get that hostage back but it`s a very, very dangerous situation in
the area and it really cause for us to get on with this authorization to
use military force.

SCHULTZ: Well, that is really the key at the hour.

First of all, Congressman, do you think we`re at war and what is the
definition of war if we`re, you know, using military intelligence, we`re
using military hardware and we`ve had a bombing campaign against ISIS since

Isn`t this a war against ISIS? And I want you to -- please answer that but
also how big a fight is this going to be for authorization for the
President to continue these operations?

GARAMENDI: Well, we`re most certainly are at war. If you are on the
receiving end up a bomb, you know you`re at war, if you`re delivering it,
you`re also at war and we`re clearly at war here.

The use of the 2001 and the 2003 authorization to use military force are
simply outdated. So we do need a new authorization to use military force.
I`ve been saying this since the very beginning of this, since last summer,
the constitutions` very clear, only Congress can authorize war and this is
most definitely war.

The President recognizes that. He is going to put forward a new
authorization to use force. Actually, we`ve introduced one on the House
side Adam Schiff of California, the Ranking Member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee has a new authorization to use force and it has some
very important elements in it.

First of all, it has a three-year limitation. We need that. We just
cannot have perpetual authorizations that allow the administration after
administration to do whatever they think they might need to do.

Come to Congress, make your argument. Tell us what it`s going to cause.
Tell us the general outliner, how you`re going to pursue it.

My particular position, no boots on the ground. I don`t want to go back to
another Iraq situation or even Afghanistan situation.

Certainly, the use of air power, limited use of Special Forces, all of
those things will be necessary but at most importance -- is that the
surrounding countries...


GARAMENDI: ... get engaged in this. It is their war much more so than it
is ours.

SCHULTZ: Well, there`s no doubt that Jordanians are now engaged in a big,
big way. I want to get your response to that but let`s go back to exactly
what this authorization would mean?

Will there be a fight in Congress that would limit the President`s ability
to put boots on the ground?

GARAMENDI: I hope so. I`ll be part of that fight. I don`t want the
President to go put mechanized forces, infantry brigades on the ground in
that area. We`ve done that before.

Those boots on the ground of that kind are going to -- in my view, have to
come from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, other countries that are at risk from this


GARAMENDI: ... program.

Now, it will be a fight in Congress, there is no doubt. Senator John
McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has made it
clear. He wants to put boots back on the ground in that area. I disagree.

SCHULTZ: Well, do you think that the Republicans would hold-off on
authorization unless everything was left on the table at the discrimination
of the Commander-in-Chief? I mean, do you really think the Republicans are
going to help this President out in this situation when the military action
would be confined and very well-defined about what we could and could not
do and what many people are calling a war?

GARAMENDI: Well, I think you`re going to see this play itself out. I`m
not sure about the Senate but I do know in the House that there are
significant number of members of the House on the Republican side that want
to have a limited authorization to use military force, something along the
lines that I`ve already described. Whether that is...

SCHULTZ: Yeah, but...

GARAMENDI: ... a majority or a minority, we don`t know yet. A lot will
depend upon the specific language in the authorization.

SCHULTZ: Where do you think the Democratic caucus is on this, John? Do
you think that the Democrats don`t want boots on the ground at any cost?

GARAMENDI: Well again, it`s the definition of boots on the ground. I
think a few talked about infantry brigades, armored brigades, heavy
artillery, those kinds of things that would be the normal things you would
expect the U.S. Army to do, boots on the ground. I think that would be
significant opposition.

Probably, a very significant majority of the Democratic and I think a
significant minority of the Republicans. We`ve been down that path before.
We`ll see.


GARAMENDI: The Senate, I couldn`t tell you where the Senate is on this. I
do know that there are deep concerns about going deep into war once again
in Iraq and now in Syria.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, what about the Jordanian airstrikes and their
resolve to get revenge and their engagement now, is this a game changer of

GARAMENDI: I think it is. I think it`s a very important thing. They did
do airstrikes previously in Iraq and I don`t believe they were doing them
in Syria. But this clearly is an escalation on their part frankly, I
welcome that.

I think they are also taking very significant steps with the United States`
assistance in securing their boarder. They don`t want ISIL creeping into
the Jordanian area. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is doing that.

So, very significant ways, these countries are beginning to gear up for the
protection of their own interest. Whether that means they`re going send
military units on the ground into the area remains to be seen, but clearly
the airstrikes are welcome but that`s not universal.

I think the UAE is backing away for a while as our couple of other gulf
countries but they may reengage here...


GARAMENDI: ... in the near term. Clearly, Iraq government is reorganizing
itself. The United States is playing a major role in getting that army
backup on its feet.


GARAMENDI: Not yet there but making progress.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, I want to turn your attention to the uncertainty in
dealing with Ukraine.

French and German leaders met with Vladimir Putin today and it`s not really
clear how much progress if any was made on the peace talks. And the
Ukrainians are asking for military hardware. They want United States
assistance, United States arsenals at their disposal. Are your for that?
Should we be arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russians?

GARAMENDI: I think there are some things we need to do before we go into
that. That really puts us in a proxy war with Ukraine in a big way. Not
that we`re not there already, we are but in a very limited way. But this
is big time and this is a major, major upgrade of that proxy war.

So we ought to be careful. I would recommend that we do what Senator Sam
Nunn recommended in a meeting that we have with him. Retired to be sure,
but also an expert on Russia and that is that, we ought to think a
diplomatic step here first. We ought to make a clear to Putin that this is
something that will not be tolerated by Europe, by NATO and that an
escalation is in the offing if Russia continues to do what it is doing and
that is sending heavy arms and military into Eastern Ukraine. So we ought
to be very clear...


GARAMENDI: ... that this not going to be tolerated, that there is the
potential for escalation. But we ought to make that a diplomatic step
before we move forward and really do make a very serious proxy war on the
boarder of Russia, which Russia looks at...


GARAMENDI: ... in a far different way that we might imagined.

SCHULTZ: And finally Congressman, but haven`t we done that? We have told
Putin repeatedly to basically stop arming these people. The Ukrainians are
getting slaughtered, they want to fight back. They don`t have the hardware
to do it and they`re asking United States to, you know, do a deal on
arsenal so they can defend themselves. Sanctions have not gotten Putin to
back off. What diplomatic effort would be made that would turn Putin
around, you think?

GARAMENDI: Well there`s one that you just mentioned, that`s taking place
now or just finish and that is Germany and others from Europe sitting down
with Putin and making it clear that this is getting -- this is going to get
really serious. And that not just the United States but I fully expect the
European countries to participate in making those weapons available.

I do know that in -- Lithuania, in that area, we are upgrading our
presents. Those are NATO countries. We`re going to upgrade our military
presence in those countries. We`re already doing it in Poland. We can see
a significant upgrade of the American military presence on those Eastern
European countries that do board Russia. So this is a...


GARAMENDI: ... this is a very serious situation and we need to be


GARAMENDI: ... we need to be very firm and we need to take every
opportunity to make it clear as Germany and -- her ally, our allies are
doing in that conversation with Putin. There needs...

SCHULTZ: All right.

GARAMENDI: ... to be me more that. And we need to be very, very clear
that we are headed towards arming and providing certainly defensive and
maybe offensive weapons to Ukraine.

SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman John Garamendi on the House Armed Services
Committee, good to have you with us tonight...

GARAMENDI: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: ... on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time. Thank you, you bet.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, "Do you think we the United States should arm Ukraine forces?"
Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, leave a comment at our blog at You could also follow us on Twitter @WeGotEd. We`ll bring
you the results of this poll later on in the program.

Coming up, a rolling recovery, the jobs report has promising numbers. Is
it historic? But the TPP could put the brakes on economic growth. We`ll
have the details.

Plus, tough talk on the hardwood, as people calling foul on NBA star Chris
Paul, Rapid Respond Panel weighs in on that.

Stay with us, you`re walking the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us folks, thanks for watching tonight.
I actually think that I should probably change my clothes right now and put
on a cheer leading outfit.

This is pretty promotional, I admit. But, you know what? I put things in
prospective as to where we were, and where we are and where I think we`re
going. There is great news today on the American economy.

But first, I want to put things in prospective by rolling back, rolling
back to this very day February 6th, 2009, six years ago. I want you to
know this was the story employers cut 598,000 jobs from U.S. payrolls in
January of 2009. That job report came out this day 2009, February 6th.
The unemployment rate was at 7.6 percent.

It was the worst jobs report in 34 years. Now think about that.

You an NFL fan? If I told you there is no way your team is going to win
the Super Bowl on the next 34 years what would you think? Well, that`s not

It was the worst job report in 34 years, that where this country was.
There was no money out there into the entrepreneurial world, or any --
financiers out there that we`re going to save the American automobile
industry. American jobs were hemorrhaging at a record phase.

We lost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 alone. When President Obama walked into
the Oval Office in January 2009, he inherited an economic disaster. Fast-
forward to today, and it`s a completely different story.

Earlier today, the Labor Department says, we added 257,000 jobs in the
month of January. The unemployment rate rose slightly to 5.7 percent
because more people are looking for jobs.

Job creation was stronger in previous months than originally reported. For
instance the government is raising estimates of new jobs in November and
December of last year by a combined of 147,000 jobs. The November number
is up to 423,000 jobs. It`s the strongest month of the private sector
growth since 1997.

Now, over a million jobs have been created over the past three months

Today`s report, I think is fabulous. It marks 59 straight months of
private sector job growth. Over 11 million jobs have been created since
early 2010.

And here`s the really good news. Worker`s wages are on the rise. Average
hourly earning rose $0.12 to $24.75 an hour. It`s up 0.5 percent from

And earlier today, President Obama addressed the good economic news in


OBAMA: We`ve come a long way these past six years since we suffered the
worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

In 2014, our economy created more than 3.1 million jobs, and that`s the
best year of job growth since the 1990s.

America is poised for another good year. Indianapolis is poised for
another good year, as long as Washington works to keep this progress going.


SCHULTZ: So let`s be fair to the story. When do we start calling this
recovery historic? Because there`s no other time in American history that
we have seen a recovery like this, we`re living it. Do we have a long way
to go? Yes, we do. Do we have wage disparities? No question about it.
Are trade agreements on the horizon that are damaging -- potentially
damaging? There`s no doubt about it.

But where we were and where we are, and what our potential, is rather
amazing. For Republicans, it`s just not good enough.

Now listen on this sound bite. You got 59 months of private sector job
growth, you got numbers going through the roof, it was the worst January
six years ago in 34 years. This is what Boehner said just last month
January 15.


BOEHNER: The American people are still asking a question, where are the
jobs? Jobs and economy are still the number one issue in the country. And
I just don`t understand why every proposal that comes out of administration
is just going to kill thousands and thousands of more American jobs.


SCHULTZ: I mean he -- he`s either in denial or stupid or both.

The numbers are the numbers. They are in denial. Americans who don`t
think this is recovery is -- or they are getting hoodwinked. I mean the
bottom line is, this is a serious stuff. And we can do so much more, if
the Republicans would help out.

There`s no doubt the economy is on the upswing. Unfortunately, progress
could be at risk because of a bad trade deal that we talked about quite a
bit on this program, the TPP.

Here are some more numbers. Our trade deficit rose to its biggest levels
since 2012. The Commerce Department said Thursday the trade deficit jumps
17 percent to $46.6 billion. It`s the biggest percentage increase since
July 2009. New information out on the Korea free trade agreement proves
trade deals don`t work.

Now, since KORUS, and that`s what its known as, was passed in 2011. We`ve
seen a major increase in our trade deficit with Korea. The 2014 trade
deficit with Korea is expected to tap $25 billion. It`s a 65 percent
increase over the trade deficit in 2011 before KORUS was passed.

Now, an estimated 60,000 jobs have been lost because of this trade deal.
Now, the TPP is far greater than any trade deal we`ve done. The TPP is
reportedly being modeled after the Korea agreement. But it`s a microcosm
of the big deal on the horizon whether it`s NAFTA, KORUS or giving China
preferred nation trading status.

Trade deals have killed the middle class in this country. There is no
reason that we should be putting our economic recovery in jeopardy and
progress at the risk of a bad trade deal. And this trade deal is mammoth
compared to what we`ve done in the past. This is some serious dice being

For more, let me bring in Lori Wallach who is a Director of Public
Citizen`s Global Trade Watch, and also with us tonight Scott Paul,
President of Alliance for American Manufacturing, great to have both of you
with us tonight.

Lori, you first. This is good news for the American economy today. Would
the TPP put this at risk and who would feel the pinch first?

heartbreaking. Here is this great news and then, in the face of that
there`s a push for a trade agreements that we know would make it easier for
big corporations to offshore jobs and throw Americans in competition with
workers in Vietnam who would push down our wages in competition with their
$0.50 an hour wages.

And it`s not that we`re speculating because as you`ve said, we now have
this empirical data from the government that shows that since the Korea
agreement which is literally the tax they put down for the TPP, it`s the
U.S. template. Since that agreement just three years -- actually if you
look at the data for goods, not just in manufacture goods but all goods,
the increase from before the agreement until after in the trade deficit is
81 percent. It`s actually equates to 74,000 more lost jobs.

And that is...


WALLACH: ... a predictor but works because Korea`s wages are closer to
ours. What would happen for working families is as this happened in the
past, good jobs would be sent offshore and wages will go down. And in the
face of these improvements that`s especially gruesome.

SCHULTZ: Scott, where does the currency manipulation become involved here?
Where is the currency issue come into play in the TPP?

ultimately it`s about jobs. We had about a $70 billion trade deficit with

Let me just highlight an example of that. Japan shipped 1.5 million cars
to the United States. We shipped exactly 20,000 cars to Japan from our big

It`s a huge imbalance and it`s aided by currency manipulation which is the
Japanese government intervening to lower the value of its currency. It
makes its good cheaper and it`s devalued its currency by almost 50 percent
over the last 2.5 years.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has looked the other way. They
have said we want to do this...


PAUL: ... diplomatically and Japan pursued this policy. And I`m afraid
that if we do a free trade deal that includes Japan and we don`t address
currency, it`s going to wreck something very good that the Obama
administration did which was save the auto industry which has made an
outsize contribution to our economic recovery.

We can do a trade deal in Asia but it has to be the right deal. It has to
deal with currency and it has to make sure that we have market access in


PAUL: ... otherwise, as Lori said, this will be another Korea agreement or
a NAFTA and it will be entirely unsatisfying and it will rollback a lot of
the progress that we`ve been able to make.

SCHULTZ: Lori, there are reports that a deal has been struck, negotiated
so to speak, to address the copyright issues and the patent issues that are
out there. What about that?

WALLACH: Well, here is the thing folks should keep in mind because before
you get -- what Scott said, what you said is exactly right.

If this TPP goes into effect, the way it`s been negotiated without the
currency cheating rules, with the investment rules that promote offshoring,
this would be very damaging.

But, this is where every American can make the difference. This can only
happen if Congress is willing to give away their constitutional trade
authority and basically give a blank check for the President to sign and
enter into agreement before Congress approves it. That`s called fast-track

Nixon cooked it up...


WALLACH: ... it`s been rarely used but it`s been use for the worst of the
agreements like NAFTA, the Korea agreement. That is not delegated.

So this gets back to this whole business if they cut a deal of

So the U.S. negotiators, sadly for those copyright issues, they have such
big implications for internet freedom. And for the patent issues that have
to do with how expensive our medicines will be. Those issues are issues
the other countries are looking at and they`re thinking, are the U.S.
negotiators really telling us something that can get through Congress?
Well, Congress which has been...


WALLACH ... so clear that there have to be currency rules approved this.

And so, there isn`t yet a final deal. And they`re waiting for Congress to
giveaway their authority before they make a deal. So everyone can make a
difference if...

SCHULTZ: All right.

WALLACH : ... there is no giveaway of the authority.

SCHULTZ: Well, this is what the Democrats are talking about at the
Progressive Caucus that`s taking place in Philadelphia. A lot of them are
against it. We`ll see if they can get their constituents to put pressure
on Congress to stop this.

There is no debate in the House of Congress right now. This is been done
in secrecy, elected officials have not read it. And it really is amazing.

And there is a school of thought amongst some Democrats, well other
presidents have had fast-track, we ought to give it to this President.
That`s just doesn`t cut it with me.

Scott Paul, Lori Wallach, great to have both of you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time on this very important story.

Coming up, controversy on the courts, an NBA star is getting called out for
his criticism on the female ref. Rapid Response Panel`s response ahead.

And later, House Democrats talks strategy in Philadelphia. Congressman
Raul Grijalva updates us on the progressive plans.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. I appreciate all your questions in
our Ask Ed Live segment.

Our first question comes from good old Fred.

Fred wants to know, "Do you think Republicans are jealous of President
Obama and his success?"

SCHULTZ: Yes and beyond, big time. They wish they had their mitts on this
economy, believe me. They don`t have their mitts on the numbers.

Our next question is from Lenora. She wants to know, "Do you like ice

You know what Lenora? I don`t. My boys are crazy about it. I got
brother-in-laws who are absolutely nuts about it but it just don`t do it
for me maybe because I didn`t grew up with it. No, I`m not a big ice

I mean, I go out there and I have a cocktail with them but I`m not going to
be out there for four or five hours sitting in there, you know, that`s not

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

market wrap.

The Stocks close up for the week but lower on the day. The Dow falls 60
points, the S&P sheds 7 and the NASDAQ down 20.

Well the big story, the January employment report showed the economy added
257,000 jobs last month. It`s more than expected. The unemployment rate
ticks higher though to 5.7 percent.

And shares of Intuit the maker of TurboTax finish down more than 4 percent
after the company halted the filing of all state tax returns on worries of
rent (ph) fraud.

That`s it from CNBC. We`re first in business worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.

On Thursday night, the Los Angeles Clippers racked up five Ts, technical
fouls during their loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Now this isn`t unusual for the team that leads the NBA with 58 technical
fouls of the season. In fact the Clippers have got a real history of
losing their cool on the court.

Now the NBA Referees Association is calling foul on Clippers star point
guard Chris Paul for what he said off the court.


PAUL: I think they just made it look worst.


PAUL: You know what I mean. But I think we have to show better composure
but at the same time someone were ridiculous like the tech that I`ve got
right there, it was ridiculous. I don`t care what nobody say, I don`t care
what she say, she -- that`s terrible.


PAUL: There`s no way that can be a tech. We try to get the ball out fast
every time down the court.


PAUL: And when we did that, she said, "Uh-uh", and I said, "Why uh-uh?"
and she gave me a tech.


PAUL: That`s ridiculous. If that`s the case then this might not be for


SCHULTZ: This might not be for her.

Paul was called for a technical foul on the third quarter after an
interaction with referee Lauren Holtkamp.

Holtkamp is just one of two full-time female NBA referees. She is the
third in the league`s history. The NBA is the only major American sports
league to have female refs. It`s possible Chris Paul was referring to
Holtkamp`s rookie status.

Holtkamp is a former Division II player. She has worked her way up to the
NBA after six years of WNBA league experience. Holtkamp has refereed
college games and worked to WNBA and the FIBA ranks. She is not exactly
what I would call a rookie. She`s got experienced.

Union representatives to the NBA Referee Association isn`t buying that
excuse that came out to defend Holtkamp.

The group twitted, "After review, the call made by Ms. Holtkamp are fully
justified. We deplore the unprofessional comments made by Chris Paul."

They followed up with the hashtag, "She belongs."

Joining me tonight on Rapid Response Panel, James Peterson, MSNBC
Contributor and Director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University, and also
with us tonight, Political Analyst Zerlina Maxwell, great to have you with



SCHULTZ: This might not be for her. Zerlina, what do you make of that?
How offensive is that? What does that mean?

MAXWELL: Yeah. That`s pretty offensive and I, you know, no one here is
saying that Chris Paul is sexist. I don`t know him and I don`t know if he
intended that remark to be sexist. But I think that this may not be for
her portion of his comment were especially uncomfortable to listen to
because like you said there`s only been three women refereeing in the NBA
in all of history and certainly there have been terrible male referees --
my entire life including Joey Crawford, Scott Foster.

So I don`t understand why pinpointing her particularly and then saying it
might not be for her that was very gender.

And also in the context of that game, the Clippers were, like you said,
they got five technical fouls and lead the league. Matt Barnes was kicked
out prior to this and she had recently giving the entire team technicals.
And so what referees do often is try -- they take control back of the game.
And I think that`s why she called a tech so quickly on Chris Paul in that

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Dr. Peterson, why would an NBA player go down this road?
I mean, you got to know the environment. There`s going to be all kinds of
heat coming on this. I mean, are female referees treated differently in
the league?

PETERSON: You better believe they are. You better believe they have a
hard row to hoe, they`re breaking down barriers. I think you should
commend the NBA for having women referees, they`re the only sport as the
mentioned at the top, they`re the only professional sports league that does

But this is really complicated to me because to be honest with you, I don`t
think that their tech was a good call.

But the problem is that as the ref was struggling to get control of the
game. Actually Ken Mauer, the male referee, made a -- I think a really bad
call, technical call on Matt Barnes. And we have the Clipper losing by 20
plus points in the third quarter in the run up to the All Star, you know,
for the NBA seasons this is where things started to get more tense and
where every games starts to matter, right?

And so the stakes are a little bit higher, you have Kim Mauer was kind of
the league referee make really bad call against Matt Barnes. And that sort
exacerbated the situation where the refs have the sort of get control of
the game.

And unfortunately, I think -- Lauren Holtkamp who seems to be a solid ref.
I don`t think that was the best call she could have made that particular
point in time. But Chris Paul went over the line and saying she doesn`t
belong. He doesn`t have the right to say that. And the reality is...


PETERSON: ... maybe his not aware of the struggle for women to get equal
pay, equal access. It`s a struggle that someone from the Clippers
organization considering the history that they`re coming out of should be
sensitive too.


SCHULTZ: Well, you say it`s complicated. It is, because Paul is the head
of the Player`s Association.

PETERSON: Yep, yeah.

SCHULTZ: I mean, he speaks with some level of authority. I mean, Zerlina,
does that make a mistake -- does that make a difference or are we just
being too sensitive on this.

MAXWELL: No I do -- I do think it makes a difference. I think that, you
know, as someone who has a leadership position among the players. I think
that he has to set an example. And I think that, you know, the bottom-line
here is he is a professional athlete meaning that it is his job to be
professional at all time in the context of his job. And so, you can`t say
anything negative to criticize referees across the board.

PETERSON: That`s the rule.

MAXWELL: Did happen all of the time. I just think that in this particular
case. It is really sensitive because you have so few women getting access
to these positions that I think that you need to treat them with respect

SCHULTZ: Yeah, well...

MAXWELL: ... the equal position, even if you disagree with her calls.

SCHULTZ: This isn`t the last game she`s going to ref.


SCHULTZ: She got a long season ahead and a long career. I mean, this in
some respects undermined your credibility doesn`t it Doctor?

PETERSON: Well, what I hope is that the call that she made and the way
that the union has come out in support of her helps to buttress, in what
she has to do going forward here.

Again, it`s not easy to be a woman refereeing in the NBA. Zerlina is right
that Chris Paul has a different stature in the NBA not only because he is a
superstar with a huge contract, but because he represents players.

Let`s be clear here. Players do, especially players of Chris Paul stature,
they have right to speak back to refs. But it`s got to be done in a right
environment. So they have to be respectful but also has to be in
environment not where the refs are trying to get control of a game that`s
slipping out of control because the team is losing by so many point.

And so, Chris Paul is got to be sharp enough to understand the full
terrain. And he really probably should give himself a little bit of a
quite kind of time out at the end of the game just considering how heated
he was and upset and how frustrated the coach and everybody was in terms of
the result of that particular game.

SCHULTZ: This might not be for her.


MAXWELL: Yes I didn`t like it.

SCHULTZ: That`s a cheap shot.


SCHULTZ: There is no doubt about that. James Peterson, Zerlina Maxwell
always great to have you with us. Thanks so much.

MAXWELL: Thanks.

PETERSON: Thanks Ed.

SCHULTZ: Coming up in the two minute drill, Tiger and cheetah`s and
rookies. Oh my. Stay tuned.


SCHULTZ: All right. Here we go in a two-minute drill. First up, Tiger
Woods, (inaudible) golfer (ph) Tiger Woods dropped out of the Farmers
Insurance Open after only playing 11 holes. This is the third time he`s
withdrawing to the best nine tournaments. He`s blaming on that back injury


TIGER WOODS, GOLFER: It`s frustrating that it started shutting down like
that. You know, I was ready to go. I had a good warm-up session the first
time around. Then we stood out here and I got cold, and everything started
deactivating again. And it`s frustrating that I just can`t stay activated.
That`s just kind of the way it is.


SCHULTZ: There`s nothing worst than a bad back believe me. This time he
dropout just six days after Tiger Woods posted his worst score of his
professional career which unfolded last Friday.

Next, the fast and furious. NFL hopefuls at the Scouting Combine put the
pedal to the metal and display their speed while vying for an NFL contract.

This year, they`re also competing for a sport car. Adidas is giving a
Porsche 911 with a cheetah on it, to the fastest runner of the 40-yard dash
at this year 2015 Combine.

Finally, big man on campus, I mean big man. He`s 6-foot-7, 410-pounds.
He`s only a teenager, who has barely played any football in his life. He`s
got a scholarship to play at BYU.


minutes. So his evaluation was based on Coach Kaufusi seeing him play a
pick up game of basketball in Tonga two years ago. And he just saw a giant
body that light on his feet that could change direction and loved working
out on training.

SCHULTZ: The young man is from the South Pacific Island of Tonga. BYU
hopes he can play defensive tackle.

At 6-foot-7, 410-pounds, that would be the perfect spot for him.

There`s more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, when Republicans took control of Congress
they promised that they would cut through the gridlock and get things done
in Washington.

Well so far, all they`ve managed to do is attack Social Security continued
to push for the Keystone XL Pipeline using faulty facts and figures, and of
course a vote for the 67th time to repeal Obamacare, so much for progress.

Now, Democrats are working on setting their agenda for the next couple of
years. A group of 30 liberal House Democrats are meeting in Philadelphia
to develop strategies to push progressive ideas.

This comes on the heels of last week`s meeting of House Democrats where
President Obama told them to keep fighting.


OBAMA: We need to stand up and go on offensive and not be defensive about
what we believe in. That`s why we`re Democrats.


SCHULTZ: Americans are vocal about what they want of the 114th Congress to
focus on.

The Progressive Change Institute asked Americans through polling for their
big ideas, the top ideas include expanding social security, reversing
Citizens United and implementing a fairer tax system. How are they going
to get all of that done?

Joining me tonight Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who attended this
weeks retreat. Congressman, always good to have you with us.

Those are -- that polling by the Progressive Institute, are the liberal
Democrats, the Progressive Caucus paying attention to this?

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Well absolutely. I think, you know, when
Progressive Caucus and it should be noted 100 organization allied with the
caucus to -- at inside-outside game in terms of these organizations that
represent millions of people are part of this conference. It`s a dialog
about a strategy, because progressive principles and values are actually
what the American people want.

And the institute`s poll plus addition polls that have occurred in the last
six or seven months, and certainly after the election validated the point
that we have had a blueprint for economic recovery, and for jobs, and for
ending wage disparity, and income inequality.


GRIJALVA: We have a blueprint to deal with all of these major issues that
need investment in this country. And we`re meeting to talk about that, but
more importantly to say that we stand with the little guy. That we`re on
their side...

SCHULTZ: Well...

GRIJALVA: ... we`re on side -- of corporate America or Wall Street.

SCHULTZ: Stand with the little guys is what it`s all about, there`s no
doubt. Now, you were quoted as saying that the group that met last week,
the group that`s meeting this week would be edgier than the group that met
last week. What do you mean by that? I mean, is -- are these -- the
Progressive Caucus going to have to really carry this tune?

GRIJALVA: Well I think that the Progressive Caucus, its members, and we
have 30 wonderful members that are going to be -- are here and will be
here, much leadership, my co-chair, Keith Ellison and -- the point that I
made by that is that we, for five or six years, have been talking about a
different economic blueprint for this country, one that responds to real
Americans and their needs, to their insecurities.

We had a dismal election simply, because we had no economic message. They
didn`t feel we were on their side.

And so, today we talked about a unified approach and strategy to stop fast-
track and the trade agreement. We talked about a unified strategy on an
economic agenda.

Chris Van Hollen, the head of our budget process where all the Democrats in
the House of Representative was there, and talked about the ideas
progressive have bought to the table that will be incorporated in that
budget. We`re going to develop our own budget as well.

Nancy Pelosi, our leader came and spoke. Richard Trumka from AFL-CIO came
and spoke. Susan Simon (ph) spoke. And we have more speakers to come.

So my point being that this is not an isolated issue. And when I said we
are edgier, is I think a reflection of the fact.

We`ve been saying this, sometimes being dismissed. And suddenly the
American people are saying the same thing we`ve been saying for five years.
You know, our brand...


GRIJALVA: ... is good and our message is very good.

SCHULTZ: Well Congressman, realistically what can you get done with as
dogmatic as the Republicans have been in the House? I mean, they don`t
seem to be willing to work with anybody on the Democratic side, it`s
they`re way or the highway.

GRIJALVA: Well, I think the Republicans and you see them talking out of
both sides of their mouth, even McConnell and Boehner are not talking about
middle class, wage stagnation, we need to help the middle class, working
people have needs that we haven`t been addressed. We`ve been saying that
Democrats as a whole, the Progressive Caucus specifically through years.
So they`re speaking out of both of their mouth.

The real agenda for recovery, the real agenda for bringing back an economy
that helps everyone and not just 1 percent or 2 percent of the population
is the blueprint that were going to be presenting as a budget for
Progressive Caucus.

And I`m confident the Democratic Caucus will do as well. And that budget
will say, you have a choice. And we`re going to reach a point...


GRIJALVA: ... where Republican leadership area going to have to deal with
that contrast.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Raul Grijalva, great to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. Thanks for being here...

GRIJALVA: And thank you for the invitation.

SCHULTZ: ... on the Ed Show. I am...

GRIJALVA: I appreciate it.

SCHULTZ: You bet. You bet.

This weekend, I will be down in the Gulf of Mexico doing a story on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill after the fact. Where`s the restitution?
What`s happening to the environment? People have lost businesses and they
are wondering, what is their future? It`s the untold story.

We`ll have a three-part series next week here on the Ed Show, starting on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (ph), the real story of the gulf.

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

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al starts now.


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 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