Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Monday, March 2nd, 2015

Read the transcript to the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: March 2, 2015
Guest: Bob Casey, Larry Cohen, John Larson, Ruth Conniff, Bruce Bartlett,
Raul Grijalva


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: And welcome to the Ed Show live from New York.

Let`s get to work.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight, putting the brakes on fast-track.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The last thing we need Mr. President is another NAFTA.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were unanimous that we got to stop...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... fast-track.

SCHULTZ: We are waiting on a vote.

And later, what would Ronald Reagan do?

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R) WISCONSIN: I think a lot of people admired what we
did in Wisconsin.

SCHULTZ: Scott Walker thinks he`s the next gipper (ph).

WALKER: I remember my wedding anniversary because it`s Ronald Reagan`s
birthday.

If I take on 100,000 protesters I can do the same across the world.

FRM. PRES. RONALD REAGAN, UNITES STATES OF AMERICA: The basic right of
each people to form free trade unions and to strike.

MATTHEW DOWD, ABC`S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: And what would happen if Ronald
Reagan, with that record, had shown up at this conference? He would have
been booed.

SCHULTZ: Plus, ground zero for climate change.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You see that all of the glaciers are speeding up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the fundamental ways, in which we measure human-
caused climate change.

SCHULTZ: A dire warning for coastal communities everywhere.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really we need to be looking to the ocean.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
We start with developing news on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A vote on fast-track authority for the White House could come this week in
Congress. This has the national labor leaders on offense. Union leaders
have decided to stop all voluntary political contributions until this
issue, fast-track trade promotion authority, is decided.

Today, 63 labor leaders send a letter to Congress urging them to oppose
fast-track. They wrote, "Fast-track is an undemocratic, unaccountable and
completely unacceptable way to develop economic policies that affect us
all." It was a lengthy statement but that is justement (ph).

Now, we are coming down to the wire on fast-track in the TPP. The
Democrats feel like that if they could stop fast-track, they could stop
this bad trade agreement. These upcoming votes will have a huge impact on
working men and women in America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I`m the first one to admit
that past trade deals haven`t always live up to the hype.

SCHULTZ: Trade promotion authority known as "Fast-track", which the
President is asking for has the attention of Congress.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D) OREGON: With fast-track, what they do is they
spring it out. We`ve got 60 days to vote on it, up or down, no amendments.

REP. ROSA DELAURO, (D) Connecticut: And we have no ability to amend the
treaty.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D) OREGON: Negotiations are secret. The draft text is
secret.

SCHUTLZ: The concern of labor stems from a history bad trade deals and the
current pressure on American jobs.

RICHARD TRUMKA, AFL-CIO PRESIDENT: The people who want fast tack that is
no debate. I want to tell you how complicated it is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the first time that every single member of
every single union and the AFL-CIO promised a full out battle to stop fast-
track.

TRUMKA: It means lost jobs and lower wages.

SCHULTZ: From NAFTA to the South Korean trade deal along with the
Colombian trade agreement, American jobs have been negatively impacted.

MERKLEY: We need to demand that there are not secrecy about something as
important as creating jobs in American or destroying jobs in America.

SCHULTZ: Tires, steel, glass, paper, rubber are just a few industries that
will be directly affected.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D) VERMONT: The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes
rules that will make it easier for corporate America to outsourced call
centers, computer programming, engineering, accounting and medical
diagnostic jobs.

OBAMA: The countries were negotiating whether the same countries that
China`s trying to negotiate with. If we don`t write the rules then China`s
going to write the rules.

REP. PAUL RYAN, (R) Wisconsin: I agree with every word he said in the
speech with respect to trade.

SCHUTLZ: Steel imports to the United States have increased 16.8 percent in
the last year. Eight steel mills have already been shutdown. 50 million
tires have been drop on our market and China is in the process of
infiltrating our automobile parts market with a state subsidize effort of
$100 billion.

OBAMA: I`m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to
protect American workers with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe
that aren`t just free, but also fair. It`s the right thing to do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that bad agreements, bad policies on
immigration, on globalization, bad policies on taxes mean lost jobs, lost
manufacturing jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: This trade agreement would allow global companies to come and go
as they please navigating around our laws. The agreement will also give
them the ability to sue if their profits are impacted by American law.

Lack of enforcement in trade deals has been America`s historic problem.
The deal complicates the imbalance even further. President Obama, as I see
it, has never been more wrong on an issue. The question is, will he move
on it with all the facts pilling up against this deal.

Get your cellphones out. I want o know what you think.

Tonight`s question, "If you were in Congress, would you vote for fast-
track?" Text A for Yes, text B for No, to 67622, leave a comment at our
blog at ed.msnbc.com and we`ll bring you the results later on the show.

Now, other presidents have had fast-track, trade promotion authority. But
right now that`s a lame excuse. Well, we should give it to President Obama
because other presidents have had it.

This trade deal encompasses 40 percent of the global economy. It will gut
American jobs. You can take that to the bank.

Let me bring in Senator Bob Casey or Pennsylvania tonight. Senator, good
to have you with us.

SEN. BOB CASEY (D) PENNSYLVANIA: Ed, thank you.

SCHULTZ: The debate is starting to heat up in the Senate. Are there 60
votes in the Senate? Are there a number of Democrats that believe that
this the way to go?

CASEY: Well, Ed, they on for a vote count but I`m sure that those votes
are pretty close right now. I don`t have the specific count. But here`s
the problem. Whether you`re a Democrat or Republican, this isn`t just
about the current debate about the adverse impact that a trade agreement
might have on our economy and on wages and workers. We have a lot of
history here. Whether it was back in the `90s and President Clinton was
President or President Bush and now President Obama.

We have heard over and over again. That these are agreements are going to
advance the economy and help workers. And too often and almost every
instance now, workers in states like mine, like Pennsylvania, have gotten
short end of the stick.

So it`s very important that we vigorously debate this and put on the table
what the facts had been, which -- have been job lost and devastation for
not just industries but especially for workers.

SCHULTZ: Now, and that is presented to the President. He says that he
needs fast-track so he can protect American workers. There seems to be a
real disconnect here. Connect that for us.

I mean, how could the president be so different from most people who`re
concern about American jobs?

CASEY: Well, I don`t know how they -- either his administration or anyone
else reaches that point because the history starting with NAFTA and maybe
before that but -- certainly since NAFTA is that, states like Pennsylvania
lose out. That`s why Pennsylvania and Ohio and lot of states working with
Senator Sherrod Brown and others against this kind of policies. That`s why
we know, we lose out if this happens.

So we`ve got to make sure that the basic protections that workers insist
upon and should insist upon are in it. Workers rights, level of playing
field when it comes to environmental protections. So we`re not -- we know
have trade agreements with some country that`s -- polluting the air or the
water, and make sure that our workers have a kind of basic level playing
field that they have right now and will have not in light of or upon the
implementation of these agreements.

SCHUTLZ: That the President said that China is writing the rules in this
and that`s why he has to have it to make sure that China isn`t writing the
rules.

I have to tell you, I have no clue what the President is talking about when
he says that.

CASEY: Well China right now, Ed, you know this. I mean just on in terms
of what they`ve been cheating on over the last couple of years. They cheat
on currency and we lose jobs in Pennsylvania.

SCHULTZ: Exactly.

CASEY: They cheat on a whole range of things flood our markets with -- and
when it comes to, as you mentioned in your opening, they flood our markets
with products without -- with impunity almost with no reaction by our
country except for after the facts and we have to use our laws here, our
trade laws to go after them but we got an...

SCHULTZ: Well that -- isn`t that one of the big things, Senator, is that,
this trade agreement would circumvent American law? And the other thing I
want to ask you about that hasn`t been talk about a lot is enforcement. If
trade cases are brought to the WTO if somebody cheats, as you`ve said China
does, it takes almost two years to get any resolution whatsoever. By that
time, the market has been terribly flooded with foreign goods and the jobs
have been gutted.

CASEY: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: So, how can anybody in the administration think this is a good
process?

CASEY: That`s part of the problem. The time it takes is one problem. And
I think the administration actually has been pretty aggressive when it
comes to enforcement. But why would we wait until we have an infraction or
an action taken by China that would -- is adverse our workers. Why don`t
we ahead of time, make we have policies in place to protect our workers.

So, that this is an important debate for the country and I think its
special and important debate for the Democratic Party.

SCHULTZ: Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, good to have you with us
tonight. Sir, thanks so much.

CASEY: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Let`s turn now to Larry Cohen President of Communication of
Workers of America.

Mr. Cohen, what does it mean when we have never seen so many labor
organization all of them unanimous on board to stop something.

LARRY COHEN, COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA: It means that this is a
really big deal and it stinks.

On Wednesday, we`ll have a thousand people here from across the country,
flying in to see their Representatives and Senators with one clear message,
"Stop fast-track. We want to read the TPP. No more promises. We want to
read it".

SCHULTZ: So, if you stop fast tract, if the President doesn`t have trade
promotion authority, is there a consensus among labor leaders that you can
stop the TPP?

COHEN: Well, there`s consensus. First of all, why is this, the only
country out of the 12 that has fast-track? None of the others have it.
None of the other countries have ever had fast-track. It comes from belief
that when the United States does trade deals, we giveaway the store because
it`s really about foreign policy and corporate profits. There is nothing
in these deals for citizens. It`s all a giveaway.

So the only way that Congress is going to pass these deals is to have fast-
track where they essentially pass it before they read it. That`s why fast-
track is so critical. No other country has it. We want to join the
mainstream. Read it before you pass it.

SCHULTZ: Why would we want a trade deal with Brunei?

COHEN: No good reason.

SCHULTZ: They have sharia law. They bring in foreign labor themselves
under cut wages. The sultan there is one of the riches guys in the world
that just doesn`t match up with America, does it?

COHEN: In no way does it match up. It matches up with the state
department view. It says whatever it takes, whatever sacrifices of
American workers not just in the military but in these trade deals with our
pay, our jobs, our communities, that sacrifices well worth it if for a few
extra years, we keep up Brunei where the oppression is enormous on their
own people, in our orbit rather than China.

That`s exactly what he means when he said, its China or us. He means state
department jargon where we sacrifice so that we essentially payoff these
countries if they come closer to the United States than to China. Pay it
off with our own jobs and own pay.

SCHULTZ: So the history of trade deals in America is that they come from
the state department, they come from the commerce department. They`re
heading to the good one out there.

The President says in State of the Union Address, he needs fast-track to
protect American workers. Your response to that.

COHEN: My response is, Mr. President, you had fast-track on Columbia, on
Panama and on Korea. And on Korea alone, the trade deficit with Korea has
doubled since we`ve passed the Korean trade agreement.

So let`s not say you didn`t have fast-track. This fast-track again, we can
even read the fast-track agreement, let alone the TPP. But it`s likely to
say in it, that at all extent for five or seven years, so most of that is
in the next president`s term.

This isn`t about this President having fast-track. He`s had it on three
key deals and he`s even -- he admits they weren`t the greatest.

SCHULTZ: OK. Big activity on the story this week on Capitol Hill, Larry
Cohen, President of Communication Workers, good to have you with us
tonight. Thank you so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter. Like us on Facebook. We
appreciate that.

Stick around. We are following the new round of drama shaping up on
Capitol Hill. Plus, Scott Walker stands on the shoulders of Reagan. We`ll
tell you why the gipper (ph) wouldn`t be too happy about it either, Rapid
Response Panel tackle this one and more stay with us. We`ll be right back
at the Ed Show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Well, shutdown politics continuous.

You were looking live at the Senate floor funding for the Department of
Homeland Security. It is set to run out on Saturday. Groundhog Day, I
guess.

Moments from now, the Senate is expected to take a procedural vote. They
are not voting -- they`re voting basically on a motion to go to conference
with the House so they can hash out the differences in the long-term bills.

Now, it won`t get us any closer to an agreement.

Senate Democrats are expected to filibuster the measure and, of course, we
will bring you the results as they come in.

Now, late Friday night, Congress fairly managed to avert a partial shutdown
of the Department of Homeland Security by passing a one week funding
measure. It came down to the 11th hour after a stunning and humiliating
defeat for House Republican leadership. Republicans are two months into
their largest majority since the 1920s and this is what they`ve come up
with.

Speaker Boehner still could wrangle enough votes for his 20-day funding
bill and its pretty -- couldn`t be really clearer than this, than ever
before that the GOP certainly has a divided house. So what`s going to be
different this week?

The establishment is being held hostage but the rough extremist of their
own party.

In this weekend, House Republican leader set the Sunday shows to do damaged
control. They`ve proved that they can put on a united front as long as
they stick to the same script.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: We do have some members who
disagree from time to time, over the tactics that we decide to employ.

KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) CALIFORNIA: We have difference of opinion in strategy
and tactics, but in principle we are united.

STEVE SCALISE, (R-LA) HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Obviously, our members have a
lot of differences on how maybe we want to go about tactics, but our goal
is the same.

BOEHNER: We get an argument over tactics...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

BOEHNER: ... from time to time. The goals are all the same.

MCCARTHY: We united in the principle. There`s a right way and wrong way
to legislate. Unfortunately, the President chose the wrong way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And of course, it`s a game show folks, the key word is tactics
tonight.

And joining me now is Congressman John Larson of Connecticut. He is a
House Democratic Caucus Chair, also with us tonight for some insight former
North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan. Gentlemen, great to have you with us.

REP. JOHN LARSON, (D) CONNECTICUT: Good to be with you, Ed.

Senator -- Congressman Larson, let`s go to the House, first.

LARSON: Sure.

SCHULTZ: What`s going to be different this week from last week?

LARSON: Well hopefully, Ed, as you were saying in the led up to this.
Hopefully the Tea Party Republicans put this in perspective. I know it`s a
rage but they`ve got to love their country more than they despise the
President of the United States. And let`s hope that Speaker Boehner is
able to find a way forward this week and do what the Senate has responsibly
done, and put together a clean bill that comes to the floor that extends
and make sure that these employees of the Department of Homeland Security
aren`t impacted and they got off away that they would.

Look, we`re up in New England and we`re suffering through disastrous
snowfalls that are record in the epic. And to shut FEMA down, to shut this
government down again because of this position that they box themselves
into a corner, something that`s being adjudicated currently is just wrong-
headed. There`s many...

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman...

LARSON: ... (inaudible) follow Peter King`s advice.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

LARSON: ... They should follow Michael Deans (ph) advice and put it
forward.

SCHULTZ: Well, Congressman, is it they are so concerned about the
constitution or they just don`t want to see the President move forward on
immigration, and they really don`t think we need the Department of Homeland
Security. What is it?

LARSON: They`ve been blinded by their -- how they dislike this President.
They`ve been blinded by this immigration policy that`s following a natural
course and procedure. And you can argue over this as the courts are
currently adjudicating this. But the fact of the matter is, you shouldn`t
and this is time and again, this is a pattern that they continue to repeat
of taking hostages...

SCHULTZ: Well.

LARSON: ... holding innocent people in the nation hostage over a policy
concern to demonstrate that somehow they are going to show this President.

SCHULTZ: All right. And...

LARSON: ... and it`s just simply wrong-headed.

SCHULTZ: That was the next point I wanted to make with you, Senator
Dorgan.

I don`t think that hostage taking of issues was really too popular in this
country or a method of getting things done until the Tea Party showed up
several years ago back in 2010.

Senator Dorgan, give us a remedy here. What fix is this?

FRM. SEN. BYRON DORGAN, (D) NORTH DAKOTA: Well, you know, those Tea Party
folks got elected by saying we will never compromise, whereas you`ll never
catch us compromising on anything.

You know, if there is somebody just now tuning into this controversy, I`ll
bet they think this is some complicated, complex, very difficult issue with
which to deal, it`s not at all. This issue is very simple. Do you pass
appropriations for the agency called Homeland Security at a time when this
country is beset with all kinds of terrorist threats? Do you pass that
appropriation?

Now, these folks in the House of Representatives, you know, the Congressman
is right. I mean, Speaker Boehner doesn`t control and can`t seem to
control his caucus and so, they`ve tried to make this about some other
subject but it`s not.

You know, as I said in the pass, Ed, there`s one thing that shoot yourself
in the foot is quite another thing to take aim and that`s exactly what they
are doing at the expense of the country.

SCHULTZ: No doubt. People are questioning Speaker Boehner`s ability to
control his caucus. Here is what he had to say on "Face the Nation". Here
it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DICKERSON, FACE THE NATION`S HOST: Do they have a plan that could
have succeeded and passed and signed by the President that would have
gotten them what they wanted this small group, you say, that basically
undermined your efforts?

BOEHNER: Not that I know of.

DICKERSON: So, was it fruitless?

BOEHNER: It`s the House of Representatives as it said in the opener, the
House is a rambunctious place. We have 435 members. A lot of members have
a lot of different ideas about what we should and shouldn`t be doing.

DICKERSON: Can you lead those members?

BOEHNER: I think so. I think so. I`m not going to just this easy because
it`s not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Senator Dorgan, he will not bring a clean bill to the floor, what
is that say?

DORGAN: Well, he`s going to have to do that. I mean, they`ve ridden
themselves into a box canyon (ph) like in the old Western movies. He has
to, you know, what they have is the Hastert Rule in the majority party and
that rule was, we want to bring something to the floor that doesn`t have
the majority of the majority.

But, you know, I went to the House when I started this career under Tip
O`Neill. That wasn`t Tip`s approach. The county needed to do something if
it was in that national interest. You bring a bill to the floor and work
both sides and get as many votes as you can from each side. That`s what
the speaker`s going to have to do.

Now, he`s worried that this going to cause him his speakership. It could,
maybe, but the national interest is probably worth it.

SCHULTZ: OK. In five or seven months we reach debt ceiling again. And on
October, Congress must pass spending bills to keep our government open. I
mean, as a taxpayer red-blooded American, what we have to look forward to?
I mean after this fight, what can we expect Congressman Larson? I mean,
this is the way...

LARSON: Well, this is a...

SCHULTZ: ... this is the world the Tea Party has brought America, correct?

LARSON: You`re absolutely right, Ed. And this is a pattern. You know,
since 2011, I think this will be the 12th time we`ve witnessed yet another
hostage taking and another incident of bringing us to the pacifist (ph) of
defaulting on the nation`s full faith in credit or shutting down government
or some other manufactured crisis.

I hope that Speaker Boehner and I think he realizes increasingly as was
demonstrated last Friday evening that, if you put a bill on the floor and
whether that bill be immigration, whether that bill be an infrastructure
bill, whether that bill be above the funding of the Department of Homeland
Security. You put a bill on the floor, it will gather...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

LARSON: ... bipartisan support and that is the way to govern. He is the
Speaker of the House.

I believe Boehner is an honorable person. I think he is seeking a way to
try to get away this done as of yet he is not. I hope he listens to the
Peter Kings and the Mike Dean`s (ph) and the reasonable people than the
Republican caucus who want to see the nation to continue to move forward
and don`t delight in this crisis to crisis situation that is self-
imposed...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

LARSON: ... by the Republican Tea Party.

SCHULTZ: Well, I`ve missed one other deadline and that`s May 31st and
that, of course, is when the highway funding bill runs out.

LARSON: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: So I`m sure we`ll have a nice sort of visit about that well
before we get into the five or seven months from now, but we run it to some
other debt ceiling issues.

Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. Congressman John Larson...

DORGAN: Thanks, Ed.

LARSON: It`s always a pleasure.

SCHULTZ: ... and former Senator Byron Dorgan with us here on the Ed Show.

Up next, why Scott Walker may want to rethink his hero worship of Ronald
Reagan? Plus, new wordings on climate change don`t have snowball`s chance
in hell of getting through by the some folks right now. And, we`re taking
your questions on Ask Ed Live.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Tonight, a shooting on the streets of L.A. is under investigation.

Video of this incident quickly went viral that involved police. A warning,
some viewers may find this video disturbing.

Los Angeles police responded to a robbery call Sunday. According to the
department, officers were confronted by a suspect. The man fought with
officers who attempted to teaser him. Police say the man then try to grab
one of the officer`s gun. Three officers fired their weapons and the man
was killed.

The man was homeless and also known locally as "Africa". Two officers also
sustained injuries during the altercation. The LAPD is looking at video
from the area for more details. The Police Department says two officers
were wearing cameras.

Los Angeles Police Department has promised the full investigation into the
incident.

And take a look at this incredible video out of Australia. I want to tell
you, I would not live a perfectly fine running engine but that`s just me.

This is a scary skydive. Christopher Jones says he had a seizure while he
was skydiving last November.

Jones suffers from epilepsy but had been cleared for this jump. Jones lost
consciousness at 9,000 feet and spent 30 seconds in free fall. He and the
instructor, Sheldon McFarlane described the situation in the sky.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHELDON MCFARLANE, SKYDIVING INSTRUCTOR: He is spinning out there and I`m
thinking something, you know, something is untoward here (ph).

CHRISTOPHER JONES, HAD EPILEPTIC SEIZURE WHILE FREE-FALLING: And he kind
of switch after (ph) I made the first time to try to roll me back on my
front. But obviously that didn`t work. And then, yeah, goes across and he
grabs my peracute.

MCFARLANE: That`s little bit confusing not knowing what was going on there
at that time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: McFarlane was able to deploy the peracute. Jones has regain
consciousness around 3,000 feet and landed safely.

We love hearing from our viewers tonight in our Ask Ed Live segment.

Our first question comes from Thomas O`Hara he asked. "Will Netanyahu`s
visit help or hurt the Republicans?"

I don`t know. I know this that I believe that president Obama is going
down the right road trying to get some kind of agreement with the Iranians.
We have to exhaust every effort we possibly can. It`s unfortunate that
Netanyahu and the White House are at odds on how to get there. Netanyahu
doesn`t seem like he wasn`t trust anybody.

We`ve gone down that road. And we haven`t had truthful discussions in the
past. The question is are we having truthful discussions now and are we
close to making sure that the Iranians never have a nuclear bomb.

So put politics aside and put the security of the world before whether
Republicans or Democrats end up getting any kind of political gain. I have
no problem with Netanyahu`s speaking to any group in the United States or
how he was asked. We got to go beyond that. It`s what he says is what`s
going to be so critical.

Netanyahu himself has to give the United States an opportunity to go as far
as we possibly can in negotiations with the Iranians. That`s how I see it.

Stick around Rapid Response Panel is next.

KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Marker
Wrap.

Stocks end at new high today, the Dow jumps 155 point, the S&P climbs about
12 and the NASDAQ adds 44 to close above the 5,000 mark for the first time
in 15 years.

Shares with Lumber Liquidators sliding 25 percent after a report on 60
Minutes claim the company sold flooring that did not comply with
environmental standards. The firm denies that claim.

And Costco has shows in Citigroup and Visa to these exclusive credit card
providers, Visa, Citi and Costco on (inaudible) today.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: Number one, we reassemble the Reagan coalition.
We bring together fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, and
national security conservatives.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) NEW JERSEY: Just like Ronald Reagan did, when you
stand up firmly for principles then you`re in a position to negotiate and
break that logjam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, conservatives spent the last few days trying to out Reagan
each other. The gipper (ph) got lots of mentions at CPAC last week and of
course the Club for Growth`s winner meeting in Palm Beach Florida.

Matthew Dowd said on ABC`s this week Reagan`s actions on taxes and abortion
would not have played well with the CPAC crowed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOWD: And what would happen if Ronald Reagan, with that record, had shown
up at this conference? He would have been booed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Yes, he would have been booed.

The new 2016 Republican favorite compare himself to Reagan.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said Reagan`s early move to fire striking
air traffic controllers was more than just an attack on organized labor, he
called Reagan`s move "The most significant foreign policy decision of my
lifetime".

Two days prior, Walker took some heat for making of a remark about right-
to-work protest in Wisconsin.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: If I take on 100,000 protesters I can do the same across the
world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Walkers rhetoric played well at the CPAC straw poll. He finished
second behind Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky who was won the poll three
years in a row.

Joining me tonight on a Rapid Response Panel Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan
and Bush and policy advisor, also with us tonight Ruth Conniff Editor-in-
chief of the Progressive Magazine.

Mr. Bartlett, you first, how would have Ronald Reagan have been received at
this crowd? I let you, you`d seen, you worked with him and were a policy
advisor to him. I would think you would know better than anybody.

BRUCE BARTLETT, FRM REAGAN & GEORGE H.W. BUSH ADVISOR: Well, I think he
probably would be booed out of the crowd if only because he gave amnesty to
illegal aliens back in 1986. (Inaudible) of us like Representative Steve
King -- routinely denounced Reagan for that, they would have denounced him
for raises taxes 11 times. They would have denounced him for raising the
debt limit. They would have denounced him for running budget deficits.
They would have denounced him for supporting labor unions despite what we
said about PATCO.

And that we`re not even getting into all the liberal things that he did as
Governor such as signing the most liberal abortion law in United States. I
think those guy definitely would not be a favorite of this crowd.

SCHULTZ: So, do the Republican in CPAC just -- or the conservatives are
just don`t know their history? Why they did all -- every single on of
them, it was all Ronald Reagan over the weekend.

BARTLETT: Well, I guess they`ve completely forgotten about George W. Bush
whom they defended to the heavens when he was on office. But yes, they`re
really rather stupid and not very well-read.

To them, Reagan is distant figure in history that was -- who is famous
before they were even born. His like FDR to Democrats.

SCHULTZ: Stupid. OK. I guess I can`t disagree with that. I mean, it
makes no sense the way they`re genuflecting to Ronald Reagan. They just --
I think are just in love with the fact the country did like Reagan for most
of his presidency.

He made the country feel good about itself. But the things he did that you
mentioned totally are opposite of what all of these folks on CPAC and all
of these candidates stand for. It makes really no sense.

Ruth, what`s you reaction to Rand Paul leading the CPAC straw poll ahead of
Walker. What is it mean if anything to win this straw poll?

RUTH CONNIFF, THE PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE: I mean I think it shows that the
straw poll itself does not mean a whole lot where the general election is
concern and that`s been through traditionally, you know, this is far right-
based and these are candidates who many of whom are not going to make, you
know, in a real nationwide race with lots and lots of people who live in
reality.

But, you know, I think that like you said Walkers is running as Reagan.
He`s constantly invoking Reagan that the Republican Party`s been invoking
Reagan since Bush was president.

The first Bush who they really wanted to erase almost as soon as he took
office, they were continually evoking Reagan because he was their most
popular leader. And that continues to be the case.

SCHULTZ: This is Walker reversing his stance on immigration reform. Check
it out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: My view has changed, I`m flat-out saying it. Candidate can say
that, sometimes they don`t. I`m just saying...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you`ve changed from 2013.

WALKER: Absolutely. I looked at the problems we`ve experienced from the
last few years. I`ve talked to Governors on the border and others out
there. I`ve talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have
is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a
system that works, a legal immigration system that works.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Ruth, where is this change here? They all talked about
protecting the border.

President Obama has fourfold on resources and manpower on the border and
technology is deported over 2 million illegal workers in this country.
We`ve seen more security on the border than any administration in the past
but they love to go back to that. But where has been the big shift on the
part of Scott Walker as you see it?

CONNIFF: Well, Walker is trying to shift now so that he can run for -- in
the Republican primary, nationally. And so he`s taking all this right-wing
position.

Some of them he really did take as Governor here. He really was one of the
most pro-life politicians ever to come out of Wisconsin. He really has
busted unions. He really has made this a centerpiece of who he is here in
the policy way but he his thought paddle that (ph) when he was in campaign
mode on immigration.

It`s just not as big of an issue here in this Northern State of Wisconsin
as it is for a lot of Republican base on the borders. And so he is
actually changed his position there but many of his positions have been
very hard right-wing positions. He just didn`t run on them when he was
trying to run for reelection in a blue state.

SCHULTZ: What about Bush, Mr. Bartlett? What about Jeb Bush? I thought
that he gave probably the most intelligent answer on immigration when he
was being interviewed the other day on the platform because he connected
the economics and he just seeing much more reasonable and open to it. Your
thoughts.

BARTLETT: I think Jeb is looking ahead to the general election and doesn`t
want to lose if he gets the nomination by being settled with far right
unpopular positions that are only popular among the tiny minority of people
who control the Republican Party and control the Tea Party.

And so he is trying to make electability, his issue for the party but
unfortunately, I think most of the members of the party...

SCHULTZ: Right.

BARTLETT: ... don`t care about that at all. They only care about purity
and standing for principle no matter what.

SCHULTZ: All right. Ruth, what do you make at the political news that
Hillary Clinton has told her closed advisors and they`re saying to
Democratic donors that she will enter the Presidential race sooner than
expected likely in April, your reaction.

CONNIFF: I mean it just seems like Hillary is inevitable candidate but it
seems like she is the inevitable candidate in 2008 and we ended up with
Obama. And I think that she is pursuing the same strategy that she had
done which is to lockup the nomination early. And I would like to see our
side, the progressive side, do a little more to, you know, check out some
more progressive candidates frankly.

SCHULTZ: All right, Bruce Bartlett, Ruth Conniff, good to have you with us
tonight. I appreciate your time.

Coming up, ground zero for climate change, new evidence Antarctica that has
devastating consequences for coastal cities across the world.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Time now for the two minute drill. Eventually, they all speak.

The interception to end the Super Bowl XLIX let many football analysts
questioning why Marshawn Lynch just didn`t get that football on the one-
yard line. How can he not do that?

The notoriously tight left (ph) running back. He hadn`t said much about
that play to the media since the game. But over the weekend, on a Turkish
sports channel, he thought it was safe territory. Lynch broke his silence.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARSHAWN LYNCH, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS RUNNING BACK: I would be a liar if I
didn`t tell you that I was expecting the ball.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: I thought we have heard that right after the game. Not so.

Lynch went on to say that he didn`t know what -- when into making the call
but he didn`t have a problem with the decision. He predicted that if he
had gotten the ball, yeah. He`d scored, he would been the game`s MVP.

Next up, watch the throne LeBron James has been the king of the court but
another James has his eye on the crown.

LeBron and Rockets shooting guard James Harden met on the hard court on
Sunday, they dueled out throughout the game, back and forth, back and
forth.

Harden received the technical foul for what looked like a kick below the
belt of James. But LeBron struggles at the free throw line caused the Cavs
a game. He missed seven out of his last eight shots and the Rockets held
on 105-103.

With LeBron struggling, the Rockets were quick to coronate Harden following
the victory. They Tweeted a photo of Harden with the caption, "Long Live
the New King".

And finally, let`s bring it on down to House, and we`re talking about
Northern Illinois.

The Huskies sort the easy victory over the Central Michigan this weekend.
But the highlight of the game, courtesy of the Huskies senior center, the
6`11`` dude inside. Wooh (ph), let`s get after it.

The forward took it to the hoop and then took down the hoop. The
blackboard just missed a player in bounding the ball, the crew with the
(inaudible) center they were able to get the hoop back up so the Huskies to
go ahead and get the win.

And before we got a break, an awkward lesson in sex education with her old
favorite conservative duo back by popular demand, it`s time to meet the
Robertson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL ROBERTSON, A&C DUCK DYNASTY: Keep your sex right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And many things about the (inaudible) great as it
(inaudible) heavenly women who`ve read the book.

ROBERTSON: I don`t want to you to die early. You`re disease-free and
she`s disease-free, you marry, you keep your sex right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s all about all kinds of (inaudible) don`t last, you
kiss him.

ROBERTSON: It`s the revenge of the hippies (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s about one bondage of (inaudible) it`s about
(inaudible) it`s about the various of types of lower strengths (ph).

ROBERTSON: Sex (inaudible) and rock and roll have comeback (inaudible) in
a bad way.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And probably tonight, we focus on the climate.

Everyday, we are getting new evidence of the effects of manmade climate
change.

Today, the North East claims and lower Midwest are digging out from another
round of snow and freezing rain.

This storm brings Massachusetts up to a snow total of a record 104 inches
this season. It is so cold even salt water is freezing.

Take a look at these photos of slashing ice waves washing up on Nantucket.
Even Niagara Falls transformed into a wall of ice this month. And on the
end of the climate spectrum, the West is bracing for more record-breaking
drought. And now scientists are finding more evidence of melting polar
caps in Antarctica.

NASA says the melt ends up to 130 billion tons of ice per year for the pass
decades. Scientist called it ground zero for climate change. They warn
this will reshape the Earth as we know it, although the chair of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee is not convinced.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, (R) OKLAHOMA: I ask the chair, you know what this
is? It`s a snowball.

SCHULTZ: Antarctica is melting.

INHOFE: I`m reminiscing that the snow on the ground.

SCHULTZ: NASA says, the ice melt could push sea levels up by 10 feet.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, (D) RHODE ISLAND: You can believe NASA and you
can believe what their satellites measure on the planet, or you can believe
the "Senator with the Snowball".

INHOFE: His theory on global warming.

WHITEHOUSE: NASA`s pretty capable. They are driving a rover around on
Mars right now. These are folks who know a little bit of what they are
talking about.

INHOFE: It`s a snowball.

SCHULTZ: Most Americans think combating climate change is a moral
obligation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Safeguard creation because if we destroy creation,
creation will destroy us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a not liberal issue but it`s all of people issue.
It`s a God issue.

INHOFE: Catch this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Many Americans believe Florida will be ground zero for climate
change affected first. Our next series here on the Ed Show will be titled
"Florida: The Front line on Climate Change". That`s why I`m traveling down
to the Sunshine State and we`ll have that series for you in the next couple
of weeks.

There is a Governor there who isn`t even willing to acknowledge it. Rising
sea levels could change the coast as we know it.

Joining me tonight, Congressman Raul Grijalva. Congressman, good to have
you with us tonight.

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: The poll that is out there showing about -- and talking about the
moral obligation. What is going to move people in Congress where we would
actually do something? What kind of poll do we need? What kind of -- how
much more information does NASA have to give us at this point?

GRIJALVA: Well, NASA, the Pentagon, can give us tremendous information on
what climate change has going to do to the national defense of this issue
which is yet to be heard in Congress and in front of committees to deal
with Pentagon and armed forces.

But what it`s going to take is real information, empirical scientific
information, testimony from experts that brings to the House and to the
members of this Congress, both the Senate and the House, the information to
take this issue much more seriously and don`t just miss it simply because
it doesn`t tie into the political contributions that we are receiving from
corporations.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, what would you suggest right now?

GRIJALVA: You know, I`m not a scientist. So what I said in the hearing,
in the Natural Resources Committee, the scientists that are providing
testimony, I believe it to be empirical, I believe it to be correct. But
when the preponderance 97 percent to 98 percent of the scientists that
provide information and do research are telling us that climate change is
real, that man has a great deal to do with the consequences of climate
change, then that needs to be part of their testimony.

You know, our effort to try to get a disclosure is not an effort to try to
(inaudible) research or empirical information. It`s an effort to try to
get testimony that is not tainted (ph) by any other aspect, who funded it,
who didn`t fund it.

And I think that -- I was asking for empirical fact (ph) based in science
is not trying to stop research. Research can be done here and the Koch
brothers or Exxon (ph) want to fund their research, fine. Just disclose
that that`s who`s funding it. And so the American people can make their
own decisions.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, the old saying in the Midwest is, "When the locust`s
come, they eat everything." When a drought comes, it eats everything away
at the economy, and the Western portion of the United States is seeing
thing they haven`t seen for decades. How much of a strain is this going to
be on the economy when we`re -- we`re even fighting in Congress over
defending the country on the Department of Homeland Security.

I mean, what hope do we have that we`re going to be there to alleviate the
strains of going through this whether extremes?

GRIJALVA: I think the generational consequences for the American people
are serious and real. I`m from the Southwest, the (inaudible) Southwest,
more (inaudible) than it`s ever been before.

And climate is playing a role in limiting the ability to grow crops,
limiting the ability to have a growing economy that depends on water as its
primary source. You know, waters have finite resource and we`ve treated
like it something that`s going to be over there all the time.

And I think the big problem Congress has is it politicize climate change,
taking the size away from it. And now want to make it purely a political
issue.

It is not a political issue. It is an issue about the consequences that
the next two generation is going to have in this country. And dire
predictions are not out of realm.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Congressman Raul Grijalva, always good to have you with us
on the Ed Show. Thank you so much. I would hope to...

GRIJALVA: Thank you, Ed. I appreciate it.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Yes, sir.

And of course I would hope that the right-wings analysis would go much
further than a snowball but apparently it doesn`t.

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

<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