Skip navigation

The Ed Show for Monday, April 6th, 2015

Read the transcript to the Monday show

  Most Popular
Most viewed

Date: April 6, 2015
Guest: Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Dean Obeidallah, Mike Rogers, Terry O`Neill,
Marjorie Jones; Angela Rye, Annette Taddeo

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

Let`s get to work.


SCHULTZ: Tonight, nuclear deal review.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Obama is a flowed negotiator.
His foreign policy has failed multiple fronts.

Iran doesn`t change at all.

SCHULTZ: Plus, the religious freedom debate.

FRM. SEN. RICK SANTORUM, (R) PENNSYLVANIA: Tolerance is a two-way street.

SCHULTZ: Later, Jeb`s ethnic leap.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- was marked Hispanic in the seal labeled race

SCHULTZ: And body image backlash.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here are two things that normally don`t go together
golf and side boob.


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

President Obama, it`s the selling season. He`s trying harder than ever to
sell the Iranian nuclear deal to the American people and it seems to me
that this country is quickly coming to a crossroads, a decision, is it war
or is it peace, it is an opportunity or is a just so horrible because this
president is involved in it?

This is a make or break moment for our country. Now we didn`t think that
before we went into Iran, we thought, "No problem we`re going to handle
this deal, in fact there going to treat us as liberators", you know the
rest of the story.

Do we really know what the outcome is going to be if we don`t have a good
chance at this deal? This deal that`s on the table is America`s best
option to avoid another costly war in the Middle East. Now in the face of
mounting criticism from Israel and the Republican Party, President Obama
defended the deal on Sunday.


OBAMA: There`s no option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon
that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework
that we put forward, and that`s demonstrable. We know that a military
strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran`s nuclear program
for a period of time but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards
a bomb.


SCHULTZ: So what is the Republican plan other than to be against this
president? What is the Republican plan to make sure that we are not nuked?
To make sure our neighbors aren`t nuked? What is it? More sanctions,
international intervention is there a guarantee that that`s going to work?
It seems to me that the Republicans simply do not want to exhaust every
effort for peace.

Now the President is sticking by the agreement because he claims it`s a
solid deal. Can we get at least give him the benefit of the doubt? Oh no,
can`t do that. The tentative deal limits Iran to roughly 5,000
centrifuges, it stops them from enriching uranium and it provides intensive
unprecedented inspections unlike anything we`ve had before.

Overall the deal has a one year breakout period for Iran to get a bomb if
they break the rules. Where`s the downside of this? Do we not have the
military ability to reactive something goes wrong? President Obama said
the Israelis have every right to be concerned about Iran, their history of
terrorism is not easily forgotten and the President said if Iran doesn`t
change, every option is on the table.


OBAMA: Our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in

These are a simple analogy. It`s not as if in all these conversations I`m
leaving all my, you know, rifle`s at, you know, at the door. We`re walking
down (ph) these negotiations and nearby knows that we got the most fire
power, and we`re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our


SCHULTZ: Well easily predicted, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin
Netanyahu, he ain`t buying any of this. He`s done nothing but slam the
deal since it was announced and there`s a pattern to this. You can go back
before the Iraq War and find more of the same kind of audio. He made the
round on the Sunday shows voicing strong opposition. California Senator
Dianne Feinstein has some harsh words for Netanyahu`s media blitz.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, (D) CALIFORNIA: This can backfire on him and I wish
that he would contain himself because he has put out no real alternative.
In he`s speech to the Congress, no real alternative, since then no real


SCHULTZ: No real alternative, the only alternative Netanyahu has is more
sanctions and possibly airstrikes. Now we know more sanctions will not
stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Meanwhile Republican, they`re lining up an opposition like they always do,
they are united stronger that ever against this deal because Obama`s going
to have his name to it. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham came out on
Sunday with his typical rhetoric.


GRAHAM: Obama is a flowed negotiator. His foreign policy has failed on
multiple fronts. Nobody in the region trusts him. The Iranians do not
fear or respect him, so he`ll never be able to get the best deal. The best
deal I think comes with the new president.

Hillary Clinton would do better and I think everybody on our side except
maybe Rand Paul to do better, so that`s one way leaking to this program,
keeping the interim deal in place that`s been fairly successful and have a
new crack at it with a new president who doesn`t have the baggage of Obama.


SCHULTZ: Key word in that sound bite, fear. Republicans can`t do anything
without fear, and of course the theme of all is, "Well, anybody but Obama,
I mean heck anybody in there can get this done besides him."

Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee who`s the Chair the Foreign Relations
Committee introduced legislation that would block sanctions from being
lifted on Iran for 60 days while Congress reviews the deal. The White
House says promise to veto but Corker isn`t backing down, he`s working hard
to get the 67 votes needed for a veto override.


SEN. BOB CORKER, (R) TENNESSEE: I don`t whether we have 67 votes or not
just with cosponsors and if every Republican supports it, we`ll see how
that all shapes out. But we`ve got 64 or 65 that we`re aware of today if
that were the case. I talked to numbers of Democrats over the weekend and
I think there are many more that are considering this. Look, I think the
American people want the United States Senate to go through this deal --


SCHULTZ: The American people want the Congress to do what? How about
going to work? Since Corker is so concerned about what the American people
want well, here are the latest numbers. The fact is 59 percent of
Americans support a plan to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for new
limits on its nuclear problem.

Folks here`s what we`re dealing with, the political element in all of
these, is it -- this is back to Obama. This is back to pure hatred for the
president. If President Obama were able to do something, to bring a real
truth (ph) to fruition when it comes to nuclear weapons with the Iranians,
it would be too historic for the Republicans to stomach it.

It would be too impact full for them to politically overcome, and they
certainly can`t allow this president to have that kind of success. Hell,
we got health care under him, he turned the economy around, he save the
automobile industry, he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do
back on the campaign trail in 2007 and the Republicans are hellbent for
election that they`re not going to let him accomplish it. That`s what this
is about.

Notice in all of these interviews by the Republicans, give us they plan,
give us plan B if you don`t like what John Kerry and the negotiating team
of President Obama have put on the table to bring the Iranians this close.
Why didn`t the Democrats do this to Reagan when he was talking to
Gorbachev? Probably because they were for America.

Get your cellphones out; I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question
-- and this is a new process that we have here that is evolved you`re going
to love this. Here`s the question, "Will Republicans be able to stop the
nuclear agreement with Iran?"
Now what you have to do is go to Now you can cast your
vote throughout the show, you can agree or disagree with what is being said
as we go along. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show. We
think you`re going to like our new system in a big way.

For more let me bring in Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of the Nation
Magazine, and of course "The Nation" is out with her 150th issue on
newsstands right now.

Katrina congratulations and --


SCHULTZ: -- always great work.

HEUVEL: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Great to have you with us tonight. Roadmap this for us Katrina,
where we`ve been, where do you think we`re going?

HEUVEL: So I think this is a historic deal, a good deal, the best chance
for lasting peace in the Middle East. I think we`ve seen that the hard-
liners both here and Iran are in alliance to subvert and sabotage this
deal. Your numbers in the poll showing overwhelming majority of American
support a negotiated solution is very important because the President is
going to have to sell this deal not to the American people who are onboard
but to the Republicans who as you said Ed have so polluted this issue.

Have so -- made the atmosphere so toxic that it`s about undermining,
delegitimizing anything the President does. And beyond that Ed, they have
decided the tough principle diplomacy which is an important asset and
factor in any deal in American history, constitutes appeasement. This is
folly, moving forward I think there will be presidential prerogative, the
President spoke about that with Tom Friedman.

And I think he will veto the Republican`s attempts to sabotage this. And
because Israel and Iran had become such partisan issues, Ed don`t forget
the money pointed to the coffers of Tim Cotton and Corker, that I think
it`s going to be tough for those few Democrats who might want to step back
and blow up this deal --


HEUVEL: They`re not going to want to do that.

SCHULTZ: There`s no upside to blowing up an opportunity for peace, and
this is what I think the President needs to do. Don`t forget that the
American people have a play in all of these. There`s going to be another
election and there`s going to be a memory like an elephant when it comes to
figuring out who soured this deal.

And I think the President needs to get out and even though the numbers are
with him right now, continue to explain to the American people and get the
people behind him more and more to make sure that these goes through. If
he loses the people, he loses the deal.

HEUVEL: You know Ed, I totally --

SCHULTZ: I maybe wrong on that but --

HEUVEL: No, no, I totally agree because what you`re looking at, when you
look at the Republicans right now and their allies, the hardline allies
around the world in the Middle East is a politics. They`re playing a
politics of false triumphalism fused with fear and paranoia. And I think
that`s very dangerous and fear can move emotion.

So the President does need to get out there and explain why this benefits
the American people, why we don`t want another disaster like Iraq which is
contributed in large measure to the disasters and horrors. We`re now
witnessing ISIS Syria in the Middle East.

So I think a selling job -- but, you know, the media plays a role here too,
Ed, OK? Yesterday, Netanyahu -- correct me if I`m wrong, he took John
McCain`s place on all the three Sunday shows.

SCHULTZ: Oh yeah, no doubt.

HEUVEL: You know, and I think, where are the nonproliferation experts? I
know the -- the menace who played the key role in this negotiation
(inaudible). Why don`t we hear from them?

Now, of course Republicans who deny there`s a climate crisis aren`t going
to listen to science and nonproliferation experts but I think it`s vital
and selling is vital, a good deal.

SCHULTZ: I agree. Katrina vanden Heuvel --

HEUVEL: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: -- always a pleasure, great to have you with us on the Ed Show
tonight. Thanks so much.

For more let me bring in Steve Clemons, MSNBC Contributor, Editor-at-Large,
for "The Atlantic", also with Dean Obeidallah, Columnist for "The Daily

Steve, where is the fly in the ointment here? What are the chances
Republicans can squash this deal as you see it?

STEVE CLEMONS, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I think that the Bob Corker, if he gets
the number of Senators that he thinks he`s on the verge off can at least
gum up the works. But as I shared with you the other day, I think it`s a
mistake to look at the GOP as a monolith here, that this is too
significant, a strategic inflection point for United States.

And, I know it`s not often though of but there are many U.S. Senators,
Republican and Democrat who take moments like this so seriously that they
actually do read the fine print. They think about these things --


CLEMONS: -- you u got folks like Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski and
others who just don`t necessarily bandwagon along with everyone. And so,
I`m more hopeful than most that this actually doesn`t go as far into the
partisan camp that many people think it will.

SCHULTZ: Well, you know, if you want to stand with Lindsey Graham and John
McCain and you`re a Democrat, you want to turn on this President as
successful as he`s been with foreign policy then maybe the Democrats who
aren`t sold on this, Dean, ought to step up with their own plan. What do
they want to do?

I don`t hear anybody talking about that. I think there`s just a big
election political calculus being played out here by these Democrats who
aren`t strong enough to stand with the President on this. What do they
want? And this means they are against John Kerry too. Do they not support

In 2004, he campaigned on this as well. So, where are these Democrats
right now? Why can`t they stand with the President?

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: Obviously, self-interest of a
politician will never be underestimated, I mean, Ed and that`s what`s going
on with any Democrat who`s standing against the President. It`s remarkable
though. Let`s be honest.

Can you remember a foreign leader going into the American television and
appealing to the American people directly to undermine the President of the
United States? An issue of national security and then worst, Republicans,
in this case, the Republicans standing with the foreign leader against the
President on an issue that we should be united on.

And just to be clear, I mean I interviewed Congressman Andre Carson on my
radio show over the weekend, he`s in the House Intelligence Committee, they
declare Democrats and Republicans basically agree Iran should not get a
nuclear bomb.

The question is how do we prevent that? And you have the great number of
60 percent Americans say diplomacy, a recent poll showed 45 percent of
Republicans think we should do military action now. Now, 45 percent
Republicans -- .

SCHULTZ: That`s a scary thing.

OBEIDALLAH: That`s very scary and that`s part of the beast they`re

SCHULTZ: You know, I mean Steve that`s a fear card right there.

CLEMONS: Right. I mean I think the other thing here is -- where the
Democrats thus far are failing in a big way is, if you look back to the old
U.S. Soviet Arms Control Treaties, those treaties expected the Soviets to
cheat. They anticipate a cheating. They were no lovefest (ph) documents
just like this U.S.-Iran framework is not a lovefest (ph) with Iran.

It builds in the factors that Iran might cheat, that Iran might go the
other way and it basically then provides the pathway to go back to right
exactly where the Republicans want to go, which is more sanctions --


CLEMONS: -- tough treatment and potentially even, you know, hard
conflict. And so that`s what`s missing and I think Democrats, many of them
are not digging in to understand that this is a tough as steel effort to
try to redirect Iran, its intentions in the world and what it`s about. So
it`s not softness that is behind this treaty. It`s really tough, really
tough thinking and tough muscle.

SCHULTZ: No doubt. Gentlemen, great to have you with us, Steve Clemons,
Dean Obeidallah, I appreciate your time tonight.

You know, these Democrats out there who don`t want to stand with the
President, they ought to be putting out a position statement on what they
think ought to be done at this juncture. What would you have done to bring
us to this crossroads? All of these conservative Democrats who were so
concerned about whether we`re doing the right thing with Iran.

We`re talking to them. We got a deal. We got a chance of something
historic. Just -- have they not figured out where the Republicans are
after all these years of obstruction? This is no different than
obstructing any other bill that`s out there.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at -- right at the bottom, We appreciate your interacting with us. Share your
thoughts with us on Tweeter @EdShow and like us on Facebook. And by the
way you can get my video podcast at

Coming up, anti-equality rhetoric heats up as culture wars build across the

Plus, new details about the newsroom breakdown at Rolling Stone over the
now discredited UVA rape story. Stay with us. We`ll be right back at the
Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: Remember to go to -- We want to
take your polls. Where you at on all of these? To cast your vote on
tonight`s question go there.

Here is a look at what you`re voting for so far.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show, thanks for watching tonight. So
Indiana and Arkansas, they have reacted to public pressure, they`re paying
attention. Both states have signed revised Religious Freedom Laws after
nationwide pressure and exposure. That didn`t sit well with the last
winner of the Iowa Republican Caucus and that would be Former Senator Rick
Santorum. He says he wishes the law kept the original framework.


SANTORUM: I think that the language they have is better language. This is
acceptable language. I voted for this language.

Tolerance is a two-way street. If you`re a print shop and you are a gay
man, should you be forced to print "God hates fags" for the Westboro
Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? Should you be forced to -
- should the government? And this is really the case here. Should the
government force you to do that?


SCHULTZ: So Mr. Santorum is discrimination a two-way street also?
Santorum thinks that religious freedom trumps everything even if it
discriminates against customers and other Americans. The owners of the
Indiana Pizza Shop said that they would refuse to cater a gay wedding.
They had to close their doors, their supporters donated over $800,000 to
combat the negative attention. A cake shop in Florida refused to write an
anti-gay message on one of their desserts and it`s receiving threats.

On the prairie, the North Dakota legislature decided not -- that would be
N-O-T -- not to include sexual orientation and gender identity into their
state. Human Rights Act in response, a Fargo Coffee shop says that it will
refuse service to those politicians who upheld discrimination. I guess
that`s how it`s a two-way street.

Republican presidential contenders are in a tight spot over this religious
freedom measure and all of this conversation that`s going on. Most came
out in support of Indiana`s original law, after the backlash they`re
struggling to find footing.

Joining me tonight Mike Rogers of, also with us Dr. Michael
Eric Dyson, Professor at Georgetown University and MSNBC political analyst.
Gentlemen good to have you with us tonight.


SCHULTZ: Mike you first. It sounds like Senator Santorum -- he`s been out
of the Senate for a long time but obviously he still wants to run the
country. You can do anything you want in society to discriminate against
anybody if your faith calls for it. Now is that the way the railroad is
supposed to be run?

MIKE ROGERS, RAWSTORY.COM: Well, I always say to people, whatever Santorum
says, you can be pretty much assured that the other side isn`t the correct
of history. And, he wants to create these canards, you know, folks in the
media have been talking about. So, folks like Santorum -- and this isn`t
what they really should be addressing. You know, it`s not a matter of
printing hateful messages on posters, this is a matter of we serve, who
deserves discrimination and who doesn`t deserve discrimination in the
United States today.

That`s what this is about, it`s not about hateful words on posters which is
the kinds of manipulation that Rick Santorum will use to confuse folks on
the real message.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Dyson, I see a real parallel here. A lot of their
conversation I think, my opinion is rooted in the fruits of racism. And
pitting sides against one another, other people are -- other folks are
other what we are, "So we`re right and they`re wrong and they shouldn`t
have the same freedom." I mean that really is what -- as I see this
argument coming down to. What`s you`re take on it?

DYSON: I think you`re absolutely right Ed. There`s no doubt that the
history of struggle over difference in this country revolves around the
Civil Rights Movement which was a watershed moment in the epic tides of
freedom washing over America. Now, people who have been inspired by that
movement, to stand up for their rights; the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and
transgender are appealing to that very principle of defending yourself
against the vicious bigotry of the mainstream.

And here I think we have to be explicit in articulating a link between that
reasonable argument from the past and a reasonable argument in the present.
You don`t have the right to discriminate against me. Your freedom of
religion ends at the line of the state where the state protects all people
who may not subscribe to a particular religion hence the establishment
clause in the constitution, the Second Amendment that provides opportunity
for all believers and non-believers to have equal sway in the public

It doesn`t mean that your religious viewpoints can influence your politics;
it simply says that your religion cannot be the dictate of what happens in
the secular arena. And here I think we have to make a distinction between
the Civil Rights Movement and those like Rick Santorum and other who would
claim that they are the legatines of that movement.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn`t try to make this a Christian nation; he used
his Christian religion to make this a just nation. And that means
sometimes standing against the bigoted beliefs of other religious
believers, after all during the 60s and the Civil Rights Movement, there
we`re a set of Christians who we`re white, who we`re against a set of
Christians who we`re black and the state --


DYSON: -- have to step in to protect those black Christians.

SCHULTZ: Mike, where does this politically leave these conservative? As
if they have no concern whatsoever about what movement has unfolded in this
country and where popular thought is which is based in equality. I mean
everything the LGBT community does is based on freedom and equality and
opportunity. But they just can`t seem to grab on to that because their
plastic Jesus gets in the way. So where does this politically leave them
down the road as you see it?

ROGERS: Well I think it leaves them in a really hard place. The final
word that he used was opportunity. And they`re having a tough time now
balancing between that business opportunity and a lot of the reaction in
Indiana specifically of what`s going on has been about business leaders
saying, "enough." So, that opportunity leaves them confused because they
have this kind of religious base that is so filled with hate that they`ll
immediately jump out in front of that first law.

They`ll immediately say, "Yes, yes, yes, yes" and they don`t realize that
there`s a new generation, there`s an awful lot of people on both sides of
the aisle and particularly young people on the Republican side who had
shifted in droves on this very issue. And they`re sick and tired of
hearing their friends beat up, and that`s why you saw Republican after
Republican standing up against this insanity as well.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Dyson let me take this one step further and maybe even a
little bit provocative. If a racist, a vowed racist is driving a public
bus and decides not to pick up minorities -- Houston we got a problem.

DYSON: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: What`s the difference between that -- what`s the difference
between that and what Santorum is talking about? Let me put it that way.

DYSON: I`ll give a very short answer, nothing. There is no difference
between that kind of discrimination and bigotry that is being perpetuated
now than -- discrimination and bigotry that we`re perpetuated 56 years ago.
So make a distinction upon a human being -- on a human being on the basis
of race or class or color or sexual orientation or religion is no
different. And so what we have here is a parallel that we have to continue
to hammer to make sure we understand that those things are the same.

SCHULTZ: All right, Michael Eric Dyson, Mike Rogers, great to have with us
tonight gentlemen, thanks so much.

DYSON: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Coming up next on the Ed Show, the latest on the Rolling Stone`s
reaction of the University of Virginia rape story. And we will talk to the
head of the National Organization of Women. Terry O`Neill with us tonight.

And later, a continuos fight of the United States Congress begins in
Florida. Annette Taddeo joins us right after her candidacy announcement.

We`ll be right back, stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed show. Rolling Stone is facing the music
for their discredited article titled "A rape on campus". The magazine
issue a retraction and an apology for the article that has come under fire
after the subject story was questioned.

Local authorities found no basis for the subject`s account. A new report
conducted by the Colombia University Graduate School of Journalism details
the magazine`s mishandling of the story, NBC`s Ever Lawrence has more.


EVER LAWRENCE, NBC CORRESPONDENT: The headline rocked a feeling of
security for women at universities across the country. Rolling Stone
published an article describing a 2012 gang rape of a student named Jackie
at the University of Virginia fraternity. After series doubts about the
story emerge Rolling Stone asked Colombia University School of Journalism
to find out what went wrong. It found ,"A story of journalistic failure
that was avoidable."

of the reporter, the editor, the editor`s supervisor and the fact tracking

LAWRENCE: They found the Reporter Sabrina Ruben Erdely had a bias for
Jackie`s story and a lack of transparency in verifying it. Police never
substantiated there was a rape. Discredited, Rolling Stone retracted the
story. The final report says, "The magazine failure may have spread the
idea that many women invent rape allegations." A fear shared by the head
of Washington D.C.`s Rape Crisis Center

INDIRA HENARD, HEAD, D.C. RAPE CRISIS CENTER: My message is, is that you
aren`t alone and that we believe you and that we still encourage you to
come forward and seek support and resources.

LAWRENCE: Now the fraternity Phi Kappa Psi plans to sue Rolling Stone as
students try to repair the scars left at the University of Virginia campus.

WILLIAM HENAGAN, UVA STUDENT: There are hundred and hundreds of -- yes,
students, administrators and faculty who care about this issue on grounds
and they want to help this institution become a national leader on
preventing further sexual assaults on college campuses.

LAWRENCE: Rolling Stone and the reporter apologized. Still, no one at the
magazine lost their job.


SCHULTZ: Let`s turn to Terry O`Neill tonight. President of the National
Organization for Women, Terry great to have you with is tonight. This is -
- it`s sad on all accounts, and one can only question how hard it is going
to be for rape victims in the future to come forward when they`re going to
be facing such extraordinary scrutiny. What`s the landscape after this
damaging situation unfolded?

news and good news. I think the bad news is that, people who I actually
refer to as rape apologist will seize on the journalistic failures that
happened with the Rolling Stone article to claim that, you know, the
countries awash in false rape claims. The truth is that false rape claims
occur at a far lower rate then false claims of other crimes, I mean robbery
is a 10 percent, the number I`ve seen for rape claims that turned out to be
false is 2 percent.

So we know that claims of rape are highly reliable. I personally believe
Jackie. I am convinced that she was subjected to a rape. As far as the
failures in the Rolling Stone article, clearly there were lots of
journalistic failures there. The good news is that the United States
government is taking rape on campus much more seriously.

There are dozens, dozens of colleges and universities they`re being
investigated by the Department of Education on suspicion that they have
violated Title IX which guarantees educational equality for women, and that
the violation of Title IX has to do with the failure to respond to rape on
campus. So we do have a large and growing movement to really address rape
on campus not withstanding the Rolling Stone article.

SCHULTZ: And where do you start in doing that, where do you start, what
has to happen?

O`NEILL: You know, I think one of the things that needs to happen, I think
one of the problems with the Rolling Stone article was the -- the sort
gravitational pool to the most salacious, the most sensationalize, the most
brutal and upsetting story of a gang rape.

I would love to see journalists looking at, you know, acquaintance rape,
looking at rape -- rape stories that are more new ones, they are
nonetheless rapes. And we need to begin to accept that rape culture in
this country does exist, that it really can be undone if we look at the
less sensational story.

SCHULTZ: So what do you think universities have to do moving forward? I
mean, is this a benchmark moment in this corner of society, that needs to
be addressed, what can universities do as you see it?

O`NEILL: OK, I think there`s one thing the universities can do is set a
goal for themselves in an easy metric and that is this. Does the rape
victim get to graduate in four years? We got to flip the current script
that is happening on college campuses.

Right now in the vast majority of cases, it`s the rape victim who
eventually gets push out of her college career. She becomes isolated,
she`s not getting the kind of support she needs, her rapist is running
around the campus, you know, saying hi to her and intimating her and she
eventually leaves campus. Meanwhile the rapist continues on for his four-
year career and he and he graduates on time.

I think that the metric has to be, what percentage of rape victims on your
college campus are graduating on time, and what you have done to move that
rapist off the college campus? That`s an easy thing for colleges to do if
they will.

SCHULTZ: Terry O`Neill, President of the National Organizational Women
good to have you with us tonight, I appreciate it.

Up next, the cover up of "Golf Digest" is opening eyes. Rapid Response
Panel is next on that, stay with us.

JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Julia Boorstin with your CNBC Market

The Dow reverses the triple-digit loss, end with its triple-digit gain.
The S&P climbs 13 and the NASDAQ add 30.

One big winner today, Tesla shares jumped more than 6 percent after the
company said it delivered more than 10,000 vehicles last quarter. That was
its most ever, and a 55 percent increase over year ago.

Meanwhile crude prices jumped over 6 percent as worries eased about Iran`s
ability to ramp up exports.

That`s it from CNBC first in business worldwide.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.
Thursday kicks off the first round of the 2015 Master`s Tournament at
Augusta National Gold Club.

The year`s first major championship isn`t the only thing golf observers
we`re talking about this weekend. The cover of "Golf Digest" magazine
fitness and power issue caused quite a stir on social media. NBC`s
Sheinelle Jones has the story.


SHEINELLE JONES, NBC NEWS: 20 year-old pro golfer Lexi Thompson is turning
a few heads this weekend. Not for her play on the course but for her
provocative image gracing the cover of Golf Digest magazine, sporting only
a glove and a towel.

It`s taking a little time for fans to take a few swings on social media
with one tweeting, "I hope Golf Digest is aware that women don`t actually
golf topless, do they know this? I worry they don`t know this."

Another go in so far to say, "Golf Digest is delivered monthly in a
discreet, plain brown paper envelope -- for you privacy."

It follows last year`s controversial cover which pitcher Paulina Gretzky
who isn`t a pro golfer herself something the magazine`s editor touched on
writing, "We`ve come along way from a year ago when the LPGA condemned our
choice of Paulina Gretzky, Measles Culpa, ladies."

For her part, Thompson posted her support of the shot. "I landed on the
May cover of Golf Digest. So pumped to represent fitness and power,

LISA CORNWELL, REPORTER GOLF CHANNEL: They wanted to create this
discussion that the ladies on the LPGA Tour are athletes and they need to
be seen as athletes and like see a certainly top tier athlete --

JONES: A point a highlight and perhaps by golfer Rory Mcllroy and his
images inside "Men`s Health" also shirtless.

CORNWELL: When people look at her and they think, "Wow, golfers really our
athlete", she is a perfect example on that.

JONES: Raising the question on whether or not suggested images are now
just par for the course.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight in a Rapid Response Panel, still with us Terry
O`Neill, President of the National Organization of Women, Political
Strategist Angela Rye and also former LPGA player Marjorie Jones, a head
golf professional at the Golf Club at Chelsea Piers.

And I want to start with you first Marjorie if we can. You know, a 20-
year-old kid in the culture, she`s an athlete. She clearly doesn`t have
any problem with being on the cover, isn`t subjective -- how do you view
this as a former professional golfer? What do you make of this? What`s
your -- what are your thoughts on this cover?

MARJORIE JONES, FMR. LGPA PLAYER: You know, I think that first of all,
she`s beautiful, she is athletic, she`s an amazing talent, great skill and
I actually don`t mind it at all. It`s a part of who she is and it`s her
choice to decide to this particular cover. And, if it brings more people
into women`s golf, that makes me happy.

SCHULTZ: And she tweeted out, Thompson tweeted out as far as the image on
the cover writing said, she was so "pumped to represent fitness and power
#GirlPower." Terry O`Neill if she`s happy with the cover where`s the

O`NEILL: I think the issue is with magazine editors who very rarely put
women out there as athletes really pumping their athleticism. If you look
at the numbers and you kind of look at all these magazines, what you see is
a portrayal of women is much more often sexualize than male athletes. The
men athletes are portrayed really emphasizing their athleticism. The women
athletes, we emphasize their sexuality. I think that`s an imbalance that
really needs to be -- that needs to be addressed.

It`s not Lexi`s job to address it, right? It`s the magazine editors.
They`re the ones that really need to get a clue here.

SCHULTZ: Angela Rye, who are the winners and the losers in these? Does
this help this professional golfer?

ANGELA RYE, POLITICAL ANALYST: I don`t think it helps Lexi and I, you
know, kudos to her for making the cover. I just wish that she would have
made the cover with more clothes on. I think that, case and point of what
kind of problem this causes, scrolling through the tweets Ed, I saw one
person respond to her and say, "Great cover, nice boobs." That has nothing
to do with her golf game and unfortunately it is a distraction.

Now, she could very well feel empowered by this particular cover, I feel
stand (ph) by. I just been, you know, last week with young women at
Georgetown talking about women`s empowerment and to me this is not
reflective of that at all.

SCHULTZ: Marjorie, what about the self-esteem of being a golfer, I mean,
you got to be mentally tight. You got to be really wound up and have your
-- the mental capacity to fight back any kind of negativity that might be
out there. Is this kind of maybe her way of doing that? I mean this is a
real expression on her part as a competitive athlete. Would you accept

JONES: You know, for her, she has a lot to show. She has a lot to offer
and I think this is part of her -- who she is. And, I think that that was
up to her to express that. And again, I really think that when you have
these wonderful athletes and you can see -- you start to see into them a
little bit more, maybe people will come and watch and, you know, she`s --
it`s going to be good for her.

I think it will be helpful for the golf, and I don`t -- I mean understand
what the other gals are saying about, you know, is this the best way to go
about it? I don`t know, but I certainly don`t think that it`s going to
hurt women`s golf.

SCHULTZ: Terry, what about just the culture of the "I-me" generation. She
wants the attention. There`s no doubt that she`ll probably get more offers
for more endorsements. She`s got a long career ahead of her. How big of a
decision was it, do you think for her to do this?

O`NEILL: Look, you know, I think that female athletes are being constantly
asked to pose nude. I mean that`s the issue and male athletes are being
constantly asked to pose in a way that emphasizes their athleticism. So I
have no qualm. I mean, I really don`t -- I don`t have any criticism of
Lexi herself for accepting the offer to say, you know, we got you on the
cover of the magazine. Where I have an issue is why is it that, you know,
what kind of society are we reflecting when the editors of all of these
sports magazines really are constantly pummeling women athletes to pose in
sexy ways whereas male athletes are expected to pose in athletic ways.

That`s really where I have the problem. I don`t have a problem with Lexi
herself at all. I think she decided that she wants to do it.

SCHULTZ: Angela, looking at this cover, is this pride or is this business?

RYE: It`s definitely business for the magazine. Hopefully, for Lexi it
will result in business. I mean she`s exposing a whole lot here, no pun
intended and I think it`s, you know, unfortunate again, she is a 20-year-
old young woman.

I just met, a couple of weeks ago, you know, with young women her age and I
just don`t think that she`s at a -- in a frame of mind where that decision
she`d be made at this point, I really don`t. I think it was a bad choice
and I hope that it doesn`t hurt her career with all of the distractions
that are --

SCHULTZ: All right. Angela Rye, Marjorie Jones, Terry O`Neill, great to
have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.

Coming up on the Ed Show. Still ahead, a new chapter on Florida politics.
Annette Taddeo joins us after announcing her candidacy for Congress.

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


SCHULTZ: And at tonight`s two minute drill, oh we are just hours away from
finding out who`s the best. The Wisconsin Badgers take on Duke in
tonight`s NCAA championship game. Wisconsin scored a big upset over
Kentucky over the weekend, I`m loving it. They`ll face Duke. They really
don`t have any with Michigan State. They`re going to be looking for the
fourth -- fifth national championship under Mike Krzyzewski`s leadership.

I`m picking the Badgers because any team that hasn`t won it since before
Pearl Harbor deserves to take home of some hardware.

More coming up at the Ed Show, stay with us, we`ll be right back.



FRM. GOV. JEB BUSH, (R) Florida: I`m my own man, and my views are shaped
by my own thinking and my own experiences.


SCHULTZ: Well, Jeb Bush maybe is his own man but he is apparently not sure
of his ethnicity or he is trying to fool folks. Now, he is apologizing for
it, sort of.

The former Florida Governor replied to his son`s tweet earlier today
writing, "My mistake. Don`t think I fooled anyone." His mistake was
selecting Hispanic on a Florida voter registration form back in 2009. The
New York Times has published a form from the Miami-Dade County Elections
Department. The "Times" said that Bush speaks fluent Spanish. His wife
was born in Mexico for two years, back when he was in his 20s he lived in
Venezuela, immersing himself in the country`s culture.

If Jeb thinks those reasons qualify him as a shoe in for the Latino vote,
he is really mistaken as I see it. Florida is ground zero for the
important Latino vote, no doubt about it and conservative lawmakers have
been largely out of touch with the Latino population.

Democrat`s Annette Taddeo wants to change that. She is announcing her
candidacy to run for Congress and Florida`s 26th District and she joins us

Annette Taddeo, Vice Chair of the Florida Democratic Party, great to have
you with us tonight. I`m curious Annette as to, what do you think Jeb Bush
was thinking here. In fact Jeb`s son wrote "#HonoraryLatino" on his tweet
to his father. What`s your reaction to that? What`s going on here? Is
this some kind of strategy?

ANNETTE TADDEO, VICE CHAIR FL. DEM. PARTY: I don`t know. I do know that
this is going to be indeed a very exciting presidential campaign.

And in Florida as always, it gets exciting. But, you know, I`m going to
concentrate of making sure that the Hispanic voices from South Florida and
voices of everyone, really get heard because right now all we`re hearing is
special interest and lobbyist in Washington and not real hard working
middle class folks like myself that have worked so hard to -- for the
American dream and that`s what --


TADDEO: -- we`re worried about as voters.

SCHULTZ: Well, the Republicans seem to have a real hard time with the
Latino population from the state of point of gathering their confidence of
the polls. I mean they`re anti-immigration when they go to Iowa and South
Carolina and New Hampshire but then they have to come back to Florida and
act like they`ve got all the answers. How is that going to work out?

TADDEO: Well, you know, we as a hard working people and Hispanics, we try
real hard to get that message across, what`s important to us, it`s not just
immigration and that is very important. And we should work together. It
shouldn`t be a partisan issue. We should work together but unfortunately,
we`ve gotten -- nothing accomplished. So we need to get that strong voice
out there talking on behalf of everyone so that everyone has the
opportunity that we need to the American dream.

Hard working moms, equal pay, I mean there`s so many issues that matter to
us no matter where we`re from. And that`s what the greatness of America is
and that`s what I`m going to do when I get to Washington.

SCHULTZ: Is your name recognition from the last gubernatorial race going
to help you out?

TADDEO: I hope so, but I think more importantly, Ed, I think the people of
South Dade know me as a fighter. I`m the daughter of a fighter pilot and I
started my own business right here in this community and that`s, you know,
that`s the person that they`re going to vote for.

SCHULTZ: All right, Annette Taddeo, always good to have you with us, best
of luck. We`ll follow the story for sure. Thanks so much.

TADDEO: Thank you Ed.

SCHULTZ: 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