Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Thursday, February 12th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: February 12, 2015
Guest: Joe Sestak, Michael O`Hanlon, Tom Colicchio, Peter DeFazio, Heidi
Harris, Lou Desmond

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, Putin blinks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a team that seems unlike.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s been an agreement to the (ph) and meant to
implement a ceasefire.

PRIME MINISTER DAVID CAMERON, UNITED KINGDOM: What matters most of all is
actually actions on the ground.

SCHULTZ: But the world is skeptical.

CAMERON: Rather than just words on a piece of paper.

SCHULTZ: And later, what`s in your food.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why does the left hate GMO?

REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN, (R) TENNESSEE: It all has been genetically
modified.

SCHULTZ: The national appetite grows for GMO labeling.

BLACKBURN: We don`t have that federal standard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they got nothing on GMO`s.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why we add that GMO?

SCHULTZ: Plus, the dark horse, everyone`s talking about for 2016.

REP. STEVE KING, (R) IOWA: Scott Walker...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Scott Walker wows them in Iowa.

FRM. GOV. HOWARD DEAN, (D) VERMONT: If he`d become president would be the
first president in many generation who did not have a college degree.

REP. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: I`m going to punt on that one as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

We start with major news out of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin has agreed to a
ceasefire to end violence in Eastern Ukraine. So far the conflict has
claimed over 5,000 lives. The truce was announced by world leaders earlier
today after marathon negotiations.

Leaders from Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany were all involved in the
deal. Details of the agreement were posted on Kremlin website.

They include a full pardon for rebel fighters, a full prisoner exchange and
the removal of all foreign forces and mercenaries from Ukraine.

Local elections will be held in rebel held areas to give more power to
local leaders. The ceasefire begins Saturday at midnight.

Earlier today, Prime Minister David Cameron said he was optimistic about
the deal, but he had some stern words for Vladimir Putin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMERON: If this is a genuine ceasefire then of course that would be
welcomed. But what matters most of all is actually actions on the ground
rather just word on a piece of paper. And I think we should be very clear
that Vladimir Putin needs to know that unless his behavior changes the
sanctions we have in place won`t be altered.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHUTLZ: Things have already escalated since the deal was reached. The
White House said today, it was concern about the escalation of fighting
today but world leaders still remain hopeful. There`s not doubt sanctions
played a role in this agreement.

Standard & Poor`s recently drop Russia`s credit rating to junk status. In
the past seven months, the Ruble has dropped a shocking 51 percent.
Dropping oil prices have crushed the Russian economy. Russia draws 45
percent of their tax revenue from oil taxes. All this has caused inflation
and force the Russians to drive up interest rates.

Today`s announcement comes as the International Monitory Fund said it would
give $40 billion to bailout the Ukrainian government. Putin`s war of
choice is devastated the Russian economy. In the face of growing economic
problems he was forced into the ceasefire at least that`s how it appears.

President Obama`s strategy of sanctions certainly had an impact. As of
now, the conflict is not 100 percent over but we are seeing significant
progress.

Meanwhile, the President`s request for use of military force is meeting
resistance on Capitol Hill. But Republicans and Democrats are shaky on the
request. Speaker Boehner thinks it doesn`t go far enough.

Here`s what the House Speaker had to say today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I do have concerns about the
President`s submission. I want to give our military commanders the
flexibility and the authority that they need to defeat our enemies. And
the White House readily admits that the authorization that they`re seeking
is more restrictive than what they already have in place. If we`re going
to defeat our enemy and win this fight, we need a strong robust strategy
and a strong robust authorization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Robust means, what? More war, troops on the ground? That`s
Republican talk, no doubt that`s where they`re.

Some Republicans want the option to use ground forces against ISIS. We
should note Boehner hasn`t outright rejected the President`s request. On
the flip side Democrats think the President`s request is too broad, on the
use of ground troops.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he would not support the
force authorization. Sanders says there are need to be clear limitations
on the role of U.S. ground troops.

Progressive are upset the President`s request does not repeal the 2001
force authorization. Moveon.org released a statement today saying,
"President Obama`s proposed authorization for use of military force is a
recipe for endless and costly-war. It does not repeal the sleeping 2001
AUMF, which 14 years later is still being used to justify ongoing military
action."

President Obama`s request for military force is being labeled by many
liberal as political theater, unnecessary.

Well, get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think.

Tonight`s question, "Did President Obama`s sanctions strategy worked
against Russia?" Text A for Yes, text B for No to 67622, you can leave a
comment at our blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later
on in the show.

For more let me bring in Admiral Joe Sestak, Former Congressman from
Pennsylvania. Admiral, always a pleasure to have you with us.

FMR. REP.JOE SESTAK, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Your take, was Putin force into doing this, did he have a lot of
options left?

SESTAK: Well, I think Putin feels he probably accomplished what he wanted
to and that is, he doesn`t want a strong neighbor. He wants a very weak
vassal state. And frankly, Ed, that`s what he has. He`s dismembered parts
or Ukraine. But I think the sanction had a part but I also think if hadn`t
been for the plummeting of the gas, a lean prices. You may not see Putin
saying I`ve done enough. I think for right now, we`ve got to look at this
and I would I actually say even apply more sanction against this thug.

SCHULTZ: So this is economically driven as far as Putin is concern.

SESTAK: Without a question. I think the concern I also have is some of
our sanctions have loopholes in them. Look, if a bank is 50 percent owned
by some of the cronies of Putin, all they have to do is sold a few of the
shares, get it below 50 percent and they have -- got a loophole. They`re
no longer in the sanctions.

So I think that this man, Putin, has invaded a sovereign country. He
should not be left off the hook at all by either European Union or by us.

SCHULTZ: So, isn`t it interesting how the Republicans want ground troops
against ISIS. But they aren`t willing to really push to the firewall to
make sure that we arm the Ukraines. What do make of that?

SESTAK: Well, I -- my concern about Congress is that they may not
understand modern warfare. This isn`t like the old days, Vietnam era,
where it just conventional force against conventional force. I mean, ISIS
is asymmetric threat and I wonder how many in Congress really understand
that it`s not talking tough, its understanding modern warfare. I think to
put group troops like the President said, we`re not going to do the types
of companies, battalions, brigades into Syria or Iraq is foolish.

We can do this with the right coalition and doing it from the air and
perhaps a special force that take a laser pointed a specific target and
have that laser be appropriately guided there. We don`t want to give that
laser to a Sunni who might turn it on a Shia even though they`re fighting
on the same side in Iraq. This is the smart way to do it.

SCHULTZ: OK. So you believe that the President does have a strategy, that
this is a game plan that he has been following all a long in dealing both
what`s going on and with the Russians, the separatist...

SESTAK: Ed.

SCHULTZ: ... and also what`s dealing with ISIS.

SESTAK: Ed, I think that you and I have had discussion in the last three
years that he has been slow to respond to ISIS, and yet when he has it`s
been the right strategy.

A year ago they were 60 miles from Baghdad, I believe however, that now
we`ve got the right strategy, it`s a little harder to do because if we`ve
given arms to those more moderate rebels three years ago, we might not be
in a tough situation we are. But right now, to have the Arabs who have
finally seen one of their own and -- Jordanian pilot burned alive in a
cage, all of a sudden he say, wait a moment, they`re against us.

And so I think mobilizing them with us from the air with some select
Special Forces to do the targeting and things like that is the right
strategy, it would be foolish to putting companies, brigades, and think
that we`re going to do another occupation of either Iraq or Syria.

SCHULTZ: And, Joe, back to the Russian situation. Do you think the
ceasefire will last? What would Putin`s motivation be to break the
ceasefire?

SESTAK: I think he`s motivation would be if Ukraine begins to ever look
like it`s going to become more western leading to be much more sovereign,
and to be much more willing to be integrated into the west. And yet, that
exactly what we want.

Ed, this is an economic warfare situation you`re right. It`s the economy
that kind of says to Putin, wait a moment here.

I`ve said before that they`re nothing but a gas station. And now their oil
fields are running out in Western Siberia, they need our technology develop
new oil field in the East. We`ve got to tighten down on this and I believe
we have to be able to demonstrate by putting a presence in like the
Baltic`s that we standby Article 5 of NATO that we will stand strong
against such a man who will violate someone else -- other country`s
sovereignty.

SCHULTZ: All right. Former Congressman Joe Sestak, former Admiral, great
to have you with us tonight, sir.

SESTAK: Good to be with you, Ed. Thank you.

SCHULTZ: I appreciate it.

Let`s turn out to Michael O`Hanlon who`s a senior fellow and Director of
Research of Brookings Institute.

Michael, your thoughts. Did they -- how much of a play do you these
sanction had in all of this?

MICHAEL O`HANLON, BROOKINGS INTITUTION: I think they definitely have had
an effect and it`s good to hear my friend Admiral Sestak and his analysis.
I think that he`s also right though to caution that the uncertainty about
what happens next is huge. And everything from a possible recovery of oil
prices to greater use by Russians of loopholes and the existing sanctions
could in fact lead to less pressure.

And on top of that, I think Putin is sort of in his element when he`s in
this kind of a sparring match with us. I think he has figured out that he
cares more about Eastern Ukraine than we do. I think that`s actually an
inevitable. We shouldn`t pretend otherwise. But he`s so irrational about
this that he`s willing to see if there amount of economic damage to his
country, as long as he can claims some kind of a broader strategic win.

So I`m afraid we`re going to have to contain with them for a while, and I
actually think we need to get beyond the immediate debate about arms and
think about a broader European security deal that could try to reduce the
odds that Putin will stoke this kind of thing up again.

SCHULTZ: Prime Minister Cameron, he didn`t sound too confident that this
was going to hold, what was your take on his reaction?

O`HANLON: Like Admiral Sestak, he is Putin. And I think, you know, we`ve
got to give it a try. I mean, it was negotiated by good allies of ours and
involved Ukraine itself and their President.

You know, it doesn`t make any sense to assume it will work and we need a
lot of verification and monitoring but the alternatives are poor.

The only thing I would say is, you have to calibrate the pace at which you
let sanctions in accordance with the verifiable reduction in Russian
activity in that region.

And as long as you careful on that front, I think you can hope that this
deal works and get it a shot.

SCHULTZ: What about the authorization to use military force in the way
this is politically playing out on Capitol Hill, how big of a flight is
this going to be?

First of all, do you think it`s going to pass or the Republican is going to
hold the line on this and expect more latitude when it comes to ground
troops?

O`HANLON: Well, I`m not very happy about that today because I don`t see it
helping us. You know, I don`t usually agree with moveon.org and even in
this issue I don`t agree with them on the substance. But I think they have
a point that as long as the 2001 authorization remains intact, much of this
debate doesn`t really matter. It`s almost like we`re looking for an
opportunity to revive old arguments and there`s not going to be much
productive benefit regardless of how the legislation turns out.

So I`d rather see the debates about specific policies towards the three
countries that I`m most concerned about and there are more than three
obviously but Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, there`s plenty to debate on each
on. I`d rather see Congress turns its attention to those specifics rather
than what I see as a theoretical debate. It`s not going to really matter.

SCHULTZ: You know, Michael, what we don`t hear is military leaders,
American military leaders telling us that they believe they can defeat ISIS
with what we`re doing right now?

Now, they`re not critical of the President but there doesn`t seem to be a
real confident word coming from our military that we are doing the right
thing.

And I find that rather interesting, is the President doing this because the
American people don`t have an appetite for it or does the President really
believe the strategy that we have per se against ISIS is eventually going
to work.

O`HANLON: Well, I think it will work or at least it has a good chance in
Iraq. I think it has a very poor chance in Syria. My read of the
President, I don`t know him personally, I haven`t spoken to him about this
issue. But my reading of him is that, he knows the Syria policy is
flopping right now but at least it`s not getting Americans killed. At
least it`s not becoming the third big war in the Middle East. And until he
is confident that he sees a very better approach that has limits on how far
it might escalate he prefers to see a bad policy rather than have a
potentially disastrous alternative.

Now, I don`t totally agree with the way he is choosing his approaches here
but I can see his point, that there`s a certain strategic wisdom and
restraint even though you may not be successful.

And now over time, I think we got to do better in Syria. It`s just too
important to the country. ISIS is too dangerous to live it there but the
President hasn`t yet heard a policy approach that he think is very
promising so he sort of, you know, keeping it (inaudible).

SCHULTZ: Sure. All right, Michael O`Hanlon, always a pleasure. Good to
have you with us tonight. Thank you so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there are the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow and like us on Facebook. We
always want to know what you`re thinking. I appreciate your comments.

Coming up, food for thought. The fight to let the American people know
just how much genetically modified food we are consuming. Big talk from
Republicans on their so-called, "New American Congress", we`ll see exactly
how this is all working out for them, a spirited discussion coming up with
our friends on the right. Stay with us, we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

A food fight is shaping up in Washington D.C.

Earlier today, a group of Democrats introduced legislation requiring the
Food and Drug Administration to clearly label genetically modified foods.

The food industry has tried to squash labeling efforts for years. They
don`t want it. It`s estimated at least 80 percent of the food of the
United State`s grocery store shelves contains bioengineered ingredients.
Now the movement of Americans who want to know what`s exactly in their food
certainly is gaining in popularity.

In fact, on Associated Press poll finds 66 percent of respondents were in
favor of requiring food manufacturers to put labels on products with
genetically modified ingredients. This of course would include food grown
from seeds engineered in laboratories.

Three states, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, currently have mandatory
G.E. labeling laws. More than 70 bills have been introduced across the
country in more than 30 states trying to require labeling.

The Food Right to Know Act is aiming to make a federal requirement that
companies would have to let consumers know exactly what`s in the box
they`re purchasing.

For more let me bring in Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon, also with us
tonight, Chef Tom Colicchio, five times James Beard Award winner, Food
Policy Action Board Member and host and judge of the new Bravo series,
"Best New Restaurant."

Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO, (D) OREGON: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, give me the upside of this. Why is it that the
Democrats are -- and I say Democrats because I think I also saw one
Republican, I believe it was from Arkansas in the House who was in favor of
this, what is the upside there and why is it necessary?

DEFAZIO: Well, responding to our constituents, I`ve seen much higher
consistently higher polling numbers on the fact that people want to know
what`s in their foods and making in form of decision. That`s all we`re
asking, let me make a decision and put that on the label. 64 countries
around the world require this including the entire European Union.

Earlier today, I had a Hershey bar wrapper with me. I didn`t bring it
tonight which says made in the USA Hershey and then it says contains
genetically modified organisms from sugar bits and corn. But we`re hearing
that it`s impossible to do that or it will be incredibly expensive to do
that.

No, there is no additional expense. In fact, a reasonably estimate is, it
would cost an average family for this change in labeling two-thirds of a
cent a day for year. You know, that`s, you know, I mean, the industry puts
out the scary numbers in my state. We have the most expensive initiative
in the history of the state where we just wanted to require the disclosure
in labeling.

The industry spent $21 million against it, far more than any other
initiative in the history of the state. All money from outside the state,
they won by 800 votes by lying to people and telling them that there are --
that that`s (ph) going to cost them $600 to $800 a year. That`s an out in
outline.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Tom Colicchio, it works in other countries. Why wouldn`t
it work here? I mean, why are we behind the curve here?

TOM COLICCHIO, FOOD POLICY ACTION BOARD MEMBER: Well, we`re behind the
curve because for a long time Congress has supported companies as opposed
to people. People who are actually demanding label and want labeling, just
want clear transparency. And so they`re protecting these companies.

They`re actually using the science. Now I`m not anti-science Ed, but
they`re using the science as a business model to sell inputs to farmers.

And, you know, these companies did a great job 15 years ago selling this
technology to farmers but they never had to sell it to the American public.
And so, I suggest that perhaps they, you know, they`re out there spending a
hundreds and million dollars on lobbying and in fact, they should probably
just a hire a few publicist and sell the American public on the benefits of
genetically modified materials. They should...

SCHULTZ: Well, that the Republicans are saying that, you know, and of
course the people in the ag community are saying that this is the future.

Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn said this about genetically
engineered food. This was back in December when the conversation was going
on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKBURN: It all has been genetically modified. If you want to go back
and eat original wheat or barley, it`s not going to give you very much of a
yield. And it`s not going to be the desirable product that you`re looking
for today. So we have to realize that as a part of this debate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, what did we do before GMO? Is the food lousy in America or
what? Your response to that, Congressman.

DEFAZIO: You know, look, Ed, she is saying that it`s all been genetically
modified, it hasn`t. And people would like to be informed and make a
decision.

Secondly, you know, they say all this happens in nature. No. There`s a
new corn that was just approved by the FDA that they`re going to dump the
essential ingredients of Agent Orange unto that corn because they have
given that corn resistance to 2,4-D.

And, you know, you`re going to tell they aren`t can be residuals and we
know there are certainly going to be secondary harm to the environment. In
fact, monarch butterflies are becoming an extinct because of this sort of
dumping of -- huge increase in pesticides use because of this modified
organism.

SCHULTZ: Tom, is food safety an issue here?

COLICCHIO: Well, not necessarily food safety because there is really no
science behind the fact that GMO products are harmful to ingest. I have
more of an issue with the environmental effects of it.

Again, most of these crops are meant -- are engineered to withstand
glyphosate around up and now 2,4-D. And so, what we`re finding now is
glyphosate is now in our water supply. We`re seeing it show up in a breast
milk of nursing mothers. And so I think from the environmental standpoint,
there is a real risk involved here.

SCHULTZ: OK. Big business is going to be on the Capitol Hill. I`d
imagine Congressman DeFazio cash-whipping a lot of people to stop this
thing from going through. Are you going to get any Republican supported at
all and where do you think it would play in the Senate?

DEFAZIO: Well, Ed, you know, I passed a National Organic Standards more
than 20 years ago here in Congress from zero because of a massive
nationwide citizen movement and that`s what we need here.

Moms, dads, people are attentive to their diets, chefs like Tom, they want
to know. Some major food, you know, retailers, the whole food is moving in
that direction. They want people to know.

I believe ultimately market forces or the American public can demand these
changes and will be it to he or she who`s in an elected official that says,
no, I don`t think you should have that information, we don`t trust you with
it.

SCHULTZ: Tom, would this be interest to your industry?

COLICCHIO: Not to mine at all, no. In fact, in my restaurants we are
about 99 percent GMO-free at this point but no, we`re using all fresh food.

We got to realize, there`s only about nine crops that are genetically
engineered and most of them are commodity crops with the exception of some
zucchini and some papaya.

So no, this really doesn`t affect me. This more -- it affects package
goods.

SCHULTZ: OK.

COLICCHIO: And it really doesn`t affect them at all. Again, most of these
companies are already dealing with our trade partners and they already have
labeling on their package to deal with European trade partners and Asian
trade partners. So, it shouldn`t make much of a difference.

SCHULTZ: Chef Tom Colicchio, great to have you with us. Congressman Peter
Defazio, I appreciate your time as well. Thank you so much.

Coming up. John Boehner`s latest rant shows how desperate the Republican
majority really is. Plus, the two-minute drill, Tiger. He says his game
not good enough. He`s going to take a break.

We`ll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

On Wednesday, the House passed the Keystone Pipeline Bill by vote of 270 to
152. Slam dunk, right? Not really.

Now, the bill heads to the President`s desk. President Obama has made it
clear that he plans to veto it.

There`s a new report shedding some light on just how much cash sweeping
goes on with votes like this. MapLight is a non-partisan research
organization which tracks the influence of money in politics.

The group found the oil and gas industry gave nearly $250,000 to each of
the 62 senators who voted in favor of Keystone. On average, senators who
voted yes got $236,544. Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota who
sponsored the bill received about $275,000 from the industry. Republican
Senator from Texas, John Cornyn, he received more than $1 million from the
industry.

The oil and gas winner among Democrats, Senator Joe Manchin of West
Virginia with $200,000 from the industry. In the House, the oil and gas
industry gave about $45,000 on average to the 270 members who voted in
favor of the Keystone Pipeline. That`s 13 times the amount of campaign
contributions of those who voted against it.

In other Keystone news today, there was court action down in the state of
Nebraska. District court in that state put a hold on TransCanada`s eminent
domain takings of Nebraska`s land owner property. What it means?

Well, it means that private land in the Nebraska will temporarily be
protected from being taken by TransCanada to build the pipeline, which is
what we have reported repeatedly on this program.

It is now property right issue. It still hang-up in the court in Nebraska
no matter how much the United States Senate or the House does under
Republican rule. Plus, the President says he`s going to veto it. He may
wait to see exactly what they do in Nebraska.

Stick around Rapid Response Panel is next.

HAMPTON PEARSON, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Hampton Pearson with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

Investors apparently feeling good today about news of a Ukraine ceasefire,
the Dow jumping 110 point, the S&P up 19, the NASDAQ climbing by 56 points.

It was a tough day for American Express though, the car company fell 6
percent, amid news that Costco will stop accepting AmEx card in the U.S.
this spring.

And two giants and online travel are joining forces Expedia buying Orbitz
for over billion dollars. Both stocks soared on the news.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Republicans have had control of a Congress for five weeks now.

So far they have accomplished very little as I see it. House Speaker John
Boehner is already playing the blame game with the Homeland Security Bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: Why you don`t go ask the Senate Democrats when they`re going to
get off their ass and do something other than to vote no?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I mean, your party controls the chamber there so...

BOEHNER: The House has done its job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the kind of coordination you envisioned between
you and McConnell and Senate Republicans?

BOEHNER: Listen, the issue here is not Senate Republicans. The issue here
is Senate Democrats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They`re calling you to send the bill.

BOEHNER: Seven of them criticized the President`s executive overreached on
immigration and yet, they continue to block consideration of bill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McConnell says it`s up to you.

BOEHNER: I love Mitch. He has tough job to do and so do I.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: But he is just not getting anything done.

Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response Panel we`ve got Heidi Harris it was
host of Heidi Harris Show, also with us tonight radio talk show host Lou
Desmond. Great to have both of you with us.

Heidi, what`s happening? Where`s the Healthcare Bill? We`ve heard the
Republicans and the conservatives take a part Obamacare but they got no
game then how come there`s nothing on the table?

HEIDI HARRIS, RADIO SHOW HOST: You know what? I`m going to say something
that might surprise you, Ed. I had predicted for a long time that nothings
going to happen with Obamacare repeal. I`m going to tell you why. It`s
purposely complicated like the IRS, like the tax code. And the reason for
that is, they`re already talking about making specific allowances for
people who manufacture particular medical instruments and those kinds of
things.

So it`s becoming like the tax code. We`re not going to really repeal with
wink, wink but we`re going to give you all kind of benefits.

And Republicans, I don`t know believe are going to repeal Obamacare. They
have a chance. I don`t think their going to do it. I wish they were but
their not going to.

SCHULTZ: Why have they focused the country on making us believe that
they`ve got something better when they really don`t?

HARRIS: Well, you know, the problem is they like to talk a good game and
both sides do this all the time. They make promises but it comes down to
it. There -- I guess better serve by leading it the way it is because the
argument is if you try to repeal it now...

SCHULTZ: Well...

HARRIS: ... it`s going to be too expensive and too complicated. So, I
don`t agree with that of course...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HARRIS: ... I want complete repeal. But I don`t see them having the will
to do it and it`s very disappointing to me, I got to tell you.

SCHULTZ: Well, on this subject the Democrats promised to pass health care
and they did and millions of Americans are being covered because of it.
And rates are coming down and more people are covered and we`re getting
better outcomes. But they`ve been ripping apart Obamacare but they`ve got
nothing on the table. Lou, is it too much to expect that maybe we would
see them followup on what they`ve been complaining about?

LOU DESMOND, CONSERVATIVE RADIO SHOW HOST: Well Ed, I can only speak from
my experience as a small business owner, as a person who runs his business.
My health care has been terribly affected where on our third or fourth
policy still trying to find it. People like me that self-insured had been
nothing but hurt by Obamacare. I`d like to see the whole thing repealed
but of course we only have one piece of the government apparatus.

SCHULTZ: How been you`ve been hurt?

DESMOND: Because I use to have insurance that I liked, we had the doctors
group that my wife and the kids were born to and that had always been gone
to -- and we have not been able to go back to that same doctors group
because they keep dropping the insurances that we get, because the
government keeps cutting the reimbursement. So, I did not get to keep my
doctor. I did not get to keep my plan. That was a lie to people like me
who have to self-insure.

SCHULTZ: Well, but you`re not being denied. That`s the big thing, you
just to pay a little bit more that`s all.

DESMOND: Well its...

SCHULTZ: I mean nobody in America and one of your kids get sick you`re
still going to get insured. So, I`m not quite sure, I mean, if we look at
the previous years, health care, we`ve seen double digit increases. So,
where is the hurt? I mean it`s not going to be perfect world, you can
still get insurance.

DESMOND: Ed, it was called the Affordable Care Act.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

DESMOND: And I was promise and millions of other people are promise that
we could keep our doctor and we could keep our plan. That simply wasn`t
true for a large majority -- a large population sector that has to self-
insure.

SCHULTZ: So you`re in favor of junk insurance that was out there, because
there are now standards in the industry that have wipeout a lot of policies
that didn`t do consumers any good.

DESMOND: Ed, call it junk insurance if he want, I had insurance that I was
happy with.

SCHULTZ: OK.

DESMOND: I like...

SCHULTZ: All right, fair enough. Fair enough. But the fact is that we
have federal standards just like we have standards on a lot of things in
this country.

I want to play a clip from John Boehner earlier today talking about
Keystone. Here`s one thing that they have done. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOEHNER: Yesterday, the House acted in a bipartisan way to approve the
Keystone pipeline. This will create tens of thousands of jobs or at least
42,000 according to the President`s own state department. More than 20 of
our nation`s governors this morning send a letter to the White House asking
the President to consider signing this important bill. There is no good
reason, none whatsoever for the President to veto this jobs bill.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, I can certainly thinking about a dozen right off the top of
my head. Heidi, why do the Republicans get so excited about part-time jobs
when they want to give the President any credit for helping create 11
million over the last six years?

HARRIS: Listen, anything that`s going to benefit us in any way and help
our partnership with Canada and help us to become more energy independent
interest me.

And I`m telling you something, Ed, maybe I sound paranoid here but I find
it fascinating that every time we start really talking about energy
independence suddenly miraculously the price of gas gets very affordable.
And I do believe that it`s done on purpose so that we`ve drop the Keystone,
go back to being more energy dependent on OPEC and then it`s going to go
right back up to $4, $5 a gallon, you can`t get complacent.

SCHULTZ: But they have tried to sell Keystone as a jobs bill. At the end
of the day, it`s going to be 35 permanent jobs even the head of TransCanada
had said that, that it`s not going to be a big jobs bill even through the
number out there 42,000 give or take, 5 or 10 either way they`re part-
time...

HARRIS: Yeah but...

SCHULTZ: These are part -- these are not sustainable jobs yet the
Republicans are selling it to the American people as a jobs package.

HARRIS: But it`s the same thing Ed, with people who want to push roads and
bridges and all the infrastructure. Those aren`t permanent jobs. They
build the road if they`re going to the next stretch of road. There are no
permanent jobs that all created by expanding that.

SCHULTZ: Well, you know, they would last more than a decade with -- that
how much work we`ve got to do.

HARRIS: Yeah, when they come back and do it again, right.

SCHULTZ: Why do we -- Lou, why do we need this oil coming over our
aquifer?

DESMOND: Because we`re not always going to have the exact the same
situation we have now where we have abundant world supply. And I don`t
know about you, Ed, but I`m with Heidi, I don`t want to be dependent on
people that hate us for us to have to get our oil from them. I don`t want
to be forced to get oil from Venezuela, from Russia, from the Middle East.
I`d rather be producing it here and getting it from a partner who is a
friend of ours like Canada.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s going to be -- the oil would be put on the world
market. It would not guarantee our price is going down and we`re drilling
more now than we ever have. In fact, we`re doing more fracking than we`ve
ever done. In fact, the oil and gas industry has gotten damn near
everything they wanted under this president.

HARRIS: Perfect. I love it.

DESMOND: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: So we don`t need this oil. We don`t need this...

HARRIS: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... toxic oil being brought to market. We -- prices are what
they are right now. It`s not going to affected it all. Let me look at
this jobs market.

Can`t -- Lou, do you think when you see this job chart that shows that we
have added 11 million jobs. This is the grid. 59 months of private sector
job growth, do you think the Republicans can take any credit for this
economic recovery?

DESMOND: You know, Ed, I don`t think there really has been a broad based
economic recovery. Come to where I live in Inland Empire, there`s still
way too many stores that are closed that were opened 8, 10 years ago.
There`s still way too many people underemployed and unemployed. We have a
record number of people outside the workforce, record number of people on
food stamps, record number of people on disability. Everybody keeps
talking about this great economic recovery. From where I`m sitting, I
don`t see it.

SCHULTZ: You`re not in the market?

HARRIS: Yes, I am either.

SCHULTZ: I mean, if you gotten to the market in March of 2009, obviously
we`re adding jobs. We`re not losing 400,000, 500,000, 600,000 jobs a month
and this is a historic recovery in terms of numbers. We`ve never seen this
kind of growth before but then, again, we had never had a recession that
way we had before but the -- do you think the Republicans, Lou, have done
anything to help this?

DESMOND: The Republicans are doing what they can to curb the worst
impulses of one of the most liberal presidents in the history and I will
take that as a win.

SCHULTZ: All right, Lou Desmond, great to have you with us for the first
time on MSNBC, also Heidi Harris, good to see you again...

HARRIS: Thanks.

SCHULTZ: Great to have a conversation. I appreciate it.

Coming up, the new buzz on Scott Walker, his extremist roots are starting,
well, to show on the national state. And he`s got a fan club. I got to
tell you that. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And in tonight`s two-minute drill, Tiger`s time out. Once upon a
time Tiger Woods was the number one golfer in the world. Nobody can touch
him.

Well, in his first tournament this year, Tiger shot a career worst round of
82 and he missed the cut of the Phoenix open. Woods blamed an undisclosed
injury.

Now, the 14-time major champion is putting himself on the pension until he
recovers. Woods took to his website on Wednesday to share the news
writing, "Right now, I need a lot of work on my game and to spend time with
the people that are important to me. I enter a tournament to compete at
the highest level, and when I think I`m ready, I`ll be back."

Next up. LeBron James, King of Kia, the official automotive partner of the
NBA is trying to boost sales of their luxury K900 Sedan. How about this
for a plan?

In October, Kia tapped NBA superstar LeBron James as their first ever
luxury ambassador. That`s right. He`s an ambassador now.

Now, the king is getting his own car.

On Tuesday, LeBron James posted this image on his Facebook page teasing a
special King James edition of the K900. The caption reads, "We`re just
getting started."

And finally, Bill Belichick gets late night treatment on deflate-gate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMAN, LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN HOST: I know you know
exactly what happened, you know I know you know. And what it was, was some
kind of horseplay, am I right?

BILL BELICHICK, PATRIOTS HEAD COACH: No.

LETTERMAN: I heard that the guy intercepts the pass and he takes the ball
over, hands it to his guy. He deflates it and then they say, hey look at
this ball. It`s got no air in it. Is that what happened?

BELICHICK: We`re going to bring you in to testify when we get the
investigation next time.

LETTERMAN: I`m ready.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: It sounds like we can look forward to a deflate-gate
investigative report in March.

We got a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right
back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: And after three elections for governor and four years in a state
that hasn`t gone Republican since 1984 for president, I wouldn`t bet
against me on anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Scott Walker with a little strut (ph) going on.

Welcome back to the Ed Show.

And finally tonight, the 2016 Republicans stage is crowded. We got a
frontrunner.

Potential candidate moving on the spotlight is Scott Walker`s badger bounce
which I started -- it really after his appearance at the Iowa Freedom
Summit.

Now the Washington Post reports his fiery speech got people talking,
mention of Scott Walker on Facebook, I mean, they went up. They surged in
the days following his speech. In terms of Facebook buzz, he`s beating up
top contender Jeb Bush.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh is leading the Scott Walker bandwagon on the
right-wing radio show.

The national journal report said Limbaugh mentioned Wisconsin Governor more
than 200 times in the days following the Iowa Freedom Summit. There is no
doubt Scott Walker could be a contender in 2016.

But while his speeches are inspiring, he is lacking answers when he faces
the press. While on a trade mission in London, the Wisconsin Governor
spoke to a British think tank. He wasn`t very forth coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTIN WEBB, BBC JOURNALIST: Are you comfortable with the idea of
evolution? Do you believe in it? Do you accept it?

WALKER: For me, I`m going to punt on that one as well.

WEBB: No.

WALKER: That`s a...

WEBB: Really?

WALKER: That`s a question that politician shouldn`t be involved one way or
the other. So I`m going to leave that up to you and...

WEBB: With any British politician, right or left-wing, they would laugh
and say, yes, of course, evolution is true but...

WALKER: To me, I said, it`s just one of those -- I`m here to talk about
trade, not to pontificate on that and other issues.

I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin...

WEBB: Yeah, all right.

WALKER: ... and I`d like to see an even bigger evolution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Walker`s punt might play on the icy tundra but voters across the
country are certainly going to demand more answers.

Walker later responded on Twitter, "Both science and my faith dictate my
belief that we are created by God. I believe faith and science are
compatible, and go hand in hand."

Joining me tonight, David Corn, MSNBC Political Analyst and Washington
Bureau Chief of Mother Jones. Great to have you with us David.

What`s this Walker buzz all about? How do you read it?

DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, he is not Jeb Bush and he`s not
Mitt Romney. He is a guy who appeals to the Tea Party. He part of the
party without being really a Tea Party extremist to be polite about it.

So in that way, you know, as you know -- well know Ed, you were there.
There was a bit recall battle over his attempts to break the public sector
unions in Wisconsin. And for that, I think he won the hearts of people and
the Koch brother, donor`s network and other libertarians and then people
within the business community across America. So he does play certain
amount of constituencies.

Now, the real question is whether he`ll play to voters beyond Wisconsin and
whether he can sort of take this game which is maybe AAA league and bring
it to the big league. And we`ve seen in his outing to London and in some
recent national shows that he`s just not very good at talking about other
things beyond cheese and Scott Walker.

So when he`s asked about foreign policy by Martha Raddatz on ABC This Week
about two-three weeks ago. He essential punted there, had nothing
interesting to say and he can`t even answer straight question about
evolution...

SCHULTZ: Yes.

CORN: ... or talking about foreign policy when he`s overseas.

And, David, your take on this and I don`t mean this to be a cheap shot
because there are a lot of successful people in America who do not have a
college degree. Does that matter?

People are starting to talk about that, he has not graduated from college,
some people will think it`s important, some people won`t. What do you
think? Does it matter?

CORN: I don`t think it makes a difference. I almost didn`t graduate from
college because like Scott Walker I found other things to do while I was in
college that were more interesting to me than college itself.

So, if he hasn`t lied about it or misrepresented his college degree and so
forth, I don`t see any indication that he has. Then, I don`t think it`s
really a big issue. I mean he`s been a governor, he`s been through -- as
he says over a year, I think over 10 campaigns. There`s enough stuff in
the real-time and he`s real positions to evaluate him...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CORN: ... as a presidential candidate. I mean...

SCHULTZ: He`s not a veteran of the military but he is a veteran of
campaigns. I think...

CORN: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... we`d be hard pressed to find somebody who has run 14
campaigns in 25 years. The guy knows how to get on stage and talk it
over...

CORN: You know...

SCHULTZ: And maybe this is -- I think this is invaluable experience. Your
thoughts.

CORN: I think that`s right too. And I do think, you know, he just run one
reelection in the last campaign, in the last two elections. And, you know,
people might remember that he run ads that kind of gave the impression that
he was in favor of a woman`s right to choose an abortion when in fact he
doesn`t and he`s been very, you know, when pressed he`s been astonishingly
anti-abortion.

So this is a guy who can be weasily (ph) and I`ll say that not in a
pejorative way...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CORN: ... but when it comes to winning campaigns and figuring out what he
has to do to win. So I think he is very smart and clever in a political
way. But again, big question whether that will...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CORN: ... that can translate to a higher level of place.

SCHULTZ: The Rush Limbaugh love affair, what its mean?

CORN: Listen, I think it`s going to help. I mean, everyone talks about
the money, primary and now, you know, Jeb Bush is out there trying to raise
a $100 million in the first three months.

I think there`s a lot of money in the Republican side but only a couple of
candidates will be able tap into that. He`s done well because of the
recall effort in getting out of the state money from Koch brothers and
other sorts of big campaign donors, big fat cats and such.

So, having Rush Limbaugh talking in that way will help him with small
donors and may actually help him if he tries to start putting together a
grassroots operation in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire which he really
has to start doing yesterday.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, I think there`s part of the choir that probably
doesn`t know who Scott Walker is...

CORN: Right.

SCHULTZ: ... I don`t think Limbaugh can hurt him with that crowd.

David Corn, always a pleasure. Good to have you with us tonight. Thanks
so much.

And that`s the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

"PoliticsNation" with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

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

<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.>





  MORE FROM THE ED SHOW  
  
The Ed Show Section Front
 
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:
 

Sponsored links

Resource guide