Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Thursday, March 19th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: March 19, 2015
Guest: Joe Cirincione, Shmuley Boteach, Debbie Dingell, Peter DeFazio,
Nina Turner, Edward Markey, Jon Wood, Tiernan Sittenfeld, James Warren


ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Why should President Obama trust you
when you came to Congress to lobby against his negotiations with Iran?



if everybody voted.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R) FLORIDA: Not voting is also a legitimate choice that
some people make.

OBAMA: It would completely change the political map in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is their choice.

SCHULTZ: And later.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s not a partisan problem. The drought is a real
problem. There will be more extreme weather events.


REP. PETER DEFAZIO, (D) OREGON: They dispatched us with a half through,
you know, confabulated statistics.

REP. ROSA DELAURO, (D) CONNECTICUT: What we must not do is to sign up to
yet another bad free trade agreement.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
We start this evening with new developments on the Iranian nuclear deal.

Earlier today, Secretary State John Kerry spoke to reporters about the
ongoing negotiation saying, "We are pushing some tough issues but we made

Well, the Associated Press is reporting a draft of the agreement would
limit Iran to 6,000 centrifuges. It will also reportedly force Iran to cut
the amount of hardware needed to make an atomic bomb by some 40 percent.

The agreement would phase out U.S. economic sanctions over time. The State
Department pushed back on the Associated Press report saying no draft
document is being circulated.

Earlier today, Andrea Mitchell sat down with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu in his first post-election interview. He continued to
take a hardline against the Iranian nuclear deal.


MITCHELL: I want to ask you about Iran, why should President Obama trust
you when you came to Congress to lobby against his negotiations with Iran?

NETANYAHU: I think there`s a unbreakable bond between Israel and United
States. The President said that, I`ve said that (inaudible)...

MITCHELL: But what about between you and Barack Obama?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think that is reflected in the relationship between the
President of the United States and Prime Minister of Israel. We have -- we
can have differences but we have so many things that unite us. So we have
a situation in the Middle East that is very dangerous, that presents a
common challenge.

MITCHELL: Does he call you yet to congratulate you on your victory?

NETANYAHU: Secretary Kerry called me yesterday and I`m sure I`m speaking
to President Obama soon. We`ll work together, we have to. We have our
differences on Iran.

By coming to the U.S, I didn`t mean any disrespect or any attempt of
partisanship. I was barely speaking, Andrea, of something that I
(inaudible) put in danger of the survival of Israel, insulted my obligation
to speak up there.

But there`s so many areas that we have to -- we must work together we`ll
work together with the United States and with the President because we have
no other alternative (ph) or allies. We have to consult each other not
have fiats or unilateral to position but negotiated peace with our
neighbors and support between allies. And America has still greater ally
than Israel and Israel has no greater ally than United States.

MITCHELL: On Iran, a draft agreement reportedly would permit Iran to have
6,000 centrifuges and that would last for 10 years or more. Why isn`t that
better for Israel to freeze their program and have inspections than the
other option which would be military option which could only set them back
a year or two?

NETANYAHU: Well, I think there are other options as well. I think we can
a better deal. And I think the one that I will have is to reduce Iran`s
nuclear capabilities so you increase the breakout time. I mean if I had to
vote to on that negotiating team, I would say zero centrifuges. I don`t
have a voter but I can only ask.

MITCHELL: Are you willing to accept some nuclear enrichment?

NETANYAHU: I would say that that is something that, you know, smaller
number would be something that Israel and its Arab neighbors would love but
they could live with.

And the second things, I think the most important thing is that the lifting
your restrictions on Iran nuclear program would depend on Iran`s change of
behavior that would stop supporting terrorism, stop its aggression against
about every country in the region and stop calling and threatening the
annihilation of Israel.

That is I remain committed to them. I think that`s the right policy.

MITCHELL: Are you counting on Republicans in Congress to kill a deal if
it`s a deal you don`t like?

NETANYAHU: I`m counting on having people hearing my view and considering
the dangerous to Israel. And I think not only to Israel, across the board
spectrum. This is not a partisan issue.

I received very good feedback from both Democrats and Republicans in the
United States, and from many other places in the world, and for many
countries in Arab world. And the only thin that I would say, Andrea, is
what Arabs and Israelis agree on something, I think it`s worth paying

MITCHELL: And your message to Iran?

NETANYAHU: For the people of Iran, we want peace with them but they`ve
been taking over by regime that calls for destruction. I think suppresses
and brutalizes them as well. And the most important thing is that, we
prevent this regime from having atomic bombs to carry out their designs on
destroying Israel and their mad fantasy of becoming -- taking over the
Middle East and from there to the world. You don`t want the formal sponsor
of global terrorism on with atomic weapons. That`s bad everyone.


SCHULTZ: And within just the last few minutes, President Obama has called
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congratulate him on his re-

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think tonight.

Tonight`s question, "Will Netanyahu be able to stop the United States-Iran
nuclear deal?" Text A for yes text B for no to 67622, we`ll bring you the
results later on the show.

For more on this, let`s bring in Joe Cirincione President of the
Ploughshares Fund, David Corn with us tonight, Washington Bureau Chief from
Mother Jones and MSNBC Political Analyst, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach back
with us tonight, Founder of This World: The Values Network. Gentlemen,
great to have you with us.

Joe, you first, I want to know what does this mean. 6,000 centrifuges and
cutting hardware for bombs, if that is the deal is that a good deal?

Geneva is that the AP story is getting little ahead of the negotiations.
There isn`t a final deal yet but we do expect one in days maybe a week or

And now, those are the levels we are looking at, a dramatic reduction in
Iran`s centrifuge capability. The world powers led by America are
insisting that Iran cutback from the 20,000 to 22,000 centrifuges that it
has that would greatly limit its capability.

The -- other centrifuges would be ripped off, moved away, put in a box with
a camera on it so we can watch to see if Iran is cheating. If you do that,
you greatly improved the security situation of Israel, of America and the

SCHULTZ: Rabbi Shmuley, your reaction to what`s being discussed right now
at that number and also the technique for verification to make sure that
the Iranians don`t cheat. Your thoughts.

is surrender, it is capitulation, it is appeasement. It`s not a dramatic
reduction. There are two U.N Security Council Resolutions that call for no

Iran lied to the world for 12 years about its nuclear program. He was
caught red-handed. The U.N of all (ph) organizations stepped up and said
that they should no nuclear program. How is 6,500 centrifuges, which is
military grade and industrial grade program, how is that a form of victory?
This is appeasement.

And to have a one year breakout period, are we really going to trust a
small group of inspectors to have to monitor a gigantic enormous country
with nuclear facilities being built underground, underground, under
mountains, and in tunnels, to monitor this program with the greatest state
sponsor of terrorism. A country that doesn`t need the energy because there
were no oil super power, they`re doing this only to get bombs.

We`re giving them billions and billions of dollars in frozen assets which
they`re going to use to continue their terrorist mayhem...


BOTEACH: ... around the world. This is surrender, this is capitulation
and it`s a bad, bad deal for the United States and for Israel.

SCHULTZ: David Corn, what`s the arena sound like tonight? How does it
sound to you as it stands right now? And also, your thoughts of the
relationship right now between the White House and the re-elected Prime

DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it`s interesting to me that
they`re getting -- making progress on the deal which may or may not come to
fruition (ph) and we won`t know until it`s signed.

At the same time that Benjamin Netanyahu has isolated himself and at least
the government of Israel not just from the White House and from Barack
Obama but also from the rest of the world with the statements (inaudible)
Palestinian -- in a two-state solution, although he try to walk that back
with Andrea early today, and by his racist comments on election day.

I mean already Israel was in a pretty lonely place with the U.S. being...


CORN: ... of course, it`s best friend. But now its even further isolated
so if anyone wants to take Netanyahu and his word on anything well just,
you know, do 180 in two days the peace process and he is been making racist
remarks. He`s no longer credible, you know, participant in the
international debate.

SCHULTZ: Rabbi Shmuley, your response to that. I mean the interview today
with Andrea Mitchell was totally different from the speech that was given
to Congress. I mean, when you get re-elected you sound differently what do
you think?

BOTEACH: Well David, you know, Am I the only person on this panel who`s a
little bit confuse as to why the leader of the free world of all the people
he doesn`t get along with, it`s the leader of the only free country in the
Middle East. He -- President Obama...

SCHULTZ: Well, that`s not what the Prime Minister said in the interview
though, Rabbi. Rabbi, the Prime Minister underscored that we are allies,
that there are lot of things that President Obama and the Prime Minister
agree on. But I`m just pointing out that he sounds lot more dogmatic -- in
front of Congress that he did in front of Andrea Mitchell. Your thoughts?

BOTEACH: Well, what I`m responding to is this notion that President Obama
does not look favorably upon Prime Minister Netanyahu. And David saying he
is being discredited.

And I`m asking, how as it that our President has a good relationship with
Erdogan of Turkey who lets everybody go into Syria to fight for ISIS.


BOTEACH: He goes to pay his respects to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who
is the arch-misogynist and what does Netanyahu done already? So he`s

CORN: I`ll tell you...

BOTEACH: ... speeches that seems a little bit -- why is he just like so


CORN: I`ll tell you what he did. He came before Congress, gave speech...


CORN: ... and he call the President of United States "naive". And he
tried to undermine his diplomatic efforts.

He could have done that in a lot of different places but he did it right in
Congress to make common cause for the President`s arch political enemies,
that`s what he did. It was low class.

He also alienated himself from a lot of liberal America Jews who actually
care about the President, which may not be a category that you`re in,

SCHULTZ: That maybe true, David.


SCHULTZ: David Corn, that maybe true, but did he solidify the Republicans
base, because that really was his mission. He knows who his allies are in

And so looking at what is all unfold to Joe Cirincione, you`ve got a
Boehner asking Netanyahu to come speak, I guess he could put up a mission
accomplished banner right now.


SCHULTZ: And now, we`re softening his position a little bit in dealing
with President Obama. What do you make of it?

CIRINCIONE: He is trying to backpedal but it`s too late. I think Bibi
Netanyahu won a victory by running a racist fear-mongering campaign but
it`s a Pyrrhic victory. He is now a greatly diminished figure. He`s
become a George Wallace type figure on the political scene but that`s not
the worse thing he did.

The worse thing he did was completely undermine the U.S. position defending
Israel at the United Nations. The United State...

SCHULTZ: So what is that mean, Joe?

CIRINCIONE: It means that the United States is going to be less capable of
blocking the kinds of resolutions that every other country has supported.
We`ve been saying that they own -- that leave it to the Palestinians and
the Israelis to work it out. Mr. Netanyahu completely rejected a two-state
solution and makes it extremely difficult for President Obama and John
Kerry to convince the other world leaders to hold back resolutions. You`re
going to see a lot more pressure on Israel and United Nations to be solved.

Mr. Netanyahu was undermined Israel`s security for the kind of campaign he


SCHULTZ: Go ahead. Go ahead.

BOTEACH: Can I say to David and Joe. Let`s not be ridiculous here. You
guys are worried about issues of protocol and to Netanyahu see the perfect
thing. Don`t set the world (inaudible) burns. We`re talking about Iran
threatening the Jews 70 years after the Holocaust with annihilation.

Not once but like every Monday and Thursday, we`re talking about Ayatollah
Khomeini tweeting that there`s no cure for these Jews except for

CORN: Rabbi...

BOTEACH: Wait. Wait. Just a moment. Just a moment. And you guys are
bringing up, he offended the President and he called him naive, and we wish
that did not have to happen.

SCHULTZ: All right. David, your respond to that.

CORN: Yeah. Well, it`s not that he just call naive. He undercut his lead
diplomatic initiative. Listen, it seems to me that what the Netanyahu
position, the Neocon position here and perhaps your position, Rabbi, is
that ultimately they has to be war with Iran. That just really seems to be
the implication...


SCHULTZ: Well, what is it?


CIRINCIONI: And (inaudible) war already in the Middle East...

BOTEACH: My position is clear. What we saw with the Munich Agreement of
1938 was that a deal that was bad was worse than no deal. We don`t need to
a deal right now. We have to increase sanctions.


BOTEACH: Increase sanctions and there should be no centrifuges...

CORN: Other countries won`t do that if we don`t have (inaudible)

SCHULTZ: Joe Cirincione...


SCHULTZ: Isn`t there -- whatever happens, its verification. Can we trust
the Iranians? Can there be some safe mark benchmarks put in place that we
absolutely know if the number is 6,000. There`ll be no cheating.

CIRINCIONE: I don`t trust the Iranians. I don`t know anybody who does
trust the Iranians. Why would you trust them?

So it`s all about verification. It`s all about inspections. As Susan
Rice, National Security Adviser says, this deal is based on distrust and
verify. And yes you can do it. When you -- watch this space, when you get
see this deal, it`s going to be an unprecedented level of inspections...


CIRINCIONE: Unlike, we`ve never seen in uncontrolled agreement...

BOTEACH: Joe, have you heard of North Korea? Joe, have you heard of North
Korea, same thing.

SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, we`re going to have to limit there. We will have you
back for another spirit of discussion.

CIRINCIONE: Next time.

SCHULTZ: Joe Cirincione, David Corn and Rabbi Shmuley, thank you so much
for the talk tonight.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Tweeter @edshow and on Facebook. You could
get my video podcast at

Coming up, Senator Marco Rubio -- has this curious case of voting empathy.
Where that came from? Plus, lies, damn lies in the TPP. We`ll talk with
members of Congress fresh-off a fact-finding meeting on the secret trade

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


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

Democrats are claiming they`re nothing but lies surrounding the Trans-
Pacific Partnership. The sales pitch (ph) is on.

Ambassador Michael Froman met with Congressional members about this told
trade deal on Wednesday. Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon called this


DEFAZIO: In their desperation to pick off 30 to 40 Democrats which is what
they think they need, that they dispatched us with a half truths, you know,
confabulated statistics and they hid the full picture. It was early in the
morning, I guess they figured we weren`t listening or watching.


SCHULTZ: The Obama administration just granted Congress a limited access
to TPP documents. Congressman Rosa DeLauro says, it`s too little too late.


DELAURO: They have been working at this for four and a half years. And
now they have come because they know the fast-track is in jeopardy. They
know that these treaties in jeopardy and say, "Oh, we`d like to have you
read the text, but it classified."


SCHULTZ: So what it comes down to? Is the Obama administration is making
a last-ditch effort to get enough votes on the Democratic side to appease
the House and to make this thing go through?

Members say the votes still are not there. NAFTA`s mistakes will be
replicated and amplified. Fast-track froze oversight right out the window.
And once the deal is done, it`s done. There is no turning back.

Congress cannot make amendments to protect American workers and they are
going to be left powerless.


REP. PAUL TONKO, (D) New York: In exchange for fast-tracking bills,
Congress is supposed to set these negotiating objectives but let`s face it.
Sadly, these objectives are not -- they are none binding. And so, they
could be rendered meaningless.


SCHULTZ: So the Democrats are saying and those who opposed the TPP and the
President having fast-track, that this trade deal, this trade promotion
authority would threaten food safety, affordable medicine and American
jobs. Corporations get a pay out, the middle class gets left in the cold.

But the White House simply is not seeing it that way. They want this deal
and they`re in the 11th-hour down the stress to try get it to happen.

Joining me tonight, Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon, also with us
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell of Michigan. Great to have both of you with

Congressman DeFazio, you first, we`ve had this conversation in the past but
now you have seen firsthand some information. Did it change your mind that
all about what`s unfolding here?

DEFAZIO: Well, if I listen to -- they have truths and I didn`t know the
facts, might have been convinced. And he said Korea on which this is
principally based is a wonderful success that has created jobs in the auto

We`ve exported 20,000 more cars to Korea. I said, well, how many more cars
have they exported to the U.S. since the agreement went into effect, and so
why don`t have that information.

Well, its 460,000. So, 20,000 U.S. cars there, 460,000 were here.

SCHULTZ: So, let me get this straight.


SCHULTZ: You mean to tell me that the person that`s doing the deal didn`t
know the statistics and the numbers from the last deal that was suppose to
be so great when you call them on it.

DEFAZIO: Well, Ed, they only look at exports. That`s all they want to
talk about because...


DEFAZIO: ... they don`t admit that it`s -- the deficit that counts, that
is the balance. If you export 20,000 autos and you import, you know, a
million, you`re losing jobs but...


DEFAZIO: ... if they all know, we exported 20,000.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Dingell, it seems to me, and correct me if I`m
wrong, that the White House is only doing this because they know they got
to have votes.

And so, you`re only going to see information if it sway your vote. Isn`t
that somewhat condescending? What`s your take on that?

REP. DEBBIE DINGELL, (D) MICHIGAN: Well, I`m -- totally with my colleague
here and have been very strong about this in the very beginning. I come
from Michigan where I`m standing up in the working men and women of my
state and by the way, labor and business are together with there is no
currency manipulation included in the discussions.

What we`ve heard because as my colleague just said, they`re not telling us.
We`re not supposed to know to much about this...

SCHULTZ: OK. But I want to know about the White House, Congresswoman. I
mean, it seems like no one in Congress was given any information until the
White House recognized, "Hey, wait a minute, we don`t have the votes."


SCHULTZ: Don`t you feel like you`re being somewhat used there?

DINGELL: Well, absolutely. I wish they have been talking to us for a long
time. I was begging for information as I was being torn in (ph). And when
you do ways the issue of currency manipulation which by the way with the
yen, 120 to a dollar, gives an $8,000 cost advantage for vehicle, that the
Japanese are make -- Toyotas making more money and currency manipulation...


DINGELL: ... importers (ph) in worldwide operation. There is a problem
and the White House doesn`t want to talk about that.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman, what about this?


SCHULTZ: Peter, I got to ask you this.


SCHULTZ: Did you come out of that meeting thinking, "Hey, this is
classified, nobody can know this?" I mean, are we really -- is this really
classified information?

DEFAZIO: Well, we`re only talking about what we heard in the open session.
We`re not talking about the classified session.

I didn`t go that. People that went said, "Hey, they didn`t say anything
different on the classified session...


DEFAZIO: ... than they did in the open session before the causes."


DEFAZIO: So we`re not revealing anything but, Ed, on currency manipulation
which is a big deal to these advantages. Chinese, Japanese and others,
they don`t want to include that because Wall Street doesn`t want it
included because they say a new profit center for them by dealing with this
currency speculation and when they get entry into these markets.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman, can your mind be changed?

DINGELL: No, it`s not.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Dingell, can you change your mind on this? Is
there a way that you would go with the President on this?

DINGELL: And let`s say includes currency manipulation in this trade
agreement and they`ve made it clear that they`re not going to. I don`t
know who sent me to Washington to represent, (inaudible) next to working
men and women of the auto industry and they`re being screwed by this trade


SCHULTZ: Well, it -- but it doesn`t address a state disputes. I mean,
isn`t that a big issue as well?

DEFAZIO: Go ahead, Debbie.

DINGELL: No, you go ahead.

DEFAZIO: The -- yeah. I was -- well, sorry, I can`t talk about that. The
investor-state provisions, if they reflect to pass agreements are
egregious. It allows corporation to have the standing of governments and
to actually sue us for having environmental laws, consumer protections,
labor protections and say that those things are impeding on their profits
or anticipated profits. Take us before secret tribunal.

And if they win the decision and this is happened to us on the past. We
have to either pay them penalties or we have to change our laws.

SCHULTZ: All right. And finally, Congressman DeFazio, maybe I haven`t
seen it or did pay attention at that. They`d come on top of it. Where is
Nancy Pelosi on this? And why is that she more vocal? And if the
Democrats in the House are so concerned about middle-class jobs, they ought
to be screaming from the top of the Capitol on this, your thoughts on that.

DEFAZIO: Well, our leadership is a bit divided. I believe that Leader
Pelosi is less far. I think she`s opposed but our whip, Steny Hoyer, is in

So, you know, there is a split and usually when the leadership split, the
caucus doesn`t take a decision so they`ve said it`s up to all of you.

Well, there`s about as usual 85 percent of us are opposed to it and they`re
fighting over getting a few Democrats.

Every one of these agreements has been amass of majority of Republicans and
it`s a small minority of Democrats and they`re just fighting Susan Dale
(ph) to get that small minority to fight that up, to split those people

SCHULTZ: All right.

DINGELL: I like to say very quickly, Leader Pelosi was very strong in
pushing the administration to answer our questions directly.

I think she`s trying to be a leader and make sure all facts are out there
but I`ve been struck of how strong she is trying to lead us unknown with
the truths and effects are.

SCHULTZ: But, Congresswoman, don`t you think if Nancy Pelosi were in front
and center, in front of the cameras almost daily on this, it would have a
major impact on this deal?

DINGELL: I think, our first responsibility giving the roles who`s playing
between the White House and the caucuses to make sure we have the facts
that we can make the right decision. I think she sees where her caucus is
going in making the right decision.

SCHULTZ: I think, she is the leader of the Democrats in the House and I
think I have immense respect for her. She`s a great political leader but I
think, on this issue, there should be a little bit more forcefulness and
that`s just my take on it.

Congresswoman, great to have you with us. Debbie Dingell from Michigan and
also Peter DeFazio from Oregon here on the Ed Show, thanks so much.

Coming up, the power of pen, the President overwrites climate deniers in
Congress with the new executive orders.

Stay tuned, we`ll be right back.


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

It`s difficult to counter punch the role of money in politics in this
country in a post-Citizens United America.

On Wednesday President Obama offered one suggestion.


OBAMA: In Australia and some other countries, there`s mandatory voting. It
would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money
more than anything. It would completely change the political map in this


SCHULTZ: I`ve often thought, why can`t we vote on the internet, we bank on
the internet, vote on the internet? Be easy to get everybody to vote.

Our democracy is only made stronger when more people participate President
Obama`s idea, well, I didn`t sit too well with one 2016 Republican hopeful.


RUBIO: Not voting is also a legitimate choice that some people make. I
wish more people would participate in politics too but that is there choice
that is the choice of living in a free society.


SCHULTZ: Not voting, is that an advocate there for not voting?
Republicans know their out of touch with American people. Instead of
coming up with policies that better address the issues, they were strict
access to the voting booth and discourage broader participation. That`s
not what a democratic free society looks like.

Joining me tonight, former Ohio State Senator, Nina Turner. Nina, good to
have you with us tonight.


SCHULTZ: I mean this is just falls right in line with all of the fights
that you have had in Ohio when you talk about getting people out of vote.
Now, Rubio is saying it`s a good idea not to vote and it`s a choice what do
you make of that?

TURNER: Ed, this is laughable but it is sad to have someone that runs for
office for a living that relies on people to come up to vote, to say that
it is a legitimate choice not to vote and a representative democracy. And
the fact that he said that he wish more people would vote, I wish he would
get that memo out to his Republican colleagues and legislators and
Secretary States offices all over this country that he would have said to
them very clearly stop suppressing the vote.

But he and members of his party know that when fewer people vote they win.
It is pretty undemocratic what he had to say about voting but his true
colors are being revealed, and for someone that maybe...


TURNER: ... potential president or candidate is just sad all the way
around, Ed.

SCHULTZ: And what do you -- who would benefit from compulsory voting? I
mean if there was mandatory voting in this country and you`re a United
States citizen, you got to vote, who benefits?

TURNER: The people. The people benefit, Ed. I mean the more people that
vote, the more we have folks who represent their will. So if you care
about wage, wage, wage, wages being increase, you need to vote education
for your children, pay sick time. You got to vote. Women make it dollar
for dollar as a man, you would vote. The citizens of this country would
benefit from voting and I`m glad.

SCHULTZ: Do you think Republicans are scared of that? Do you think
they`re afraid of that?

TURNER: Oh, absolutely, Ed, and you know exactly what they did in the
state of Ohio. They continue to put up barriers to democracy all around
this country and states like Ohio was no different as they took away golden
(inaudible) as you know, took away opportunities, sue, you know, few states
sued all the way to United States Supreme Court to takeaway the last three
days of voting.

They are scared of the people because they know that people power beats
money every single time. And be in a city club listening to the President,
talk about the merits of voting was very powerful and he also said that my
Department of Justice will be there.


Turner: I hope to see President Obama talk more about that every time he
gives a speech about the power of the vote.

Ed, I agree...

SCHULTZ: Me too.

TURNER: ... with 99.9 percent of what he said but that TPP, Ed, stay on
it. Stay on it. You mentioned it yesterday, stay on it. We cannot have

SCHULTZ: All right, I will. And I appreciate that. Nina Turner, former
State Senator of Ohio, keep up the fight my friend.

TURNER: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: There`s another executive order that has been signed by the
President. I`m all about it. I think it`s the right thing to do that
deals with climate.

Lot more coming on the Ed show, stay with us. We`ll be right back.

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

Stocks end with the red, the Dow slides 117 points, the S&P falls 10, the
NASDAQ up by 9.

The number American filing first-time jobless claims rose by a by a skit
(ph) 1,000 last week to 291,000 holding well below the key 300,000 level.

Today was Apple`s first day trading as part of the Dow. Shares finish down
nearly 1 percent.

And Google Intel and Tag Heuer are teaming up on a smart watch. It`s
expected to be in stores later this year.

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



OBAMA: We`re proving that it is possible to grow our economy robustly,
while at the same time, doing the right thing for our environment and
tackling climate change in a serious way.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show.

U.S. lawmakers are taking several major steps in the battle against climate

First off, let`s look at California. That state is tightening up water
restrictions for its residence. The nations most populated state had its
driest January since record keeping began back in 1895. Some residents,
obviously, are worried.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this goes on a few more years and people we`ll have
no choice, there won`t be any water.

SCHULTZ: Earlier today, Governor Jerry Brown of California announces some
emergency drought legislation prohibiting certain water use.

JERRY BROWN, GOVERNOR, CALIFORNIA: This struggle and it`s going to be
something we have to live with for, how long, we`re not sure. We got to
have the recycling, the storage, the efficiencies and there`s more to do


SCHULTZ: Next President Obama is ordering the government to slash its
output of greenhouse gases by 40 percent.

The executive order also ramps up the use of renewable energy sources to 30
percent of the federal governance consumption.


OBAMA: Last year, the federal government used less energy than anytime in
the past four decades. These are ambitious goals but we know that there
achievable goals.


SCHULTZ: The White House says if taxpayers could save up to $18 billion in
electricity cost by reducing greenhouse gases by 40 percent over the next

Joining me tonight Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Senator, great
to have you with us tonight.

I want your reaction, if I could, the President Obama`s executive order, is
this going to be a game changer of sorts and should there be more of it?

EDWARD MARKEY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: I think what the President is saying by
reducing greenhouse gases by 40 percent that the federal government would
have otherwise omitted over the next 10 years.

He is saying to China, he`s saying to India, he`s saying to other countries
in the world, the government of the United States is dead serious about
this issue. And when the world meets in Paris, in December of this year,
to put together a global agreement, the president is saying the United
States will be able to seat at the table which credibility...


MARKEY: ... of because of this panoply of things which the President is
now doing.

SCHULTZ: Well, this country seems to be dealing with deniers far more than
anybody else on the globe. And I hear that you just came straight from a
meeting with Prince Charles about climate change. What do you talk about?

MARKEY: Well, Prince Charles of course in Great Britain has been a voice
for dealing with climate change because of it`s impact on the health of
individuals on the planet, impact on the poorest countries in the world,
and he analogizes it to a sick planet, where there are no emergency rooms
for sick planets.

And as a result, we have to put the preventative measures in place in order
to deal with it, and that`s wind, and solars, energy conservation, it`s
much more efficient vehicles that we drive. And it`s all there to be done.

And the Prince mentioned mere strongly that we could create massive numbers
of jobs. In other words, we can save all of creation while engaging in
massive job creation. It`s not a choice, you could do both in the United
States under President Obama is proving that that is possible.

SCHULTZ: Senator Markey, great to have you with us tonight. I`d
appreciate your time so much.

Let me bring in now Tiernan Sittenfeld who is the Senior Vice President of
Government Affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, also with us
tonight Jon Wood, President of CoalBlue Project. Great to have both of you
with us.

Mr. Wood, your thoughts on what the President`s doing taking this action,
the executive order action to limit what we`re going to be saying as a big

JON WOOD, PRES. COALBLUE PROJECT: Well, Ed, thank you very much for having
me here tonight. I really appreciate it.

As you know, the CoalBlue Project is a coalition of Democrats who are both
advocates for coal but also, somewhat most -- some people find it
surprising. We are also advocates for real action on climate.

And the point that we consequently strive to make is that, we`ve got to be
realistic about how we`re going to approach this issue, and that there are
essentially three legs to the climate stool.

We need to increase energy efficiency as Senator Markey just said. We also
need an increase or use of non-fossil fuels, so again as Senator Markey
said, renewables and nuclear


WOOD: But the third leg of the stool that is largely being ignored today
is the development and deployment of technologies that can manage the
carbon, mitigate the carbon from fossil fuels, from coal and natural gas,
and that`s carbon capturing storage. And our main point is, if we`re going
to be serious about climate change we need to get serious about CCS.

SCHULTZ: All right. Tiernan, what about that what Jon just said? There`s
a lot of Democrats who say there is no clean coal that it shouldn`t be in
the equation. What about this?

feeling is that we have relied on coal and oil for far too long. And we
really applaud today`s action from President Obama. It`s trilling to see
him continue to show such leadership and confronting the climate crisis.

I think one of the things that particularly exciting about today`s
announcement is that, the President is partnering with some of the biggest
companies in the world like IBM and G.E. who are taking steps to cut their
own carbon pollution.

So this is win, win, win as you note it. This is going to save tax payers
billions of dollars. Clearly, this is good for company`s bottom lines in
addition to being very important for protecting the planet, doing what`s
right for future generations.

So we`re really excited about it all around.

SCHULTZ: I mean, Mr. Wood, is there clean coal. I mean coal is dirty,
isn`t it? And it just seems like the Democrats who are pro-coal have got
coal-fired plants in their backyard. I mean there`s an election equation
on this too, your response to that.

WOOD: Well, one keep in mind, those coal-fired plants are across the
country. We still get 40 percent of our electricity from coal. The world
gets 40 percent of its electricity from coal. And there is such a thing as
clean coal.

One in terms of criteria pollutants, we dramatically, dramatically lowered
those -- emissions over the last several decades even as the use of coal
has risen, dramatically.

But again, we just comeback to the reality, coal is going to be with us for
decades. Ed, if you take the International Energy Agency and their world
energy outlook from 2014. They project after 2040.

And in there 450 scenario which is they are climate stabilization scenario,
how do we keep carbon emissions or concentrations of 40 parts or 50 parts
per million.

They project out that coal will still be the third largest fuel in the
world in 2040. But here is the key...

SCHULTZ: Well, if that`s the case...

WOOD: ... 80 percent of that (inaudible) on their model has to have carbon
capture and storage. And if we don`t have technology, it blows a whole in
how we address the climate issue.


SCHULTZ: We have made advances, there`s no question about it.

We have made advances and the carbon sequestration, no question about it.
I`ve seen into Dakota`s, no doubt. But if we`re at that point, 40 years
from now, we could be in real trouble. I mean it`s the emissions, even
within the computer model, there isn`t clean coal. We got to find other --
I`m not saying that coal is not a part of the equation but the energy
package is going to have to become much more diversified that it is right

Jon, we`re going to have you back. Jon Wood and also Tiernan Sittenfeld.
Good to have you with us tonight. Thank you so much.

Coming up, agnosia, a look at the post-Citizens United World political add
blitz (ph), and how it shaping up the country.

Stay with us, we`re back.


SCHULTZ: Two-minute drill tonight, we got two big upsets in the

14-seed University of Alabama Birmingham knocks off number 3-seed Iowa
State, 60-59, "Whooh".

NLA (ph) three-pointer put 14-Seed Georgia State on top of number 3-seed
Baylor, 57-56. Baylor you`re gone. Madness continues tomorrow with
another 16 games on the schedule.

Ed Show, coming right back at you, we`ll be right back.



SEN. JONI ERNST, (R) IOWA: I`m Joni Ernst. I grew up castrating hogs on
an Iowa farm.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vote like your safety depends on it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know I`m stock with Barack for two more years.

SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, we`re seeing more political ads flooding the
airwaves than ever before

You can thanks Citizens United. Unlimited cash means unlimited

And a group led by the University of Delaware took a look at local
television newscast in Philadelphia and the numbers are simply staggering.

In the final eight weeks before the 2014 elections, viewer saw 45 times
more political ads than actual stories on political issues. That means for
every minute of political news coverage, viewers got 45 minutes of paid

Local television station owners are benefiting from Citizens United in
their own way. There is more money in political campaigns that ever before
and they`re taking home the overwhelming majority of it.

During the 2012, presidential campaign election, election local television
stations received over $2.9 billion, a whopping 80 percent of political ad

And with numbers like that, the authors of the study say, "Journalism never
had a fighting chance."

Joining me tonight, two great journalists, James Warren, D.C. Bureau Chief
for the New York Daily News, also with us tonight is Jonathan Alter.

Gentlemen, great to have you with us. He was a fabulous author I might


SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, were you surprised by this? Jim Warren, you first,
your thoughts on these numbers.

JIM WARREN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: Staggering but I also know that political
reality has always been bought and the only difference has been the means
of trying to divide where there was initially in newspapers, in radio,
targeted direct mail, television, and now the internet. And quality
journalism has always been dwarf and never really truly had a chance.

What are the differences today? I think, partly is result to Citizens
United, the staggering songs that, you know, you just alluded to. And if
it`s possible when you go look at local station coverage. You know, that
painting with two broader brush (ph) looks like actually have lesser and
lesser political coverage as you`ve got, I think, a new species of -- local
T.V. consultants and news directors believing that politics is boring. And
just opting for the tried and true formula and you know as well, of
crashes, and murders, and hail stories, and sports, and weather with
smiling Bob and Sally and there you go.


WARREN: And the assumption is that folks aren`t interested in this nitty-
gritty stuff. I think it`s erroneous but adds the market place reality.

SCHULTZ: And Jonathan, isn`t there a real potential problem here that all
of a sudden, the sales department starts running the local news department,
that maybe we might not want to run this story or stations might be a
little bit more reluctant to run something negative because this candidate
might be spending a lot of money on a certain market on a certain T.V.
station. What about that?

they`re not running there many political stories anyway and they don`t like
negative stories that much anyway, I don`t worry so much about that.

I want to look at the glass half full for a second because the statistics
are depressing.

The younger generation isn`t watching local news. So, you know, what`s
happening is that these T.V. ads are becoming a part of the past of
American politics.

The future is internet ads. This is the way they do it in Israel
interestingly in this most recent election. You know, it`s all Facebook
ads. And then, what happens is, if your ad isn`t clever enough, it doesn`t
cut through and rather than it success being dependent on how much money is
put behind it.

With the internet the success of the ads depends on how clever the ads are.
So that`s at least a marginal improvement that we are moving toward. That
doesn`t mean that, you know, we don`t have a -- trouble with big money in
politics, not small...


ALTER: ... money donations but the big money that (inaudible) who give
$100 million...


ALTER: ... Huge problem, they`re buying our politicians but in terms of
the ad, I think, we`re in for some improvement here since local T.V. is
moving into our past.

SCHULTZ: James, what about influence? Do these ads work?

WARREN: Yeah. I think they do. I mean the people are spending all that
money, aren`t total it is. They also they`ll also don`t know that on
despite with Jonathan says about, you know, societal trends effect is most
Americans have most of their news from local T.V. stations.

Unfortunately, they don`t get it from, you know, sophisticated folks
(inaudible) and host on the cable television. They get it from local
television news.

And whether it`s to appeal, rather overtly to your base or to attempt to
sway what maybe increasingly passive ignorant electorate, it`s having
clearly some impact and a fascinating test case as you guys can appreciate.
Jon being from Chicago is going to be April 7th, when we have the run off
between Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a fellow, Ed, that you had on air even with


WARREN: ... a week or so ago, Chuy Garcia. Rahm, is, you know, now
surprise spending millions and millions on television ads.

Garcia doesn`t have much. If Rahm Emanuel wins, they`ll be the perception
that probably it had something to do with jacking up turnout on his behalf
for raising questions about the competence of Chuy Garcia. I mean, if
Garcia wins, it`ll raise some real questions about the limits of such
seemingly limitless television spending.

ALTER: Just all the growth though, Jim, is in people getting their news
from the internet. Not necessarily from cable or from newspapers but
online. That it`s surging and the number of people getting it from local
T.V. news is going down.

For all those potential candidates out there, the really crazy thing is
when they hire consultants that take a percentage of the media by any
candidate who does that instead of paying a flatfish that is head examine
because those guys have a real vested interest in running up the totals on
the media (inaudible).

In local elections, you know, it`s always going to be very important but in
this national elections, they were covering is presidential elections.
Fortunately, the impact of television ads is coming down.

SCHULTZ: OK. James Warren and Jonathan Alter, I appreciate the time

ALTER: Pleasure.

SCHULTZ: Thanks for joining us on the Ed Show.

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

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good evening,


<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2015 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

The Ed Show Section Front
Add The Ed Show headlines to your news reader:

Sponsored links

Resource guide