Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Wednesday, March 18th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: March 18, 2015
Guest: John Garamendi, Paul Douglas, Peter Gleick, Scott Paul, Keith
Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Leo Gerard, David Brock, Irina Vilarino, Mitch
Ceasar, Bart Chilton

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Miami.

Let`s get to work.


SCHULTZ: Tonight.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Another record breaking heat day.

fire, literally, hottest year on record.

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: There`s been zero warming, none whatsoever.



OBAMA: What we`re seeing right now is a failure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) to new age (ph).

OBAMA: A failure to invest in education, infrastructure, research, to
national defense.

SCHULTZ: And later.

have to think like a winner.

And I think I`ll beat Hillary. I understand Hillary, I know Hillary.


OBAMA: This going to be the year, guys. I`m winning the poll.


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

We start this evening with climate change in some numbers that are steering
America right in the face.

California`s worst drought in 1,200 years is making water, the most viable
asset in the state of California. A report out this week shows California
could have one year of reservoir water remaining.

Water prices are responding. That`s right. Water prices are surging in
Southern California to record breaks. And it`s going to affect the
agriculture community.

Farmers in Southern California could spend up to $700 per acre-foot of
water. There are about 326,000 gallons in each acre-foot. So do the math.
So California is doing something about it.

On Tuesday, the state approved new water restrictions. The new rules
require Water Departments to restrict the number of days residents can
water lounge.

Homeowners are ban from using sprinklers on days when it rains and two days

It`s not just California. A number of western states are seeing record
warm temperatures. For instance, Monday brought record hit to the city of
Denver, Colorado at 80 degrees. It was the earliest 80-degree day on

Lincoln, Nebraska saw the earliest 90-degree day on record. Sioux City,
Iowa was in the club. They hit 90 degrees making it the earliest 90-degree
day on record for them.

New England is also setting records. Boston, officially, had a records
snowfall this winter. Through Sunday, 108.6 inches of snow had fallen.
It`s the most snow since records began in 1872.

Overall, 2014 was the warmest year ever recorded.

Now last summer, Washington, the state saw their largest wildfire ever.

Record after record, continues to be broken in this environment, severe
temperature, severe storms, snow numbers -- unbelievable.

Droughts are happening, fires, water prices are responding. You name it,
it`s happening.

Meanwhile, where are the Republicans? Well, they`re saying stuff like


CRUZ: As I just came back from New Hampshire where there`s snow and ice
everywhere. And my view actually is simple. Debates on this should follow
science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on global
warming, they`ve got a problem because the science doesn`t back them up.
And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years,
there`s been zero warming, none whatsoever.


SCHULTZ: Ted Cruz is simply denying science.

Ninety-seven, get that number now folks, 97 percent of climate scientist
agree warming trends are due to human activity.

Cruz and the rest of the Republican Party don`t care about research or
facts. They`ll throw out whatever they can. The consequences of inaction
could be dire especially in Antarctica. It`s a chain reaction.

A new report released on Monday from Nature Geoscience shows the Totten
Glacier is at risk. Scientists have discovered water, warm water troughs
that are eroding the glacier from below. It`s accelerating the melting
process faster than scientist originally thought what happen. And if the
90 by 22 miles section of glacier collapsed, it would rise water levels and
bring them up 11 feet.

Now, scientists think that we could be hundreds of years away from this
happening, but the way things are unfolding, the -- computer model are
being thrown out in the window. Regardless, a collapse would devastate the

Now, while Republicans deny science, other countries are responding. You
may consider China a competitor in many respects.

Well, China is going solar and they`re making a commitment. China raised
their solar target for 2015. They`ve promised to add over two times as
much capacity as the United States added last year. They`ve plan to
install nearly 17.8-gigawatt of solar projects in the coming year, 2015.

Back in the United States, what are we doing? Republicans are fighting
solar in the name of big oil. Again, we are behind the curve. And if
we`re going to do anything about these extreme weather patterns and what
it`s doing to our economy, we need to wake up.

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

Tonight`s question, "Should the United States match China`s commitment to
solar power?" Text A for Yes, test B for No to 676622. We have the
results later on in the show.

For more on the situation in California which is dire, I want to bring in
Congressman John Garamendi of California who is a professional rancher, who
is also the former Insurance Commissioner in California and former
Lieutenant Governor. He knows the story.

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Ted, thank you for sounding the
alarm. You could not be more right about what`s happening around this
globe and more right about what`s happening in California.

It is a very serious situation in California, and about every other state
on the western side of this United States. It is a huge problem and it`s
here now.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, there is a domino effect here. It`s now affecting
the resources, it`s now affecting the economy, have you ever that this is
bad and what do you think the future is? Will California come out of this
or is this the way it is?

GARAMENDI: Well, the way it is, is there`s going to be less water
available in the future. We`ve known this since the mid `90s. I was
Deputy Secretary at the Department of Interior. We were studying these
issues. We sounded the alarm there.

I headed to Kyoto Conference, came back to Washington and the Senate
refused to deal with the treaty coming out of Kyoto Conference.

But we knew then in the mid `90s that the snow levels in California and the
Rocky Mountains would decline simply because it was warmer that`ll be less

We knew then that the Colorado River and the Sacramento River and the San
Joaquin River would have less water. We knew then and we certainly know
today because it is here today. All of those predictions have come true.


GARAMENDI: We can do things and we must do them. Obviously, conservation
but we`re going to have to replenish our aquifers when there is rain.
We`re going to have to build storage systems. We`re going to have
seriously conserved and we`re going to have to recycle water all across
this United States and certainly along every state along the southern
boarder from Florida to California.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, what do you make of this high water prices? What is
this going to do to agriculture which is a huge industry in the state of
California? What do you make at the high water prices? Where is this

GARAMENDI: Well, I tell you what this doing to my cattle business, we sold
a third of our herd last year. We`re looking at this year. Fortunately,
my wife said, "We`re going to put every bale of hay we can in the barn
because this maybe needed." And indeed we probably will need it this
coming year.

For agriculture in California, we`ve already seen a multibillion dollar
reduction in values. We`re going to see more of that.

A third of the rise in my -- or 25% of the rise in my district was not
quite (ph) as last year, maybe a third this coming year.

We know that many of the permanent crops, almonds, walnuts that were
planted in those areas that were depended on surface water that did not
have groundwater. Those orchards are going to die.

It`s serious but we can deal with it because we are creative in California.
We`re looking at the new technologies, serious water conservation
technologies for agriculture.

Alfalfa fields are being irrigated with drip irrigation, not with
sprinkler, not with flood but rather with drip irrigation.


GARAMENDI: And most of the tomatoes in California are no longer -- the
sprinkler or flood there, on drip.

So we`re saving water everywhere we can. There`s more to be done and we
simply going to have to do more. That we`re resilient, we`re resilient
people but what is deadly is ignorance. The kind of...


GARAMENDI: ... ignorance that Senator Cruz had. That is absolutely deadly
both economically. And unfortunately, if you don`t pay attention to this
climate change, humans are going to suffer all around the world.

SCHULTZ: Congressman John Garamendi, good to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time.


SCHULTZ: Thank you so much.

Let me bring in Paul Douglas, Senior Meteorologist at Media Logic Group in
Minneapolis, Dr. Peter Gleick, President and Co-founder of the Pacific
Institute, and also with us tonight, Scott Paul, President of Alliance
American Manufacturing. Gentlemen, good to have you with us.

Paul, this warm temperature is out west. Explain it. Is this the way it`s
going to be?

of a warming climate, Ed, no question about that. And thank you for
inviting me on this evening.

We`re seeing some of the telltale signs of warming. It used to be said
that you can`t pin any one storm, any one event on climate change. But a
warmer climate is now flavoring all of events, some more that others.

And with all deference to Senator Cruz, he certainly doesn`t speak on
behalf of all Republicans. I think he is, you know, he`s heart maybe in
the right place but he`s getting some bad information and some bad advice
more than...

SCHULTZ: Paul, how could 97 percent of the scientists be wrong?

DOUGLAS: Well, again, if you go to the Internet you can find anything to
support anything. There`s an echo chamber on the Internet...


DOUGLAS: I read it on Internet, it must be true but people are many times
repeating conspiracy theories that have been disproved. And there is a
mountain of evidence that shows that, yes, atmospheric temperatures have
plateaued somewhat over the last 15 years, but 90 percent of the warming,
Ed, is going to the oceans.


DOUGLAS: How many coincidences do you need, 14 of the 15 warmest years
have been since 1998, last year was the warmest year worldwide. The last
12 months have been the warmest on record. The oceans are incredibly warm
and that may have had an impact on Cyclone Pam being an off the scale
Category 5. So we`re seeing more symptoms...


DOUGLAS: ... of this warming and, you know, not all Republicans are in

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Now I...

DOUGLAS: That`s the one thing I want to mention.

SCHULTZ: Yes. He does not speak for all Republicans nor does he speak
with any science experience whatsoever.

Dr. Gleick, this water prices going up in California, it`s now affecting
the economy. There`s some desperation taking place. Your thoughts on
this, what is California have to do at this point?

PETER GLEICK, PACIFIC INSTITUTE: Well, we`re clearly in a terrible drought
and as Paul has mentioned, it`s clearly influenced by climate change.

The last three years and now our fourth year in the row of drought (ph),
not just been extraordinarily dry they`ve been extraordinarily hot. And
there impacts on agriculture, there impacts on our cities, there impacts on
our ecosystems. We`re going to have to learn to manage our water in a
different climate. We`re going to have become more efficient. We`re going
to have to learn how to grow more food with less water and satisfy our
domestic needs with less water.

This is going to be a serious challenge in climate change makes all of our
water challenges which we`ve had for decades much worst that they`ve been.

SCHUTLZ: Well, Dr. Gleick, what if this keeps up? I mean the measures
that the folks in Sacramento took yesterday. I mean, watering lawns in a
certain day, responding and not using the sprinkler after it rains for a
couple a days. I mean that`s really just scratching the surface isn`t it?
I mean, if you look at this temperatures if they continue on.

GLEICK: No. That`s absolutely right. We`re not doing enough. We should
have done more last year and the year before, and we should we doing more

If the drought continues, we`re going to see more land come out of
production as Congressmen Garamendi mentioned. We`re going to see more of
impacts on our fisheries and our ecosystems and aren`t getting the water
they need.

The truth is, we should be probably be getting rid of our lawns, not just
not watering them everyday of the week. We should be getting rid of our
lawns which...


GLEICK: ... in the Western U.S. take a huge amount of water. There are
things that we can do to reduce the amount of water that we`re using and
still have the healthy economy in every sector but we`re not moving nearly
as aggressively, we have to give in the changed in climate and this bad

SCHULTZ: And of course, this all connects to the energy sector and the
capturing of green house gases and trying to be as clean as we possibly

America, in a sense, should be embarrassed that we`re watching the Chinese
make this kind of investment and we stand here and fight solar in Congress
time and time again.

Scott Paul, from an investment standpoint what the Chinese have decided to
do how far is this going to put us behind the curve?

very far behind the curve. China already exports about 95 percent of its
solar production, and I look for that to expand unless we change our game.

And look, we should have a comparative advantage in solar. We invented the
technology a generation ago. We have some of the best sun worldwide, some
of the best natural resources in order to do this. Yet, we`re behind
countries like Germany and China. And as precisely, Ed, because we lack
that manufacturing strategy, and we lack those incentives, and we`ve seen
states even some northeastern states that you wouldn`t think would be solar
leaders like New Jersey, Massachusetts that have the right incentives in
place that enable to attract some solar manufacturing as well as some solar

We can afford to let this industry escape because we have some
entrepreneurs that are betting on it as well. I just want to example, Ed,
Elon Musk, one of the most amazing entrepreneurs on the planet today, has
doubled down on renewable. He`s building a new battery plant for Tesla in
Nevada which has great solar resources, is going to be largely powered by
renewable sources including solar. And it just shows that it can be done
and we need that entrepreneurial spirit to be reflected in government...


PAUL: ... policy. We need the trade policies, a good manufacturing
strategy and the right production incentives to make this work, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Well, is it states sponsored in China but it is the right move
and the free market is behind the curve here in this country. We got to
make it commitment. Paul Douglas, Peter Gleick and Scott Paul, gentlemen
thanks for the conversations tonight on this very important subject.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @edshow, like us on Facebook. You
can get my video podcast at and also selected comments there as

Next, the President`s takedown on the Republican budget. Plus, the Donald,
once again hired by America, we`ll talk about what is new exploratory
committee really means for the 2016 race.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you back with us.

The Republican House GOP budget is a direct jab at the middle-class and low
income Americans. President Obama slammed the proposal today in Cleveland.


OBAMA: Lower taxes for the most well-off, higher taxes for working
families, gutted investments in education, job training, infrastructure,
military and our national security, kicking tens of millions of Americans
off their health insurance, ending Medicare as we know it.


SCHULTZ: The House says it could balance the budget in nine years, all at
the expense of Medicaid and food stamps. Medicare would be partially
privatized and corporations would get a hefty tax cut.

Over the Senate, the Republican`s budget isn`t as harsh. The Republicans
in the Senate are concerned about retaining seats in the 2016 elections so
they went easier on cuts and privatization.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY, (R) IOWA: Chairman Nancy has gone to Great Lakes (ph)
to produce a responsible budget, one that makes tough choices to protect
and safeguard the important Safety Net Programs.

SCHULTZ: Well, for Congressional Progressive Caucus is stepping up. The
CPC wants to protect food assistance programs and the corporate taxes fair.
Their budget came out today.

Joining me tonight is the Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, Congressman
Keith Ellison of Minnesota...


SCHULTZ: ... and also Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona. Gentlemen,
great to have you with us tonight. You first...

REP. RAUL GRIJALVA, (D) ARIZONA: Thank you to be here.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Congressman Grijalva, you first, is the House
Republican budget, is that ruthless or realistic? Could we do this in nine

GRIJALVA: It`s ruthless and it`s mean. Its mean (inaudible) this budget
doubles down on the practices for the last decade plus, breaks for the
super rich and corporate America. And shifting the burden of taxation and
the burden of everyday life to the middle-class and further aggravating
those that want to be part of the middle-class, the poor and the working

ELLISON: More and more.

GRIJALVA: Our budget is about jobs, it`s about those families and it`s
about taking care of the vast majority of American people.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Ellison, what does the progressive caucus view as a
budget that would set itself apart from the President and also the

ELISSON: Well, our primary measurement for what we think makes a good
budget is job creation. So where 8.4 million jobs by 2018, that`s not a
number we pulled up out of the sky, that the Economic Policy Institute, you
know, use their fancy computers and that is the number we come up with --
with the $820 billion investment that we put in infrastructure to make sure
that our roads and our bridges aren`t falling into the rivers and we`re not
bust in water mains and things like that.

We`re putting America back to work. We also put $95 billion into helping
local governments put workers back on who were lost in the recession like
teachers, like police officers, like firefighters, like, you know, heath
workers and people like that...


ELISSON: ... who really just kind of make the city go right.

So we make the proper investments to make America strong. And if don`t
mind me adding this, Ed, you know, we do a Universal Pre-K for the little
ones, and we do make down payment on higher education for free higher
education so that people can go all the way through.

SCHULTZ: You know, the Republicans view this as just wasteful spending.
Congressman Grijalva, do they have investment in their budget as you see

GRIJALVA: No. They`re working on that theory, a bankrupt theory that
every would triple down from the breaks that the super rich incorporations
are getting, that the rest of us are going to inherit something. But the
fact to the matter is that everything has gotten worse and the middle-
class, their insecurity about the future is very real.

As Keith said, this is an investment. This is a budget about prosperity
and growing this nation. The austerity that we`ve seen for a decade plus
from Republicans has produced great wealth for the upper 1 percent.


GRIJALVA: Great wealth for corporations but the rest of America finds its
job stagnant and its salary stagnant.

SCHULTZ: It`s more of the same. There is no question about it.

Congressman Ellison, tell us about the climate change provision. There is
nothing in the Republican budget that deals to anything with climate change
and after our opening segment tonight, it`s amazing that they can even deny
what the heck is going on in this country and also view what Chian is
doing. But tell about the climate change provision in your budget.

ELLISON: Well, what we do is we say that the big, you know, gas and oil
and Metro Gas folks that they shouldn`t have public subsidy. They are
profitable industry, they`re doing fine. They should just operate within
the market like the Republicans think they should.

So we just take this subsidy away, we don`t penalize them. And we take
them -- and instead of putting the money there, we put it into trying to
deal with climate change in making...


ELLISON: ...sure that we`re doing things. I think we have a carbon tax,
we do put a price on carbon. And we promote green and renewable investment
but we have bill called the End Polluter Welfare Act and we have put that
bill into our bill which is basically just to take subsidy away from big
oil or big gas and so that`s what we were doing.

SCHULTZ: And finally gentlemen, I`ve got to get a comment from you.

The President in Cleveland today talking about jobs, talking about
investment yet...


SCHULTZ: ... his trade negotiator, Mr. Froman, and his Labor Secretary Mr.
Perez were holding a secret meeting at the White House, security meetings
at the White House on Trade Promotional Authority in the TPP, and I know
that your caucus is against this deal.


SCHULTZ: Congressman Grijalva, wasn`t this a day of mixed messages?

GRIJALVA: Well, there is a contradiction there and as Keith can amplify.
We`re opposed to the fast-track. We think, we -- as members of Congress we
have to have a role of protecting jobs here in America, the environment.
And for all the nations involved, raising the standard of living and
helping all. But work for trade, that has to be fair and that`s to be
balanced and fast-track doesn`t do it. And the agreement overall without


GRIJALAVA: ... substitute changes is not going to work.

SCHULTZ: And Congressman Ellison, is this an 11th-hour sell job by the
President as an administration, what was this today?

ELLISON: Well, you know, they`re -- I think they`re nervous about getting
these things passed. I mean, everybody in Congress has seen trade deals
that promised a lot and gave very, very little in fact actually took


ELLISON: No. They are not there so they were a little worried. But you
know what? Look, we`re not worried about trade but we are worried about
bad investment deals that offshore...


ELLISON: ... America jobs and stagnant our wages and we`re going to
support that even though the President is good on jobs and good on a few
other things. We can`t go with him on this, even though we are supporting
him on a whole lot of other things.

SCHULTZ: Stand tall, gentlemen. Do that. I appreciate it.

GRIJALVA: Yes, sir.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Keith Ellison...

ELLISON: Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Raul Grijalva...

GRIJALVA: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: ... Good to have both of you with us tonight. Thanks so much.

And we`re going to get more comment on this. Leo Gerard joins us after the
break, more on that story. And later, President Obama gets a case of March
Madness. He says, "Who`s going to go all the way." We`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: President Obama wants fast-track authority so we could rubber-
stamp what I think is a lousy trade deal.

Today, the Obama administration held a classified briefing at the White
House on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

In the meantime, the President was speaking in Cleveland about
manufacturing. Ironically, this trade deal would jeopardize the vary
people in jobs that he was talking to today in Cleveland.

For more on this, Leo Gerard, International President of the Steelworkers
Union. Mr. Gerard, is this 11th-hour? I mean the votes aren`t there in
the White House knows it, how else can we read these meetings?

nervous and part of the reason they`re so nervous, Ed, is the facts don`t
support the trade deal. They don`t support fast-track.

Every trade deals that`s been passed by fast-track has resulted in net job
losses as resulted in trade deficit.

One of the numbers needed the Democrats who support trade deals or the
Republicans talked about is the accumulated trade debt that America`s had
since those go back (ph) to the passage of NAFTA.

Ed, the accumulated trade debt from these trade deals including PNTR with
China, is an excess of $7 trillion. Our traded deficit with China is
multitude at trillions of dollars.

China`s a cheater. South Korea is a cheater. The trade deals don`t work.


GERARD: And if we try to enforce the bad trade deals even then, we got to
lose jobs to prove where we`re injured so...

SCHULTZ: So do you think the administration`s deal making right now with
some lawmakers?

GERARD: I think that there is a lot of nervousness. I think there is a
lot of saying "If you do this, I`ll do that." And the fact to the matter
is that I speak for the labor movement at this moment because at our
executive council, we unanimously agreed.


GERARD: Unanimously agreed that we would oppose this trade deal.
Progressive movements, women`s movements, environmental movements, we`ve
seen the results, Ed.

These trade deals aren`t about tariffs. They are about to free flow of
capital and for multinational corporations may able to go and produce
wherever the heck they want.


GERARD: It has nothing to do with tariffs.

SCHULTZ: The bottom line here is the base of President Obama`s election is
telling him not do this yet, he keeps moving forward with it in one set

GERARD: Yes. There`s...

SCHULTZ: ... and he can`t sell one union, not one union in this country
will side with the President on this deal. This is almost unprecedented,
isn`t it?

GERARD: Ed, yeah. It`s unprecedented for the labor movement. Let`s go
beyond that.

The environmental movement is unified. The women`s movement is unified.
The anti-poverty movement is unified. And the fact to the matter is,
there`s a culture in Washington that somehow these trade deals, you`ll hear
the trade ambassador talk about how our exports have gone up but you never
hear them talking about what`s happen to imports.


GERARD: Imports in many cases have doubled. The steel industry had a 33
percent increase in export from countries like China, India and South Korea
and they don`t play by the rules. They don`t have a business plan.

So if we sell steel for $1, they`ll sell it for $0.90. So then, how do you
win against that and the trade deals don`t help the trade lost?

SCHULTZ: And this trade deal will only make it worse.

Leo Gerard, I appreciate your time tonight. Thanks so much.

GERARD: We got to fight on, Ed. We got to fight on.

SCHULTZ: Well, I don`t think they have the votes so that`s why that
meeting was held today at the White House.

The Donald is thinking about running again, that`s next. There`s a lot
more coming up in the Ed Show. Stay with us.

KATE ROGERS, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Kate Rogers with your CNBC Market

Stocks surge today with the Dow jumping 227 points back above the 18,000
mark. The S&P adding 25 points and the NASDAQ climb in 45.

The Federal Reserved wrapped up a two-day meeting today with Fed Chair
Janet Yellen saying just because the word patient was dropped from the
Central Bank statements does not mean it will be impatient about raising
interest rates.

And package shipper FedEx (inaudible) profits that beat estimate but
revenue fell short. Shares drop more than 1 percent today.

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


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The 2016 presidential field is starting to come into focus.

Despite the e-mail scandal, if you want to call it that, Hillary Clinton is
still dominating the filed.

New CNN ORC polling shows Clinton with the commanding lead over potential
Democratic rivals.

Clinton leads over Republican hopefuls by double digits.

Rand Paul is Clinton`s closest competitor in the new polling. He`s
planning to announce his presidential bid in the coming weeks about April

But the Kentucky Senator already has some stiff competition. A new
Republican challenger might throw his hat into the ring.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You`re going to run in 2016?

TRUMP: Well, I`m looking at it very seriously.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump forming an exploratory committee.

TRUMP: To be a winner, you have to think like winner.

If I run, I think I`ll win.

I would totally succeed in creating jobs.

I know what needs to be done to make America great again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, many people as I do who are skeptical (ph).

TRUMP: A lot of people think I`m doing this for fun.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They said you do this every so often to help yourself,
you have your business.

TRUMP: We have to build a fence and it`s got to be a -- you can built
better than Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It helps your name, get out there.

TRUMP: You need somebody perhaps that wrote The Art of the Deal. One of
the great -- this is the book of all time, I might...

I don`t want what happened to Mitt Romney to happen again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at Hillary Clinton versus the Republican candidate
at this point.

TRUMP: I think nobody would do a better job against her than I would.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rand Paul comes closest at 11 points.

TRUMP: I think she`s somebody that absolutely can be beaten but you have
to have the right person running.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 74 percent of Republican primary voters couldn`t see
themselves supporting him.

TRUMP: The numbers on the polls, I`m not sure that they mean very much.

You people are going to have to make your own choice. Who knows?


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight, David Brock, Founder and Chairman of the
board of Media Matters for America. Mr. Brock, good to have you with us


SCHULTZ: Let`s talk -- you bet. Let`s talk about this e-mail issue with

BROCK: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: Little or no impact with the voters as you had predicted, is this
a dead issue for 2016?

BROCK: Yeah. I think what this poll shows is a couple of things.

One, the publics looked at it and case closed. This poll shows that the
so-called scandal has had no political consequence and the public doesn`t
believe. It`s a factor.

Secondly, it shows that Democrats are rallying behind Hillary Clinton. If
anything her support is solidified in this poll, Democrats know that she is
the most formidable candidate. They could feel and they also know the
stakes are so high in this election that it`s too important to pay
attention to.


BROCK: ... a side show like these.

And three, I think it shows that the issue is not working for Jeb Bush.
He`s is trying to make an issue of this. He is actually down a bit in
supporting the Republican primaries since the last CNN polls, unfavorables
are high. And it`s not working for him in the Republican primary.

SCHULTZ: Is there going to be anybody else in the democratic field or is
this just going to be Hillary all the way. I mean if the numbers are what
they are and the fund raising is what it is, there`s a such a difference in
the amount of money that could potentially be raise, is this all Hillary`s

BROCK: Well we don`t know that, Ed, yet. There will be a small Democratic
process in the Democratic primary. But if the Republicans think that
they`re going to preemptively disqualify her and create some kind of an
opening in Democratic primary, I think these polls puts that to bed and
shows that that`s not the case.

SCHULTZ: All right. Trump, nobody ever takes him serious. But I will
take this about Trump as far as seriousness. The guy loves to win and he`s
a competitor.

BROCK: Sure.

SCHULTZ: Your thoughts on him, is he a different guy today than what he
was four or eight years ago?

BROCK: Yes. Well, see, I doubt it. I think he is, you know, no ones
watching Donald Trump, his ratings are terrible and he wants attention.
And frankly, you know, I hope he gets it.

I think that if he wants to make a mockery of the Republican process, last
time he did bringing up the Burter (ph) scandal, you know, then we`re not
going to stand in his way.

SCHULTZ: All right. David Brock, always a pleasure. Great to have you
with us tonight.

BROCK: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Thank you so much.

Joining me now is Mitch Ceasar Executive Board of the Democratic National
Committee, he`s a member of that also Irina Vilarino who is a Florida
businesswomen, who is in very successful in restaurants and in real estate.
And I love to talk to business people.

Irina, great to have you with us here tonight.


SCHULTZ: Donald Trump says he could create jobs. He would beat any of the
Democrats in that regard including Hillary. How do you as businessperson
respond to that?

VILARINO: I don`t disagree. I think he can create jobs. I think the
American people have to determine what type of president we want,
regardless of whether he can create jobs or be a politician for the past
20-something years that Hillary has been. That something the American
public has to determine.

Now, I don`t disagree one bit that he knows how to create jobs. He`s been
a businessman from very early on in his life and he has a track record to
prove it.

SCHULTZ: Does that impress you? I mean would that -- does that give the
Republican field something it doesn`t have?

VILARINO: I think we had a candidate similar to Donald Trump in the
business aspect than Mitt Romney. I think that as an American, I want a
well-rounded leader. I don`t solely want a businessman. I want a
businessman and I want it charismatic leader and I want somebody that be
shod (ph) in diplomacy. And I want somebody who has a certain ethical,
moral fiber to him as well.

SCHULTZ: Mitch Ceasar, is this going to be a sideshow or is Donald Trump
is serious player? Now, you can wipe that smile off your face.

MITCH CEASAR, DNC EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER: Listen, I think we all know that
Donald Trump is the political equivalent of P.T. Barnum. This is the
fourth time he is running. Maybe be the fourth time would be the charm, 75
percent of Republican primary voter said they would never consider voting
for him.

And I think, you know, he`s a smart guy. This is all about branding. You
know, how many time we say the words "celebrity apprentice" and then we
hear the "cash register".

I think the closest, honestly, he will come and I will slightly differ with
our other guest, in providing jobs, he will be adding more people on the
staff of his apprentice show.

This is about him having a good time. He`s not going to have any ability
to run to Hawaii for Burter (ph) information on the President. Maybe he`ll
go to Illinois and see if he can find the certificate proving that Hillary
Clinton in Illinois, you know, graduated junior high. That`s all he has.

SCHULTZ: All right. And Mitch, what about Hillary`s e-mails scandal? You
agree with Brock that this is over, there won`t be an issue and that this
is been a loser for Jed Bush, what about that?

CEASAR: Absolutely. You know, I`ll tell you an additional reason why.

First, as we`ve talked about here before, we don`t think it`s going to show
up in the polls and it clearly isn`t either on the Democratic or more
specifically the Republican side, but for another reason. When Republicans
attack Hillary on this tag of issue, and then they go out and have 47
Republican Senators send a letter to one of our enemies on the other side
of the world. They killed the Republican brand, they killed their
credibility not just on foreign affairs issues but on anything they say.

SCHULTZ: What about, Irina? Hillary Clinton, is she scared of this issue?

VILARINO: I can disagree more with the other guest, absolutely not. I
think there`s the jury still out on that, I think we haven`t enter the
election cycle full force, and there still a lot to be heard on that. I
think her basis obviously going to support her, that`s logical. But I
think the Independents and the people that are not so sure which way
they`re going to vote, I don`t think their minds -- have been made up yet.

SCHULTZ: Let`s say, it`s Jed Bush. Hillary-Jed Bush who wins Florida?


SCHULTZ: Really? Why?

VILARINO: Well because he was a great Governor of course.

SCHULTZ: You don`t agree with that Mitch?

CEASAR: Obviously not. I would be conservative and say, I think the race
is a toss-up. He was popular here but the more he attacks Hillary on
issues that he`s also guilty of like e-mails the less his credibility
remains. So I would call a toss-up at this point.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mitch Ceasar and Irina Vilarino, great to have both
of you with us tonight, I appreciate it so much.

Oil prices continue to drop no one knows how far they`ll go but our next
guest we`ll give us a pretty good idea what the landscape is.

Stay with us, we`ll be right back.


SCHULTZ: Tonight in two-minute drill, March Madness, Presidential Style.
I like it when the President does this? I think it`s pretty cool, regular
guy. No doubt about it.

He filled out his bracket today, this morning on ESPN. He`s got Kentucky
going all the way undefeated. President predicted Wildcats would the first
team that go undefeated since Bobby Knight`s team did it `76 at Indiana.

OBAMA: It`s nice to be in just a little bit of the underdog because they
have less pressure on you. On the other hand, there`s a reason there with
the (inaudible). They are really good team...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This could be the year guys, I`m winning the poll.

SCHULTZ: All right. It`s important to know the President has picked the
big winner once before. Let`s see if he can (inaudible) again this year.

Next up, 16-seed will take on the President`s top pick of course.

Hampton University defeated Manhattan at 74-66 which means they move on to
play Kentucky in the next round. History is not on Hampton side, never
before has 16-seed defeated the number 1 seed.

Earlier in the week, TV Commentator Reggie Miller said that it wouldn`t
take divine intervention for Kentucky not to win the national championship.
So when Hampton Head Coach Edward Joyner Jr. was asked, how his team
welfare against the Wildcats, he made a very special call.


EDWARD JOYNER JR., HAMPTON HEAD COACH: Hey, Jesus. I want to know how
much of a mountain and what our odds are.




SCHULTZ: Calling the man upstairs, let`s hope there was a good connection.

That`s our two-minute drill. Stay with us, lots more coming up on the Ed
Show. We will be right back.


SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, Republicans are still paddling the "drill
baby drill" doctrine. Well, they`re going to have to find a new slogan.

We have pumped so much oil in this country. We don`t have enough space to
store it.

The record supply of U.S. crude has sent prices tumbling. After rebounding
slightly over the past month, prices hit a six-year load. Today, crude
closed just over $44 a barrel, the lowest level since March of 2009.

Citibank and Goldman Sachs have said oil could tumble as low as $20 a
barrel. This is all about supply exceeding the demand. U.S. crude stock
pile have hit in record highs for 10 weeks in a row.

According to numerous released today, the United States energy information
administration the U.S oil inventories rose by 9.6 million barrels last
week to more than 458 million barrels. It prompted concerns that some
areas could run out of space to store the oil.

Bottom line, the market has been weighed down by a supply glut and it`s
pushing prices down with it.

World oil prices have collapsed by about 60 percent since last June.
Meanwhile, at the pump, where is the break? Americans are still paying an
average of $2.42 a gallon of regular gas.

Joining me tonight, Bart Chilton, former CFTC Commissioner and Senior
Policy Advisor at DLA Piper.

Bart, good to have you with us tonight, always good to get your insight on
this oil market. What`s going on here and what`s going to happen?

BART CHILTON, FMR. CFTC COMMISSIONER: Well, it was amazing, Ed, because
people fought when oil was down in the `50s. That that might be sort of a
leveling out the bottom and then as you say, we`re down 44 now. It was
down to 42 just a couple of days ago.

Oil is taking a 15 percent drop just in two weeks. So it`s sort of a new
bottom in recent times and to me, you know, that`s good for consumers. You
know, the traveling public and so many things are moved by transportation
that`s good for consumers but it may spell some trouble for companies, oil
companies, et cetera, in the future.

SCHULTZ: Well, it`s also jobs, we know that. There`s going to have to be
a balancing X (ph) somewhere, but where is this going to bottom out and how
long do you think oil is going to be in this neighborhood?

CHILTON: Well, you know, you read the folks that I do too. Goldman Sachs
says it`s going to go down. Most of the experts that I rely on tell me
that this is sort of the low. But I`m not an energy expert with regard to
the exact prices. I`m working from a regulatory perspective. But the guys
that I trust say that this is sort of the low.

SCHULTZ: Well, you have called for speculative position limits. Explain
what that would do and why the CFTC hasn`t put them in place? And if they
were, what would that be doing to the market right now?

CHILTON: Well, Ed, you and I had been talking about oil prices for years
back when it was $147 a barrel, a far cry from $44 today. And my
contention was and still remains that there were large speculators that
were pushing the price up. Because at that time, the supply was fairly
constant, not a large over supply like we have today. And -- or I`m sorry,
the demand was fairly constant. The supply was increasing yet prices were
going up. The prices were going up but it didn`t make any economic sense.

But having some control, some speculative limits on these large
institutions that can actually move market is important to ensure that
prices are fair. Even when prices are low like today, you want to ensure
that the markets can`t be manipulated.


CHILTON: And it may surprise people some of viewers, Ed, but I saw one
trader with upwards of 20 percent in the crude oil market. Now, you know
as well as anybody else that can push prices around. So I think the agency
were my former agency has been irresponsible in not getting it done. I
hope they do so soon and that will be a good thing not just for the agency
but for markets and for consumers.

SCHULTZ: And isn`t Saudi Arabia the big player here still? I mean they
are not going to lose money on oil. You know, the way you put somebody
else out of business, you lower your prices to the point where the other
guy can`t make a dollar. I mean is that where we are?

CHILTON: Well, it`s where we are in part. I mean the OPEC continues to
produce what they`re producing. But, you know, we produce more oil in the
United States. I`m not saying it`s a bad thing but...


CHILTON: ... we were doing it. So you had the OPEC producing and then
we`ve ramped up our production and that continues.

So as you say, there is a glut. They`re going to have to start filling
swimming pools out there with all these oil...


CHILTON: ... that we have. So no wonder prices are so low.

SCHULTZ: Bart Chilton, always great to have you with us again tonight.
Thanks so much.

That`s 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