Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Tuesday, March 24th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: March 24, 2015
Guest: Keith Wolzinger, Scott Hamilton, Anthony Davis, Shmuley Boteach,
Rani Whitfield, Caroline Heldman, Harold Cook, Heidi Harris, Adam Green


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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Tonight, disaster in the French Alps

PRES. BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Our teams are in close
contacts, and they working to confirm how many American`s may have been
onboard.

SCHULTZ: Later, Republican spy games.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH) HOUSE SPEAKER: I was shocked (ph).

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israel: You don`t need intelligence
agencies and secret information to know this.

SCHULTZ: Also, Cruz in provokes in money.

Senator Ted Cruz, (R) Texas: Good to see you, Welcome aboard.

SCHULTZ: And Angelina Jolie`s difficult decision.

Unidentified Female: Angelina Jolie (inaudible) overnight that she has had
prevented surgery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ed: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks for watching.
Investigators in France are battling tough conditions trying to determine
what cause an Airbus 8320 to crash in the French Alps.

Germanwings Flight 9525 from Barcelona, Spain to Dusseldorf, Germany
crashed into the mountainous terrain in France earlier this morning. The
plane was carrying 144 passengers and 6 crew members, no survivors are
expected. The plane took off from Barcelona at 10:00 a.m. local time.

It reached a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet before starting what is
describe as a "9-minute descent". Air traffic control lost contact with
the plane at 10:40 a.m. at an altitude of 6,800 feet.

The French Civil Aviation Authority said the plane did not transmit a
distress signal which will explain momentarily. The French Interior
Minister said the plane crashed into the mountains at an altitude of about
6,550 feet, definitely high elevation.

Debris is said to cover an area of 100- to 200-meter area. One official
describe the plane is disintegrated. He told the Associated Press the
largest junk of debris was the size of a small car. The French Interior
Minister says one of the black boxes has been located.

The victims are said to be of Spanish, German and Turkish descent.
Colombian officials say, two of their citizens were also onboard. The U.S.
State Department says that they are reviewing whether any Americans were on
the flights.

A spokesperson for Lufthansa, the parent company for Germanwings said the
plane had undergone a routine check on Monday. The German newspaper, Der
Spiegel, reports a problem have been detected with the nose landing gear
and the doors, and was repaired and taken -- that of course took place in
the last few days.

The plane has been in operation since November of 1990. And it has been
operated by Germanwings since January of 2014. The plane have log over
58,000 flight hours. The pilot had been flying with the company for more
than 10 years. Incidents involving an Airbus A320 are rare. The aircraft
has an excellence safety record and there are more than 6,000 A320s in
operation around the world.

For more, we`re going to turn to our panel of experts tonight. I`m joined
by Keith Wolzinger who is a 777 Pilot, also with us tonight, Scott Hamilton
an Aviation Analyst, John Cox with us tonight an Aviation Analyst and
Anthony Davis, Aviation Analyst and Pilot.

I want to start tonight with a picture of a cockpit of the A320. Now, to
the layperson out there who doesn`t fly, you look at this cockpit and you
think, "Wow". This is a lot of stuff. Actually, this is a relatively easy
aircraft to fly and it is setup systematically in most of the A320s the
same way.

Now, this aircraft was build in 1990 so obviously there`s probably been a
lot of upgrades in the cockpit as far as avionics and technology since
then. But this is a basic setup of a A320. And you could see that the
pilot and the copilot, the instruments look the same. There`s a lot of
redundancy in this cockpit, and to just explain some of the things in
aviation when it comes to recognition of an aircraft in flight.

You hear a lot about squawk codes, you hear a lot about also transponder.
Well, they are related. A transponder is a piece of equipment that you
will find in the cockpit right here, and there`s two of them. That`s part
of the redundancy, the pilot and the copilot which each have a transponder
to operate.

Now, if the aircraft is hijacked, the transponder code would be 7500. In
other words the pilot would digitally pouch in 7500, so air traffic control
right away would know, "Holy smokes, there`s an aircraft at 38,000 feet and
they`re signaling to us electronically through their transponder with a
squawk codes of 7500. They have been hijacked." That of course puts a lot
of things into motion.

If there is a squawk code that`s put in there by the pilot at 7600, it
would be an indication there is a communication failure and the radio
package has failed. That of course would signal to air traffic control
that they`ve got a clear all aircraft away from them and we can assume that
this aircraft is going to be coming in at the closest airport.

If there was a squawk code of 7700, it would be a signal of an emergency.
Now, think about this. A click-to-talk on the radio systems which is right
here with the autopilot and also in the flight management system, it would
take just a matter of seconds for the pilot or copilot to put in a new
squawk code and the squawk code that was given to this cockpit was 5512, 5-
5-1-2. In other words, when you`re taking off, the air traffic control was
going to say, "Flight so and so, squawk 5512." That`s what they were
squawking in their transponder. If they had had a problem or wanted to
electronically signals something such as an emergency in flight. It would
-- they would squawk 7700.

So -- and that can be done in a matter of seconds, so what we can deduce
from this something must have happened. And it`s much have been so severe
that it didn`t even give these pilots an opportunity to number 1,
communicate on the radio system, it didn`t give him a change to even change
anything in the transponder. And all of this information is picked up in
the black boxes, and there`s also a lot of redundancy in the black boxes,
so it`s not like you have to have both of them. They`re going to get a lot
of information out of at least one of the black boxes that they got.

These are the power settings right here -- left engine, right engine. This
is the trim wheel. You can do that electronically or you can do it
manually. This is the flight management system. In other words, it`s so
easy to touch as a pilot. You can program the entire flight of this
aircraft in this flight management system.

Up here, you`re going to find all the information on the engine. Is it
running hot, how were they running, how, you know, is it running too hot,
and of course, the pilot will spend a lot of attention there.

This is you system`s management screen right here. It will tell you if
there`s a problem with the landing gear, it`ll tell you if there`s problem
with maybe a door that might not be lodge. These are the two electronic
screens of the pilot will pay attention to. And right here, these are all
backup systems. This is all communication.

So from a pilot standpoint, it`s all right there. And when you have flown
this aircraft and you`ve got thousands of hours, you know exactly what to
do and how to do it. I think viewing at this and the details that have
unfolded today, there`s a lot of mystery here.

Let`s start tonight with Mr. Wolzinger who`s a 777 pilot. Mr. Wolzinger,
what do you think happen, what conclusion do you come to based on what is
been reported?

KEITH WOLZINGER, COMMERCIAL PILOT: Well as you pointed out, something
happen rather suddenly to the airplane, and render the cockpit crew either
trying to make emergency descent to some sort or unable to control their
aircraft any longer.

On initial look at it, it looks to me more like possibly pressurization or
a smoke in the cabin issue. You know, if that`s the case, the pilot would
have put on oxygen mask and smoke goggles probably and try to make an
initial emergency descent to a lower altitude where the air is more
breathable.

But it looks like they stayed on their flight plan track. So that tells me
that they were probably still under directional control of the airplane.
If they were not, the airplane would have probably veered one direction or
the other away from their intended flight path.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Hamilton, how would you describe the descent? Now, if it
goes from 38,000 feet and it hits on impact to just at 6,500 feet, and it
does it in a matter of eight or nine minutes, isn`t that an unusual descent
for jet in that part of aviation world, is it rather sparsely populated,
wide open area, there`s not a lot of air traffic there, I don`t think, and
it would seen to me that that would be an unusual descent, how would you
describe it?

SCOTT HAMILTON, AVIATION ANALYST: Well, Ed, it`s very unusual for
something to happen at a cruising altitude, most accident happen upon the
landing or takeoff, so a cabin depressurization or a control descent of
some kind, perhaps cockpit intrusion. What`s particularly puzzling here is
that, in eight or nine minutes, there was no radio communication. And it
looks like from the debris field, this may have go on an intact condition.

SCHULTZ: In other words, it would have probably gone in a pretty high
speed. I mean, you could tell by from the debris field that have one heck
of an impact.

HAMILTON: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: Mr. Cox, you`re thought on what the pilots might have been going
though. And I just want to offer one possibility is, I mean, this is a
1990 aircraft obviously. It`s going through all the aviation checks and
balances with all the regulations that are there. But it`s a very good
possibility that one of the windows could have been blown out in the
cockpit what may have overcome the pilot so fast, it would have never
affected the flight management system and it would have overcome the pilots
to the point where they couldn`t do anything.

I mean -- there so many possibilities here. But what do you takeaway from
what we know right now, Mr. Cox?

JOHN COX, MSNBC AVIATION ANALYST: Well, I was an Airbus captain with one
of the airlines for six years. I`ve flown the airplane. I`ve got a lot of
faith and believe in it.

To start speculating on something as like a window coming out, I don`t
think there`s any evidence to support that and I don`t think that we serve
the process very well because what we need now is information. We need
evidence.

What we know is the airplane climb to 38,000 feet, it stayed there for four
minutes. It descended at a rate that is not uncommon for jet airplanes in
the 3,000- to 4,000-foot per minute rate of descent.

That is common. The airplane is totally capable of that. We know that it
stayed on track.

Those two things indicate a probability that the airplane was still on the
autoflight (ph) system. Meaning the autopilot was flying the airplane with
commands made from either the mode control panel or through the flight
management computer.

And so, those things indicate that the airplane electrically is powered
that the pilots are making inputs to that.

Now, the questions arise why did they need to come down?

There`s a variety of reasons Captain Wolzinger mentioned earlier. A smoke
event, a depressurization event, those would be reasons to start down.

The question that follows up to that is why they didn`t make stop the
descent at 10,000 feet? What cause the airplane to continue its descent --
its program to descent to ground impact? And that`s something the
investigators are going to look at.

Fortunately, we`ve got one of the recorders and I expect we`ll have the
second one tomorrow. They will tell the tale of this flight.

SCHULTZ: And Mr. Cox, tell us, if you lose pressurization at 38,000, what
would you be instructed to do? There`s a mask readily handily there for
you (ph), isn`t it?

COX: Absolutely, the first thing is to get oxygen mask which is a
particular type of mask. It`s a positive breathing mask because it forces
air into your lungs.

Once, you established that in communication with the other pilot, you
initiate an emergency descent which is unlikely in this case because the
rate of descent of an emergency descent. It is much greater than this
3,000 or 4,000 feet per minute that we`ve seen here.

This is much more like what I would call -- characterize as "idle descent
which would be something that is a normal profile." It says that it is
likely it was commanded by the crew for reasons that we don`t yet
understand.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mr. Davis, your thoughts on no communication?

ANTHONY DAVIS, AVIATION EXPERT AND PILOT: Well, we`ve had several versions
of what actually happened communication ways here. The distress signal as
you quite roughly (ph) say was not sent (ph) in a traditional fashion by a
squawk codes.

Some reports suggested that the captain issued an emergency invoice which
again we won`t know until the voice (inaudible) or recorder is analyzed
fully.

And let`s be clear, none of us are crash investigators. We are
speculating.

The difficult thing here is that, we`re dealing with a mountain range where
some of the peaks of 15,000 feet, the highest mountains of 15,000 in this
region and to bring an aircraft to a safe altitude for breathable air is
around 10,000 feet.

So, the only direction that my thoughts and feelings are heading towards is
that there is a catastrophic accident that is required this craft to
descend.

They`ve descended under their own steam and what is happened next, well
that`s -- we`ll have to wait for the investigators to tell us.

SCHULTZ: All right. Keith Wolzinger, Scott Hamilton, John Cox and Anthony
Davis, gentlemen, thank you for your time tonight, I appreciate it so much.

Up next on the Ed Show, was Israel spying on the United States and did the
Republicans know about it. And if they did, why didn`t they tell the
President.

Also, ahead, this hour, Ted Cruz makes the rounds to drum up votes and much
needed cash for his presidential bid.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

One week before a key deadline for negotiations, U.S. officials are
accusing Israel of spying on the U.S.-Iranian nuclear talks. (Inaudible)
among allies, of course, is nothing new but the story doesn`t stop there.

U.S. official say Israel leak details of the talks to U.S. lawmakers in
order to drum up congressional criticism over a deal.

An unarmed -- unnamed should I say, I`m (inaudible) unarmed. An unnamed
senior official told the Wall Street Journal why this angered the
administration.

It`s one thing for the United States and Israel to spy on each other. It
is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to
U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy.

Speaker John Boehner knows a thing or two about undermining the President
but insist that he knows nothing about this report.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE: I was shocked
by the fact that there were reports in this press article that information
was being passed on from the Israelis to members of Congress. I`m not aware
of that at all.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would it have been inappropriate if they did?

BOEHNER: I`m not sure what`s the information was so but I`m baffled by it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Baffled by it? But is he going to investigate?

Will Mr. Boehner go into his own caucus and start asking questions? Is
this story in the Wall Street Journal true, fellows, because if it is, we
got some serious problems.

But Boehner just throws it up, "Well, I didn`t know anything about it."

Boehner travels to Israel next week to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. A senior official at Netanyahu`s offices deny the allegations
calling them utterly false.

Joining me tonight Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of This World: The Values Network
and Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor and Editor-at-Large for The Atlantics.

Steve, you first tonight, what do you make of this? If this is true, what
are we looking at?

STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, nation spy on each other but as
you said right away, if Israel was trying to peel off American legislators
with this information to sort of work against the interest of the White
House and the White House kind of clarifying what America`s national
strategic interest are, this is a huge story. And it`ll be interesting to
see if John Boehner keeps that trip next week or you know, decide he`s got,
you know, some other stuff to do.

But it`s a very serious issue. Not the spying part, it -- this, the spying
issue helps remind people that Israel and United States are each sovereign
nations with divergent interest that sometimes overlap and are in fact have
a lot of common interest but they`re not always on the same page. But
peeling off a legislator is a real dangerous and provocative act if this is
true.

SCHULTZ: Well, doesn`t this deserve some type of Justice Department
inquiry?

CLEMONS: Absolutely

(Crosstalk)

SCHULTZ: Absolutely. I mean, we`re talking about national security here,
now when I turn to Rabbi Shmuley he`s going to say there`s no way we should
do a deal with the Iranians. OK, all right. And I respect that, I
understand his opinions. But if that`s the case it must be some pretty
heavy stuff they`re talking about when it comes to nukes, so why in the
world would we not be curious about how this information floats around to
inject the political process into the negotiations?

CLEMONS: I think now that Adam Entous who is the Wall Street Journal --
writer who wrote this and I think he`s standing by his story his interview
lots of Diplomats. And I think people on the hill probably in some of
these offices are actually shared with Adam what they were concern about.
And so I think that you may see this get some legs and we`ll see what the
Justice Department does at some level.

My other hunch is the white house is known this all along. And they
themselves didn`t move on it because they were -- not only that we now have
the spying story but of course we have the other side that with the
intelligence...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

CLEMONS: ... we were giving Israelis, they were leaking that to their own
journalist and that was one of the reasons why they were formally cutoff in
a lot of the sensitive information that they was -- that we were sharing
with our allies on the Iran deal.

SCHULTZ: All right Rabbi Shmuley, do we believe Benjamin Netanyahu?

RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, THE WORLD: THE VALUES NETWORK: Ed, Let me ask a
question. The news that Israel is spying on the United States or vice
versa, I mean, the Pope is Catholic, right? I mean it was obvious in...

SCHULTZ: If you spy on me is my fault. I spy on you it`s your fault...

BOTEACH: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: I mean that`s kind of the world that we`re living now.

BOTEACH: I`ve been listening to your conversations for years now, they`re
interesting.

So what do we do about a story that Israel has to inform American
legislatures about what the administration is negotiating about, that`s
what so bizarre.

SCHULTZ: So you`re saying that actually Netanyahu is doing us a favor?

BOTEACH: Oh the United States is keeping Congress totally out of the loop.

SCHULTZ: That`s true.

BOTEACH: They want to go the Security Council to get this deal ratified
but not to the Senate. Even tough it`s an arms controlled treaty and there
hasn`t been arms control treaty that is not been ratified by the Senate
it`s actually in the constitution. But let me ask you this, the Wall
Street Journalist saying the one piece of information that the Israelis
lead to Congress, the big piece was at 6,500 centrifuges, we`re going to be
allowed in this deal. That goes against two United Nations Security
Council resolution

(Crosstalk)

SCHULTZ: Several facets to the story, if I`m in Congress, if I`m in the
House and I`m in a position of authority and I have a certain amount of
power which all of them do especially Mr. Boehner. If this information
comes to my desk, you don`t know what I`m doing? I`m calling the White
House because I`m an American citizen, I`m loyal to this country and I do
believe that the office of the presidency deserves the respect, and the
country deserves the loyalty to the office no matter who the president is
to know exactly what I know what`s coming across -- my question is, if this
is true, this is treason on the part of American lawmakers not to inform
the white house this is going on that`s just my take.

(CROSSTALK)

BOTEACH: You know, (inaudible) -- Wait.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

BOTEACH: I feel your passion and I wish that the President of United
States felt as passionate and the same way (inaudible).

SCHULTZ: Well...

BOTEACH: ... for Ayatollah Khomeini saying on Saturday step to America.

SCHULTZ: I understand.

BOTEACH: Kill all the Jews.

SCHULTZ: I understand...

BOTEACH: Destroy Israel.

SCHULTZ: I understand...

BOTEACH: We`re tired and sick of this stuff.

SCHULTZ: I understand...

BOTEACH: We feel less passionate.

SCHULTZ: I understand the passionate of the right-wing if this was Nancy
Pelosi and the Democrats we`re in charge.

BOTEACH: United States and Israel are at existential threat from an
Iranians nuclear program and the administration is negotiating a deal which
involves surrender, appeasement and capitulation .

SCHULTZ: OK.

BOTEACH: . giving them, Ed, a weapons grade industrial size nuclear
programs.

SCHULTZ: OK. So you...

(Crosstalk)

SCHULTZ: So your position is that this is really have done us a favor.

(Crosstalk)

BOTEACH: You know, my position is that, this is -- it`s a deal which is
(inaudible)...

CLEMONS: Compromising...

BOTEACH: Not -- not...

SCHULTZ: All right. Let`s go to Steve. Steve, you thoughts.

CLEMONS: Ed, this is compromising potentially the loyalty of this members
of Congress...

SCHULTZ: True.

CLEMONS: ... in a way that you can`t just shrug off. I mean that just
absolutely what this about. It`s compromising their loyalty.

The notion of the administration has not kept the Congress informed is
ridiculous, both the Arms Services Committees and the Intelligence
Committees, and both the House and the Senate have been regularly informed
in classified briefings what the context of this negotiations are...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: What about that Rabbi?

BOTEACH: Steve, that`s true, why didn`t Boehner (inaudible), why did all
the legislatures fall asleep when the Israelis revealed the secrets that
they have been told about.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Because their Presidents to fail.

(CROSSTALK)

BOTEACH: This (inaudible), you know, this could be treason on the other
hand, they all knew this all along and which is it? Steve, which is it?

CLEMONS: Well, I think right the Israelis spying on us and passing on
information that is classified that they got through spying and secrets,
causes a challenge of complexity for those members of Congress for not
speaking up not showing...

BOTEACH: So...

CLEMONS: ... and saying with regardless. Look, I know John McCain, I know
these people. They are hyper cautious of sharing anything publicly that
they know is classified it`s not something to shrug off...

SCHULTZ: And they`re all concern about Hillary Clintons e-mails. They`re
all...

CLEMONS: That`s right.

SCHULTZ: .concern about Hillary Clinton`s e-mails. I mean, Hillary might
just put something out there that was just so damaging. You know, what`s
damaging?

What`s damaging is when you lose loyalty...

CLEMONS: Right.

SCHULTZ: ... that`s what`s damaging. You won`t have great team, you not
foreseeing, you got to have his loyalty. If you don`t have loyalty to your
people I don`t care what you doing, you got no chance to success.

BOTEACH: This is, you know, Ed, this is the truth. This is a numb (ph)
story that`s was (inaudible)...

SCHULTZ: It`s not a numb story.

BOTEACH: Steve is quoting John McCain. John McCain really summed it up on
Sunday when he said, "The President is having a "temper tantrum". His
candidate lost the election, he is been saying the most the unbelievable
things.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: That is the (inaudible) kind of like John McCain`s tries to pull
people off.

BOTEACH: I mean the President...

SCHULTZ: And we will leave it there, gentlemen.

BOTEACH: OK.

SCHULTZ: That`s a good one.

CLEMONS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: All right. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and also Steve Clemons, great
to have you with us tonight.

Coming up, Angelina Jolie`s the latest health decisions sparks conversation
about cancer prevention. And later, what you don`t know about candidate
Ted Cruz.

We`ll be right back, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show.

About 20,000 women in the United States get ovarian cancer every year, as
many as 14,000 women died from it. Each year ovarian cancer causes more
deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system.

Actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie-Pitt took proactive steps for her
own health.

Almost two years ago the 39-year-old Oscar winner revealed she had elective
double mastectomy, a decision she made after losing her mother to cancer in
2007.

Two weeks ago the results of her blood test revealed possible early signs
of ovarian cancer. Jolie-Pitt wrote in the New York Times about her
decision for additional surgery to remove her ovaries and fallopian tubes.
NBC`s Hoda and Katie (ph) has more .

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "I want to see the surgeon who had treated my mother
and she teared up when she saw me. You look just like her. I broke down
but we smile at each other and agreed we were there to deal with any
problem. So let`s get on with it."

Jolie says that while the surgery was less complex than the double
mastectomy, it affects or more severe putting her into force menopause.
Jolie acknowledges that while it`s impossible to remove the entire risk of
getting cancer, she remains hopeful about her health and her future

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The CDC says when ovarian cancer is found in its early stages
treatment is very effective.

The hip-hop doctor, Dr. Rani Whitfield joins us, Medical Doctor for the
National Association Free Clinics. Doctor, good to have you with us
tonight.

DR. RANI WHITFIELD, NATL. ASSN. FREE CLINICS: Thank so much, Ed.

SCHULTZ: This -- what are your thoughts when you hear the story?

WHITFIELD: Oh brave. Angelina Jolie is very brave, very thoughtful. And
you see the impact that she has had on the community in raising awareness
about the health issue that`s very important to the women that we love.
And I`m just very thankful for her for giving the messages out and being
brave enough to make the steps and make her health history public.

SCHULTZ: Is this the best course of prevention, preventive action so to
speak?

WHITFIELD: Yeah. In her case prevention is the -- were early detection is
the key to prevention. She got the negative -- the blood test back which
we don`t know for sure if she actually has cancer. But in her case with
her mother have an ovarian cancer and died at the age of 49. Angelina
Jolie, she is BRCA gene positive and so she knew that the risk for having
fallopian cancer or ovarian cancer was very high.

And so she made with a (inaudible) wise decision, there was controversy
about the double mastectomy in 2013 that she had because there were no
tumors in her breast at that time. But this in my opinion was a very wise
decision on her part.

SCHULTZ: Isn`t these where we want health care to be in this country
prevention, prevention, prevention and not always chasing the disease?

WHITFIELD: Yes.

SCHULTZ: That`s really where we have to go, isn`t it?

WHITFIELD: Yeah. We`re always behind eight ball when treating someone
after they had a heart attack. You know late detection of colonrectal
cancers or prostate cancers that were treated in the later stages of
disease.

So we could -- if we could prevent these things to happen on the front end
but even if we detect them early, we could treat them aggressively. We can
save lives and Angelina Jolie is unselfish, she is thinking about her
husband, her children and the family members that she could spend more time
with and again, a very brave move on her part.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Rani Whitfield, great to have you with us tonight. I
appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

WHITFIELD: Ed, thank you so much.

SCHULTZ: You bet.

Stick around, lots more coming up with our Response Panel here on the Ed
Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.

MARY THOMPSON: I`m Mary Thompson with your CNBC Market Wrap.

Stock end (inaudible), the DOW falls more than 100 points, the S&P sheds 12
and the NASDAQ finishes down to 16.

Consumer prices grow slightly in February after three straight months of
decline. Prices were butcher by an increase in the cost of gas which moved
higher for the first time since June.

A New Home sales jump last month to a seven year high. They sold nearly 8
percent compared with the expectations for decline.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And we are back.

Reaction to Senator Ted Cruz`s presidential announcement is pouring in as
you might expect, it`s not pretty. New York Congressman Peter King was
brutally honest about Ted Cruz`s qualifications.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING, (R): He shown no qualifications, no legislation being
passed, doesn`t provide leadership and he has no real experience. So, to
me, he is just a guy with a big mouth and no results.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN`S THE SITUATION ROOM HOST: Would you support him if he
were the GOP nominee?

KING: I just hope that day never comes. I`ll jump off that bridge when we
come to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, that certainly not an endorsement. Shallow (ph)
presidential hopeful Senator Rand Paul adds some harsh words for Cruz`s
messaging.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: And I`m a big believer that you should stand
on principle and be true to your principles, but I also think that we
should take those principles and try to bring in new people with them.

So I spent the last couple of years trying to go places Republicans haven`t
gone, and maybe not just throwing out red meat but actually throwing out
something intellectually enticing the people who haven`t been listening to
our message before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, I`ll tell you one place right-wingers don`t go and that`s
Liberal Talk Radio. Rand Paul is right about a few things. Cruz`s speech
was heavy on red meat and light on ideas and facts.

One thing Cruz accomplished was owning the media blitz. Ted Cruz`s
announcement earned the candidate hours of airtime over the last of couple
of days. Cruz landed himself a hour long special on Hannity Monday night.
Cruz of course came out on the gates (ph) with his typical doom and gloom
predictions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: We`ve seen our national debt go from 10 trillion to 18 trillion.
It`s larger than the size of our whole economy. We`re saying our
constitutions rights constantly under assault from the federal government
and we`re saying America received from leadership in the world and the
world is melting down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: And he is a fatalist. He is always full of dire predictions for
the future of America, unless of course he is elected.

Now, oddly enough, Cruz, loves to say things like the whole world is on
fire and the world is melting down. And then he says this about the global
climate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: As I just came back from New Hampshire where there 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 got a problem because the science doesn`t back them up and in
particular satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there has been
zero warming none whatsoever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Well, let`s follow the data. Here is one thing Ted Cruz can`t
deny. 2014 was the warmest year in the history of our planet. Cruz is
simply ignoring science and facts. He does the same thing with Obamacare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: So I think Obamacare has been the biggest disaster. The biggest
train wreck. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, forced them in
the part-time work, cost them their health care, their doctors, their
health insurance premiums are skyrocketing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Now, we`ve got some numbers for the Senator from Texas.

There have been five straight years of private sector job growth,
undeniable. As Cruz knows Obamacare was signed five years ago, Monday,
over 12 million jobs have been created since then. If Obamacare was a job
killer this chart would look completely different. And then we have some
more facts for Mr. Cruz.

On Sunday, the White House released a report saying 16 million Americans
have gained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. And also
found that health care prices have risen at the slowest rate in nearly 50
years.

Ted Cruz is running on a platform of taking healthcare away from millions
of Americans. He wants to go back to the days of denying coverage for pre-
existing conditions. He wants to abolish the IRS and let the oil companies
run them up, do whatever they want, deregulate everything.

Cruz consistently denies basic science facts when it comes to climate
change. A vote for Cruz would no doubt, take this country back in time, as
I see it. Can the have any more those guys run over there on that side?

For more let me bring in Caroline Heldman, Professor of Politics in
Occidental College. Also with us tonight Harold Cook, Texas Democratic
Strategist and Heidi Harris, Conservative Talk Show Host with us tonight.

Heidi you first, who did Ted Cruz win over yesterday? Who`s getting in
line? Who`s on the bandwagon early on?

HEIDI HARRIS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I think a lot of people consider him
strong conservative. I don`t put my trust in any politician to make the
whole world a better place. But I think a lot of people like Ted Cruz and
may feel like he`s a straight shooter and they`re tired of being served up
in a piece of aluminum foil, people like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.

We`re tired of leftovers. We want somebody new, somebody who`s got some
different ideas. What`s wrong with that, Ed? Come on let the voter
decide.

SCHULTZ: I was waiting for ideas yesterday, Heidi. I mean when he was --
he`s been ripping into Obamacare for five years even before he got elected.
And so I thought yesterday that at least one thing he could do was step up
with the plan because you know what? No one else in the Republican Party
has done that yet, no one has offered up a distinct plan or step to the
plate and said, you know, what Obamacare sucks and the plan I got is going
to be a heck of a lot better.

Harold, how did this guy win in Texas?

HAROLD COOK, TEXAS DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, in Texas, I`m going to
call him the smirk for a long time. Look, he just do one thing very, very
well and that is he place the part of the angry Tea Party dude and the
narrow swath of voters who have been controlling elections on this state
for a long time.

It`s always on the Republican primarily and lately it`s been in the Tea
Party wing and the Republican Party. He is enormously popular with them
and I think that will probably trend slightly well in the early primary
stage for that narrow swath of voters, which probably isn`t enough for him
to win a nomination but I think it`s enough to keep him in the top year for
at least as long as maybe South Carolina.

SCHULTZ: Do you think he`s tough here (ph)? OK. Caroline, who`s he a
threat to? I mean whose game does he takeaway in this whole thing? We
know who`s going to run, they just haven`t announced yet.

CAROLINE HELDMAN, PROFESSOR OF POLITIICS AT OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: I don`t
think he`s a threat at all. I mean he`s polling -- in the polls that have
been run, the nine polls that have been run in 2015 for Republican voters,
his polling somewhere between 3 percent and 9 percent.

So I agree with Heidi that the Republican Party has an issue with warmed
over candidates but he is not actually the answer that he is not embraced
by the party. And most specifically, he`s not embraced by the party elite
so even John Cornyn, the other Senator from Texas, is not in his corner.
He doesn`t have party money.

He`s not really a threat except to pull the agenda more toward the
scientifically illiterate side of things.

SCHULTZ: So, Heidi, who do the right-wing talkers of America? Who are
they going to get behind, this guy?

HARRIS: Well, I think a lot of them will get behind this guy. They were
not happy with Jeb Bush as you know. A lot of people were through with
Mitt Romney because we just didn`t feel like they were conservative enough.

And to her point about the fact that a lot of big right-wing money isn`t
behind them, and we`re disgusted with the Republicans in general who have
become rhinos.

Certainly, in the State of Nevada, I got a governor right now who`s a
rhino. He`s pushing a billion dollar tax increase and he`s a Republican so
we`re tired of conservatives who claim to be conservative and then go the
other way. And I realize that Ted Cruz is not going to appeal to
everybody. But you got to understand a lot of Americas really don`t know
who he is yet. They`re not paying attention to national politics and as
they get to know him more, maybe they`ll respect him and believes some of
what he says and feel like he`s a better change than Jeb Bush.

SCHULTZ: So, Harold, where does Rand Paul fit in all of this? They`re
kind of the same fraternity, aren`t they?

COOK: Well, I think probably Ted Cruz ends up at Rand Paul`s right. And
he will have like the annoyed angry voters. Rand Paul will probably have
some of the voters just to the left of them. There`s still over
conservative, they`re just not quite as mad.

But I will say though, you underestimate Ted Cruz at your own peril. Three
years ago, nobody on the plan and no -- knew who this guy was. And he came
from nowhere and beat an incumbent lieutenant governor and went to the U.S.
Senate.

Nobody in this state thought he would do it and the people he makes the
maddest, they`re all in politics, most of them were in Washington. And
guess what? That`s (inaudible) heard him a bit, the people that Republican
primary voters on the farthest right don`t like the most to the people who
don`t like Ted Cruz. I think that helps them.

SCHULTZ: We got a lot of guest. We got to look out for. Don`t under
estimate Scott Walker, don`t underestimate Ted Cruz. We`ve overestimated
Jeb Bush if you listen to the right-wing talkers.

Caroline, looking at this, is it too much to ask the Republicans to come up
with a concrete healthcare plan that would be better than the one that has
been successful for the last five years? I mean what are they going to run
on other than hating Obama, hating Obamacare, and freedom, liberty
constitution, I mean, where is the steak and potato here?

HELDMAN: Well, I think they`re in the bad position in terms of the party
imploding with the Tea Party faction really worrying with moderate
Republicans. They have to put up a candidate who will appeal to moderate
Republicans really move that base as well as independent voters.

So I think we`re going to see something similar to the last two elections
where the party really kind of takes itself apart. And they don`t have a
coherent policy agenda, right, which is why the Affordable Care Act is
they`re just critiquing it rather than providing an alternative that you
could go down the list.

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

HELDMAN: Where is a Republican plan in general?

SCHULTZ: So, Heidi, who do you think is going to raise the most money?

HARRIS: Well, I think Jeb Bush probably will initially but as you know, a
lot of us on the right are not crazy about Jeb Bush. So eventually that`s
not going to get him very far for a lot of the right leaders aren`t
thrilled about him, that`s the way we feels about Mitt Romney.

So I mean Ted Cruz potentially could raise a lot of money. I think Rand
Paul has a lot of appeal for independence that you`re not going to get a
right-winger president and without the independents. We all know that.

So I think those are two of the top ones and maybe Scott Walker too and, of
course, as you know, there`s a huge advantage when you jump in early to get
some of those early dollars.

SCHULTZ: And I would put my money on Jeb Bush for the most money.

Great to have all of you with us tonight, Caroline Heldman, Harold Cook,
Heidi Harris, thank you.

COOK: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: You bet.

After the break, we`ll have an update on the plane crash in the French
Alps. Stay with us, we`re be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It`s particularly heartbreaking because it apparently includes the
lost of so many children, some of them infants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: The President this afternoon. We are learning the scope of the
tragedy from the past since a plane crashed in the French Alps today.

One hundred and fifty passengers and crew were onboard Germanwings Flight
9525, all are presume dead.

Among the passengers were 16 students and 2 teachers who were returning to
Germany from a school exchange program in Spain.

Just a short time ago, the Spanish school involved in the exchange posted
on its website, "We thank all the expressions of support and condolences
received after the accident was confirmed.

We`ll continue to follow the developments here on MSNBC.

Hillary Clinton is trying to wipe her slate clean with the media, a new
start.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FRM. SECRETARY OF STATE: Another new hair style, a new
e-mail account, why not a new relationship with the press? So here it
goes, no more secrecy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: I like it. I think that`s a great start, and start it all with
(ph) sense of humor.

And Hillary Clinton is making some changes including staff changes, her
long time Press Spokesperson Philippe Reines who`s known for his aggressive
style to be nice about it.

Well, apparently have a different role if she ends up running in 2016.

Clinton is also distancing herself from some of the biggest liberal donors.
It seems that as though she is trying to, you know, signal that, you know,
she`s got enough money. She`s got this thing and that she`s not going to
be own by anybody on the left. She`s her own candidate. Interesting.

Some progressives don`t view Hillary as a shoe-in, they want to be sure
that she is vetted and has competition.

Over the weekend, The Boston Globe ran several stories asking Senator
Elizabeth Warren to run. One progressive group is launching the aggressive
grassroots initiative in New Hampshire and in Iowa.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is urging possible presidential
candidates including Hillary Clinton to adapt a bold what they call
Elizabeth Warren-style agenda.

For more on all of that, let`s go to Adam Green, Co-founder of the PCCC
joins us tonight.

Big day for your organization, you`ve got a number of lawmakers who have
signed onto this in both New Hampshire and in Iowa.

But I`m curious, Adam, what do you mean a Elizabeth Warren-style agenda as
opposed to what Mrs. Clinton might be telling touting?

ADAM GREEN, CO-FOUNDER PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: Yeah. So
today, Ed, readyforboldness.com, 200 top political leaders in Iowa and New
Hampshire called for our next Democratic candidate to campaign actively on
a big bold economic platform.

And what they mean by that is, ideas like a national goal of debt-free
college at all public universities and colleges, expanding social security
benefits instead of the Republican plan to cut them, mostly reform,
campaign finance reform and something big on clean energy jobs and worker
wages.

Ed, you know, you`re from the heartland, you know, these ideas are
population in red, purple and blue states. And, you know, this is not just
good policy for the country but fantastic politics for Democrats if our
next presidential nominee chooses to endorse them

SCHULTZ: Well, some lawmakers have told me that they think that the
Republicans have backed off a little bit on privatizing social security
because it`s so popular the way stands right now. So that maybe put on the
back burner for now.

What is Hilary Clinton doing right? Do you think that she matches up with
what your organization put out today?

GREEN: Well, Hillary Clinton is taking some smart moves and she`s shown
inability to evolve over time.

You know, she was, again, some positions under Clinton administration and
then, she changed and came up for things like marriage equality and stuff
like that.

The big unchecked box, the big thing in that, I think, a lot of people are
looking is where does she stands on core issues related to corporate power
and economic populism? You know, will she be willing to, you know, again,
invest in a big idea like debt-free college at all public universities or
taking out the big Wall Street Banks?

We`re very hopeful that she will understand this economic populist moment
that we`re living in and come forward with some big ideas.

And the goal of today`s, you know, readyforboldness.com campaign was to
pretty much change the environment and incentivized her, you know, show her
that she won`t be alone if she takes this position, that there are a lot of
Democrats including the very important states of Iowa and New Hampshire
ready to be right there with her.

SCHULTZ: And Adam, all the things you just mentioned, you`re convinced
that if Elizabeth Warren run, that`s what she would run on?

ADAM: Well, these are definitely priorities of Elizabeth Warren and you
know, I feel Hillary Clinton, there are others who could run as well. And
basically, we would love to see if there`s a robust primary raise to the
top. A competition to see who can embrace Elizabeth Warren-style ideas
more, who can go bigger and bolder and do things that would be more
tangibly beneficial in people lives.

But yeah, these are definitely priorities to Elizabeth Warren has actively
championed.

SCHULTZ: OK. Adam Green, the PCCC, great to have you with us tonight.
Good work today, no doubt.

ADAM: Thanks.

SCHULTZ: You can get my podcast, my video podcast at wegoted.com.

And that is the Ed Show for tonight. I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts 10 seconds early. How
about that, Rev? 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