IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guest: Al Sharpton, Gary Peters, Raul Grijalva, Joan Walsh, John Feehery, Joe Sestak, Bob Shrum

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW

tonight from New York.

These stories are hitting my hot buttons tonight. 

Well, I was in the office this afternoon and I was highly entertained. 

Low-rated right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt hijacked MSNBC air time this

afternoon and went after me.  Little old me. 

Hugh, I hope you‘re watching tonight, because if you want to make this

a fair fight where I can talk back, I‘m going to give you an offer you

can‘t refuse. 

That‘s coming up in the “Playbook” tonight. 

Arizona is one step away from what I believe is legalized racial

profiling.  I think the state government is way out of bounds on this one. 

I‘ll talk to Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva and Reverend Al Sharpton about

this in just a moment. 

Plus, Sean Hannity thinks Michele Bachmann is a victim. 

Sean, you don‘t want to silence her.  It would screw up my entire

show.  We‘d have to change “Psycho Talk.”  Come on. 

But this is the story that has me fired up tonight.  Racism is alive

and well in this country, the United States of America. 

Police in Arizona may soon be able to target you because of the color

of your skin.  Arizona lawmakers passed an immigration bill Monday

requiring cops to determine the status of people if they are—if there is

reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants.  The law requires both

state and local police to arrest people who are unable to provide

documentation proving that they are in this country legally. 

Now, reasonable suspicion, I think, is a real slippery slope to

fascism.  No American cop should ever utter the phrase, “Can we see your


Well, where are you, Tea Partiers?  This is big government.  Glenn

Beck should be just screaming and crying about this. 

Bill O‘Reilly, aren‘t you looking out for these people? 

This is the government takeover that they‘ve been squealing about all

along, but don‘t hold your breath.  They would much rather defend old white

guys who bring loaded guns to presidential rallies.  They don‘t seem to

care about a state terrorism terrorizing an entire race of people,

especially if they‘re brown people. 

Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator who wrote the bill down

in Arizona, told Reuters, “I believe handcuffs are a wonderful tool when

they‘re on the right people.  We want to get them off law enforcement and

get them on the bad guys.”

Nothing judgmental there. 

Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, has five days to veto the bill or

sign it into law.  Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, well, they‘re urging her to

veto it. 

Well, here is Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez. 


REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS:  The governor of Arizona should

veto the bill.  And if she doesn‘t, the president of the United States,

Barack Obama, should assert federal government‘s preeminent role in

regulating and enforcing our nation‘s immigration laws.  The lunacy of

rounding up people because they look a certain way or suspected of being in

violation of immigration statutes can only lead to one thing—violations

of people‘s basic fundamental civil rights, profiling. 


SCHULTZ:  That‘s exactly what it is. 

Well, of course this is just another mess that Bush left for Obama to

clean up.  The Republicans?  Remember, they had the House, Senate and White

House.  They didn‘t do anything about illegal immigration. 

They all accomplished—the only thing they accomplished really is a

half-built fence on the border.  That‘s really what they did. 

The law puts too much power in the hands of law enforcement here.  But

I also think that law enforcement shouldn‘t have to mop up what politicians

haven‘t taken care of. 

I think this whole thing is wrongheaded.  It will lead to more

problems than solutions.  The moment the governor signs this bill in

Arizona, the ink won‘t be dry before the first lawsuit is filed. 

America has to find the intestinal fortitude to address this issue,

starting in Washington, because this could be a slippery slope.  Arizona

passes it, then there‘s going to be more states passing it. 

And tell me how this leads to a better understanding of the racists in

this country.  It simply does not.  People will have a short fuse fast if

the wrong situation is put upon them. 

Tell me what you think about this in our telephone survey tonight,

folks.  The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 

My question tonight is: What is more harmful to America, cops who

racially profile or illegal immigration?  Press the number 1 for cops who

profile, press the number 2 for illegal immigration.  We‘ll bring you the

results later on in the show. 

Joining me now is Reverend Al Sharpton, president of the National

Action Network. 

Reverend, good to have you with us tonight. 


SCHULTZ:  Is this a step backwards from what you can see on the


SHARPTON:  Absolutely, it is.  I think that it is absolutely an

attempt to legalize racial profiling. 

I mean, all one has to do is imagine if there was a law in Maine or

Vermont saying that if you looked like a Canadian, we can pull you over and

take you in.  It wouldn‘t be tolerated.  It wouldn‘t even be thought of. 

This is basically a law designed to give police the right to stop any

Latino which robs them of their civil rights, because this is who this is

targeted for.  And this shouldn‘t be tolerated in a society that subscribes

to what we claim to subscribe to. 

SCHULTZ:  There‘s a huge difference between reasonable suspicion and

probable cause.  In your opinion, how is law enforcement going to

differentiate the two? 

SHARPTON:  They can‘t.  It has to be based on profiling. 

If the law, as it is written, says that you can, based on whatever the

policeman thinks is reasonable, stop and pull people over, and the

concentration there, particularly when you get into counties where you have

people like Arpaio, who I‘ve been out there demonstrating on, who has

basically robbed the rights of many Mexicans, whether they are legal or

illegal, I think that this is something that opens the door, as you said,

for a lot of danger, a lot of lawsuits back and forth.  It will ultimately

cost the state a lot of money defending the lawsuits, and it will only

raise tensions to where we‘re not solving the immigration problem, we‘re

not even attempting to do it.  We‘re scapegoating people, including the

police who become the target of those protests and those rightful protests

and lawsuits, because they have been pushed into doing something that

should be considered unconstitutional on a federal level. 

SCHULTZ:  Reverend Sharpton, what do you say to those folks who are

genuinely concerned about illegal immigration and undocumented workers and

how the federal government has failed to deal with this?  And we are being

overrun by a lot of folks that legally are not in this country. 

How should Arizona handle it? 

SHARPTON:  Well, the first thing I say is that two wrongs don‘t make

one civil right.  I think that the way to handle it is not to start


I think that there are all kinds of measures that have been laid out

that has, I think, been analyzed and they should go through the Congress

that would establish how we protect American workers, how we protect those

that are here legally, and protect the rights of even those that are not

here legally.  But to say because we haven‘t solved the problem we‘re going

to open the door to even more massive problems and sabotage the idea of an

America that doesn‘t profile people based on what they look like, I think

that doesn‘t solve the problem, it only creates a new and probably even

wider problem. 

SCHULTZ:  So is this a racist law in your opinion? 

SHARPTON:  In my opinion, it certainly opens the door to some racial

application of the law, and it‘s loose enough to do it.  The governor I

think should veto this bill on behalf of the people of Arizona, and making

sure that we live up to a country that doesn‘t violate principles just

because we haven‘t solved an immigration problem. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, I mean, laws like this I think have a way of being

part of a domino effect.  Arizona does it, you get these Republican

governors together at their governors‘ convention and they take ideas from

one another.  Then the next thing you know, legislation pops up in another


This is why I think it‘s a slippery slope.  That‘s why I said it in

the commentary. 

But what about the reaction from the Latino community?  There‘s been a

suggestion that they would stay home and not vote, which would politically

rope President Obama into this controversy. 

What do you think about all that? 

SHARPTON:  Well, I don‘t think not voting is the answer.  I think, if

anything, they should register and vote even more aggressively and vote all

over the country.  Because I agree with your commentary, Ed.  It‘s a

slippery slope. 

What we‘re really beginning to see, if this law is signed—and

again, I hope it is not—is that we‘re going to go into a states‘ right

era on immigration.  And we don‘t need that. 

We need to have one law.  We need it to be national and federal.  And

we need the federal government to protect people‘s rights.  This is what we

have a national government for. 

If we end up going state by state on immigration rights, we‘re going

to end up in a states‘ rights situation.  And many of us know what that

leads to.  And I think that a lot of the Latino groups that are talking

about boycotting voting ought to be doing voter registration drives and

voter turnout all over the country to stand up with the rest of Americans

that don‘t want to see us going back. 

Their slogan is “Take America Back.”  Back to who, from who? 

They want to go back before we had laws that protected citizens like

women and blacks and others.  We‘re not going back.  You can turn back the

clock, but you can‘t turn back time. 

SCHULTZ:  You know, we just had a compelling discussion with you in

the last week, Reverend Sharpton, in the National Action Network.  And I

was fortunate enough to be a part of one of your panels dealing with

minority ownership and media, and the microphone and being able to say what

you can say in this country.  But I think the question comes up, as we had

talked about, a black agenda, a Latino agenda.

Here we are.  I mean, this is it.  There is a law that is on the verge

of being passed.  It‘s been passed by the House and Senate in Arizona.  All

the governor has to do is sign it.

I mean, doesn‘t this really underscore the need for minority agendas

and to be seen through the political process to prevent stuff like this?

SHARPTON:  This is exactly what we‘re talking about.  People must

protect their interests based on where they sit in America.  All of those

agendas together make one big American agenda that‘s supposed to stand for

liberty and justice for all.

When it does not, they have an obligation to come forward.  And we

have an obligation to stand with them.

Again, it would not be tolerated if we were talking about other people

being profiled.  I don‘t think that it would be tolerated.  It shouldn‘t be

tolerated in this case.

SCHULTZ:  One final question on the unemployment rate with black

Americans in this country dealing with undocumented workers who do come in

to America and take jobs at a cheaper rate.  Decipher that for us.  What

does it mean to African-Americans?

SHARPTON:  Well, I think a lot of African-Americans are concerned

about that even though many of the jobs are jobs that African-Americans

don‘t seek.  But the culprit here is those that play the undocumented

laborer against the African-American or other Americans that seek


We should go after those that make profits off of a cheap and illegal

labor base.  We should not blame people that are the pawns of a scheme for

profits for people that are looking to get around the law.

SCHULTZ:  Reverend Al Sharpton, always a pleasure.  Great to have you

with us tonight.

SHARPTON:  Thank you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Thank you.

Coming up, conservative talker Hugh Hewitt unleashed a nasty attack on

me while on MSNBC this afternoon.  My thoughts on that, and a special

invitation for the Salem right-wing talker coming up in the “Playbook.”

Notice I have a smile on my face.

And gun-toting protesters are warning that America‘s heading towards

civil war?  We‘re living in tyranny?

Much more on that at the bottom of the hour.

All that, plus Hannity rises to the defense of his “psycho” sister

Michele Bachmann.

And slick Texas Governor Rick Perry nuzzles up to George W. Bush in

the “Zone.”  Oh, you don‘t want to miss it.

You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW, and thanks for watching


Something profound has been happening in this country while the

righties have been out there screaming about socialism and government


Now, get this story.  You guys who were on the Potomac yesterday with

your guns, I want you to pay attention to this one. 

GM, the company that you conservatives derided as “Government Motors,”

has used its government loan money to get back on its feet.  Tomorrow,

General Motors is expected to announce that the company will have all its

loan money repaid by June, five years ahead of schedule. 

Executives are also hopeful GM will turn a profit for the first time

since 2004.  But most importantly in all of this, 240,000 General Motors

employees are still working.  These are the folks the righties wanted to

throw into the river. 

Those folks have jobs because this president wasn‘t willing to let the

American auto industry die on his watch.  He was willing to take a chance

on the American workers. 

For more, let me bring in Michigan Congressman Gary Peters. 

Gary, this is a story that is not getting a lot of attention.  But

since they‘re crying about government takeovers and socialism and

government intrusion, I thought we should point out that where the credit

markets dried up on Wall Street and GM couldn‘t get any money anywhere

else, the government, you and me, the taxpayers, stepped in and let workers

try for another day. 

What about it? 

REP. GARY PETERS (D), MICHIGAN:  Well, you‘re absolutely right, Ed. 

This is a big victory for American workers, American families. 

We had a situation because of the mess on Wall Street and the

unbridled greed that existed on Wall Street that brought our economy to its

knees, and the auto industry was in a horrible situation.  And if it was

not for the government stepping forward and providing loans to the auto

industry, you would have seen not only those hundreds of thousands of jobs

at GM, but also at Chrysler and all the auto suppliers and auto dealers. 

There were millions of jobs at stake that would have been lost.  It

was very clear, without the help from the government, these companies wold

have liquidated and we would have lost a major component of manufacturing,

and might have well lost all manufacturing in this country, because you

need a strong auto sector in order to have manufacturing.  And without

manufacturing, you don‘t have good-paying middle-class jobs for hundreds of

thousands of families. 

SCHULTZ:  And how much Republican support did you get on this loan

effort to GM? 

PETERS:  Well, almost zero.  I mean, Republicans continue to fight it. 

In fact, even last week, I continued to hear Republicans talking about this

bailout of GM and how the government shouldn‘t have done that. 

I just would challenge them to look in the faces of those millions of

families that have jobs today and have a secure future, and is getting

brighter and brighter every day.  And that would not have been the case had

the government not stepped up. 

SCHULTZ:  So, the Republicans deregulated Wall Street.  They went and

played with their money, fell flat on their face.  Yet, when it came time

to help the blue collar workers and the middle-classers of this country,

they didn‘t want to do that. 

But now that we have a success story, does President Obama get any

credit at all for sticking his neck out and leading the way?  He put

together an auto task force to come up with solutions and then stepped out

and made it happen. 

PETERS:  Yes, absolutely.  The American public, Ed, needs to realize

this story.  Certainly, we know it in the Midwest because of all of the

impact it directly has on us.  But this is not just about the Midwest. 

This is a strategic industry for the entire country and jobs all over

the country.  And I think had we not done this, if we would have let this

credit crisis with greed run wild on Wall Street, the credit crisis bring

down the American auto industry, we would have looked back and said, how

could that have happened?  How could that have happened on anybody‘s watch? 

But it certainly took a lot of courage to step forward and make that

kind of investment necessary to protect these good-paying jobs in the

manufacturing sector, which in my mind you cannot have a strong country,

you can‘t have a strong democracy if you don‘t actually build something. 

This is not about gambling on Wall Street.  This is about making tangible

products that we can sell here in our country and export to other countries

as well. 

SCHULTZ:  And the future is bright for GM because they‘ve got the Volt

coming out.  Their technology, when it comes to battery-operated cars,

electric cars, is advancing.  I think this is a great story.  But, of

course, none of the Republicans wanted to make it happen. 

Congressman Peters, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.

PETERS:  Great to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  You bet.

Coming up, Texas Governor Rick Perry should lay of the Texas tea.  He

thinks this guy might go down in history as one of the best presidents

ever?  Well, he‘ll boogie his way into the “Psycho Talk” zone next.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk‘ tonight, we have the Tea Party and

governor from Texas, Rick Perry.  Now, of course Rick has publicly

entertained the idea of the state of Texas seceding from the United States,

which would be bad because then they‘d probably want to invade somebody. 

But even that‘s not as crazy as what he recently said about former

President Bush. 


GOV. RICK PERRY ®, TEXAS:  At the end of the day, when the history

books are written, I think George W. Bush will go down as a very, very good

president.  Here‘s why he was an incredibly good president, because this

man kept America safe.  Anyone who is not a rank political hack, who has an

agenda, and looks at this president‘s efforts, there are two things that I

think people judge presidents on, their safety and the economy.


SCHULTZ:  Well, you‘re zero for two on that one, big guy. 

Like a lot of Republicans, Rick seems to forget who was in the White

House on September 11, 2001. 

As far as the economy goes, Bush managed to turn a $127 billion budget

surplus into a $1 trillion deficit.  Although, you know, Texas, the history

books, the way they change things around, W. will be a great president by

the time they end up writing the books. 

Because of all of that, it is “Psycho Talk.” 

Coming up, this is only one guy who‘s more fired up than I am about

racist law that is passed in Arizona.  Congressman Raul Grijalva will blast

away in just a moment. 

Plus, an extremely low-rated, right-wing “Psycho Talk” talk show host

took a personal shot at me on this network today.  And, of course, I will

entertain all of you with my response coming up. 

And Sean Hannity has Michele Bachmann‘s back in a way that you really

won‘t believe.  The victim mentality?  Come on, Slant Head. 

You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  And thanks for watching


I think Arizona is a step away from legalizing racial profiling.  In

the next five days the governor will decide whether or not to sign a new

law that would allow a police officer to stop any person on reasonable

suspicion they are an illegal immigrant and demand to see their ID. 

On this program last week Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio, defended the

policy to me. 


JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF:  This is just two more—one

more law that is going to give the cops the authority to arrest someone

that‘s here illegally on a misdemeanor charge. 

Also it will give the government entities and make sure that they do

not have a policy that restricts their officers from enforcing the illegal

immigration law. 


SCHULTZ:  Joining me now is Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva.  He is

also the chairman of the Progressive Caucus. 

Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. 


SCHULTZ:  I need your—I want your straight take on this issue.  Is

this a racist law that‘s on the verge of being signed into law in Arizona? 

What do you think? 

GRIJALVA:  Absolutely.  I think once you single out a group of people

and this law is based on appearance, it‘s based on accent of your

language, it‘s based on those parameters—you can only single out a

certain group of people for that criteria. 

The people of color, it‘s Latinos, and it‘s someone that speaks with

an accent that is not considered English. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman -- 


SCHULTZ:  Yes.  Congressman, what should be the response of the Latino

community be to this law if the governor signs it? 

GRIJALVA:  I think the response needs to be, in Arizona, to punish the

people that are part of it and to support the people that are opposed to

it.  But beyond that, I think part of the national—you have to

nationalize this issue. 

And I think Arizona deserves not—national organizations,

conventions, Super Bowls—they need to not be part of doing business with

Arizona until they take away this very racist, discriminatory,

unconstitutional agenda away from Arizona. 


SCHULTZ:  Congressman, that sounds like you want to impose an economic

sanction by race on Arizona. 

GRIJALVA:  Well, I want to—I want to impact an economic sanction

based on the unconstitutionality of it, the discriminatory practice, and

the fact that Arizona is taking this back to some dark age in this country

that we don‘t belong.  And certainly you don‘t want it to be a model for

the rest of the country. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  Well, that‘s the—this could be the tip of the

iceberg.  You know how a law like this could be reciprocated in other

states as well, which would be a slippery slope.  That was my commentary

earlier tonight. 

But how do you justify law enforcement on reasonable suspicion versus

probable cause?  There is, I‘m told by law enforcement officials this

afternoon, there is a huge difference between these two. 

And this is going to give Arizonans to set the table for almost a

police state.  Do you think that goes too far? 

GRIJALVA:  No, I don‘t think it goes too far.  I was really happy to

see a couple of sheriffs—Sheriff Estrada from a border town in Arizona

said this is a discriminatory law.  It does not help us do our law

enforcement job and it hurts us providing safety for the people of the


And I think more and more of the law enforcement people that

understand that their job is safety and security for neighborhoods and for

towns are going to realize that they‘re being asked to do something that is

dictatorial, discriminatory. 


GRIJALVA:  And fundamentally unconstitutional. 

SCHULTZ:  Should this put legislation on the fast track?  Should this

be on the president‘s desk tonight? 

GRIJALVA:  Well, you know, it should have been a year ago, but the

point being that if we don‘t do comprehensive reform at the federal level

you give the opportunity for the Arpaios of the world to begin to dictate

immigration reform for this country based on the state -- 

SCHULTZ:  What‘s your opinion of him?  What‘s your opinion of Joe


GRIJALVA:  My opinion of him has been the same since he started on his

rant against immigrants.  His issue is basically a racial issue, and he has

turned it into a profitable, political opportunity for him. 

SCHULTZ:  And finally, Congressman, what do you say to those residents

of Arizona who are very concerned about undocumented workers and the

operations of bringing people across the border illegally?  How should that

be remedied if it‘s not this law? 

GRIJALVA:  I think you need to target.  You need to target the human,

the drug, and the gun runners.  You target them, you destroy their

organizations, and you don‘t spend as much important capital on that poor

Schlep that‘s trying to get across to pick some lettuce in Yuma. 

That is not where the problem is.  The problem is organized crime.  We

keep avoiding that issue in Arizona. 


GRIJALVA:  Because we continue to pretend that it‘s about the poor guy

that‘s coming over to try to pick some fruit. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, great to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so


GRIJALVA:  Thank you. 

SCHULTZ:  Now let‘s get some “Rapid Fire” response from our panel on

these stories.  The right wing network backed by TV star Kelsey Grammer—

and I‘ll never watch “Cheers” the same again—may be coming near you.  It

claims to be content that reinforces a conservative world view? 

I just want to know if they‘re going to be crazier than the guys

across the street.  And will they lie as much? 

Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is looking for a new job.  Wants to

be the mayor of Chicago. 

Plus, I want to know what my panel thinks of the invitation for

legalized racial profiling in Arizona. 

With us tonight, Joan Walsh, editor and chief,, and John

Feehery, Republican strategist with us tonight. 

All right.  Let‘s pick up, John, if I can with this story that we just

interviewed Congressman Grijalva about. 

Is this a racist law? 

JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  Ed, I don‘t know enough if it‘s

a racist law or not.  I do know that the situation in Arizona is very

tenuous.  The crime has skyrocketed.  There‘s a drug war right on the

border in Mexico. 

A lot of those folks are coming across are—the ways into Arizona

are now controlled by the drug runners and that is actually caused a big

spike in crime in Arizona and in Texas. 


FEEHERY:  The situation in Arizona is almost desperate and I think

that that‘s why you see some desperate measures going on down there. 

SCHULTZ:  Joan Walsh, does this give sweeping powers to law

enforcement and set up racial profiling in your opinion? 

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM:  Of course it does.  It does nothing other than

that.  And I just want to know—I want to ask John, where are the

principled conservatives who used to believe in human liberty when it comes

to a law like this? 

I can‘t believe that Barry Goldwater would support a law like this

where you have to show your papers if you look a little tan. 

I go to Arizona every year for baseball spring training, Ed, and I‘m

going to be worried about driving while tan there.  I‘m making a joke about

it.  But I think the people should think about the dollars they spend


This is a racist law and conservatives of principle need to speak up. 

We need to do something about illegal immigration. 

SCHULTZ:  John, this is your government takeover, man.  This is the

cops and the police -- 


WALSH:  Yes.  Really.  So let‘s see the picket.  Let‘s see the picket


FEEHERY:  Well—well, I‘ll tell you what.  When you have a situation

down there, you have an unbelievable drug war going on in Mexico.  It‘s

spilling over into Arizona and Texas.  Something‘s got to be done about it. 

Ranchers are under assault from these drug runners and, you know, you

can‘t just say, hey, this is no big deal.  It‘s a huge deal. 

WALSH:  I‘m not saying that, John. 

FEEHERY:  And then—and you need, Joan -- 

WALSH:  I‘m not saying that. 

FEEHERY:  You need to stand up for law and order.  And you‘re not

standing up for law and order.  Someone has got to stop the drug runners

and they‘ve got to stop the carnage in Arizona. 

WALSH:  You know I remember law and order when that was a kind of

George Wallace appeal.  That‘s always had a racial appeal. 

FEEHERY:  That‘s not—it‘s not -- 

WALSH:  It has a racial connotation -- 


FEEHERY:  Not at all. 

WALSH:  And I believe in law and order. 

FEEHERY:  Not when the drug runners are running the border. 

WALSH:  I‘m against the -- 

FEEHERY:  Are you really against the drug runners?  Are you, Joan? 


FEEHERY:  I don‘t think you are. 

WALSH:  Are you kidding me? 

FEEHERY:  You might be.  Are you calling me George Wallace?  Are you

kidding me when you say that?  That‘s ridiculous. 

WALSH:  I‘m not.  I‘m for the drug runners. 

FEEHERY:  Don‘t call me George Wallace, Joan.  That‘s not very fair. 

WALSH:  I didn‘t.  I said it sounded like George Wallace. 

FEEHERY:  I didn‘t sound like George Wallace. 

WALSH:  Law and order.  Law and order has an old ring. 

FEEHERY:  Sounds to me like—it sounds to me like you might be for

the drug runners when you say I‘m like George Wallace.  I‘m for law and

order down in Arizona. 

WALSH:  That‘s ridiculous. 

SCHULTZ:  Well, OK -- 

WALSH:  So am I. 

SCHULTZ:  OK, John, we‘re all for law and order. 

WALSH:  Absolutely. 


SCHULTZ:  Are we for, nationally—and you know how these things can

spread from border to border.  Are we in favor of giving law enforcement

almost unparalleled freedom in going up and shaking people down, saying,

well, it‘s reasonable suspicion? 

FEEHERY:  I‘m not for that, Ed.  I am—what I am for is, is Arizona

has to deal with a problem that‘s escalating and only getting worse.  And

they are desperate measures. 

I will say this, though, Ed.  I think we do need comprehensive

immigration reform because we‘ve got to get control of our borders.  First

we got to secure our borders. 

SCHULTZ:  OK.  All right, let‘s go to Rahm Emanuel.  What do you think

of him, Joan, wanting to be the mayor of Chicago? 


WALSH:  He‘s got to take a number, you know?  It‘s not (INAUDIBLE)

compete by any means.  Lisa Madigan, Jessie Jackson Jr. wants it, Billy

Daley might want it.  So it‘s a little bit weird.  It‘s a little bit weird

for him to talk about anything. 

SCHULTZ:  I think it is, too. 

WALSH:  Post-White House. 

SCHULTZ:  John, is the—John, does the president have an unhappy

camper on his hands? 

WALSH:  Yes. 

FEEHERY:  Well, you know, I‘m from Chicago so I can understand why

he‘d want to be mayor.  It‘s a great city and it‘s a big job.  I can‘t

imagine someone other than a Daley being mayor because it‘s pretty much my

whole life it‘s been a Daley being mayor of Chicago. 

WALSH:  There was Harold Washington.  God bless him. 

SCHULTZ:  Do you think he‘d win in Chicago? 

FEEHERY:  I don‘t know.  I think it‘d be very hard for Rahm Emanuel to

be mayor.  But you know there‘s a big organization.  If he can get control

of the organization over the Daleys then he might win.  But I don‘t think

he‘s going to be able to do. 

SCHULTZ:  All right. 

WALSH:  Barack Obama wanted to be mayor of Chicago.  So we know it‘s a

big job. 

SCHULTZ:  All right.  What‘s—what‘s your take on the right network

that apparently is going to start up this summer and it‘s, of course,

bankrolled and promoted and supported by Kelsey Grammer, you know, the old

guy that sat at the bar in “Cheers.” 

I always thought that guy was kind of goofy.  I mean this is kind of

goofy, too. 

Joan, what do you think? 

WALSH:  I think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are just shaking

in their boots.  They are afraid of Kelsey Grammer.  He just brings so much

to the table in terms of audience and in terms of political perspicacity. 

So I‘m—you know, I‘m really—I‘m frightened by it.  I know you are

here at MSNBC, too. 

Look, there‘s going to be—I‘m surprised there hasn‘t been another

FOX rip-off.  They have been successful, Ed.  We don‘t like it but they

have been successful.  I just don‘t see this.  This sounds cheesy to me. 

SCHULTZ:  All right.  Here‘s Grammer commenting on the whole thing. 

Here it is. 


KELSEY GRAMMER, RIGHTNETWORK.COM:  Things that just aren‘t right.  Big

government.  More taxes.  Group hugs.  Cats on leashes.  Hmm.  Running in

place.  Flightless birds.  Grown men tickle fights. 

That‘s definitely not right.  There‘s wrong and there‘s right. 

Right Network.  All that‘s right with the world. 



SCHULTZ:  “All that‘s right with the world.” 

WALSH:  Sure. 

SCHULTZ:  John Feehery, are you going to try to be a host on this



FEEHERY:  You got—that would be awesome, Ed.  I‘d love that.  You

know I think that it‘s a big country out there and when you‘re talking

cable, if you can pull in ratings of a couple million an hour, you know,

you can make some money. 

So, you know, I think this speaks to a crowd out there that needs

somewhere to go and the marketplace is actually demanding for it which is

why your competitors at FOX are doing so well. 

SCHULTZ:  Good to have you with us tonight.  John Feehery and Joan

Walsh.  Thank you for joining us here -- 

FEEHERY:  Thank you. 

WALSH:  Thanks, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  -- on our quick response section of THE ED SHOW. 

Coming up, low-rated Salem radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt launched a

verbal sneak attack on MSNBC this afternoon.  His target?  Yours truly.

Buckle up, you.  Oh yes.  I got a response for you in just a minute in the


Stay with us. 


SCHULTZ:  And it‘s not too late to let us know what you think on the

subject tonight.  The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 

Tonight‘s telephone survey question is, what is more harmful to

America, cops who racially profile or illegal immigration?  Press 1 for

cops who profile, press 2 for illegal immigration. 

Again the number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 


SCHULTZ:  And in my “Playbook” tonight.  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. 

Earlier today on this network right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt of

the Salem Radio Network, without warning to our producers attacked me like

a coward.  Actually I was sitting in the office.  I was pretty entertained

by the whole thing. 

Hewitt has a long history of personally attacking liberal talkers in

the industry.  He suggested I be taken off MSNBC‘s air.  He called me a

hatemonger and it was downhill from there.  Here‘s the exchange. 


HUGH HEWITT, SALEM RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  He spat off about something

you don‘t know about then I don‘t think you don‘t deserve much credibility. 

Depends upon the source.  You got to go source by source.  But MSNBC should

start with Ed Schultz who‘s just kind of a joke. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And let‘s go on your hate of Ed Schultz.  Or—he

should be off the air.  What if I said to you, you know what -- 

HEWITT:  I didn‘t say he should be off the air, Donnie.  I don‘t hate

him.  I think he‘s a joke.  I spend my time talking -- 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  OK, but even saying he‘s a joke -- 


HEWITT:  -- to people like you -- 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Listen to me, listen to me. 

HEWITT:  I spend my time talking to people like Jonathan Alter. 


HEWITT:  I spend my time talking to smart lefties. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I know you -- 

HEWITT:  I just know Ed‘s not.  And if E.J. Dionne and Jonathan Alter,

and people like who are friends of mine, and good lefties come on and talk

to me in a serious sustained way over a long period of time. 

Ed Schultz doesn‘t do that.  He doesn‘t have the ability to do that. 

It doesn‘t happen. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Hugh, I got to say something.  Hugh, you are the

problem.  Why don‘t you just say, you know what, I disagree with this guy? 

Why do you to say he‘s a joke?  I happen to know the man. 

Once again, you disagree with everything he says, but his heart‘s in

the right place.  Glenn Beck, once again, I disagree with everything he

says.  Say it.  I don‘t care.  Knock yourself out.  I don‘t need to say

you‘re a moron.  I don‘t need to say—that‘s it, Hugh, enough with this




SCHULTZ:  You know, I realize many of the viewers of this show have

never heard of this guy, Hugh Hewitt, or ever listen to him because he‘s

got a very small radio show.  Hugh is kind of a lower tier Limbaugh


He‘s a hate merchant.  He‘s an attack Meister.  He‘s got a record of

trying to destroy people.  For example, in 2004 he was part of a panel

discussion at a talk radio seminar and he flat-out said that his job was to

defeat John Kerry. 

Now, Hugh, if I‘m a joke, come on this show tomorrow night.  Lead

story, right here, let‘s get it on.  Let‘s talk about the economy and

health care.  And some labor issues.  Because we know you love labor and we

know you hate outsourcing and we know what you‘re all about. 

You‘ve got a history of attacking me.  I‘ll give you the biggest

audience you‘ve ever had, Hugh.  And let‘s see who the smart one is.  It‘s

going to be fun.  I hope all of you watch.  I hope he accepts the


Let‘s move to a more serious subject on politics.  A lot of incumbents

in Congress are in serious jeopardy of losing their seats this November. 

But a lot of candidates aren‘t waiting for the general election to play


Attack commercials are flying across the airwaves in Pennsylvania. 

Democratic primary between two guys going at it, incumbent senator Arlen

Specter and his challenger congressman Joe Sestak.  Like this one from the

Specter camp. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Joe Sestak, relieved of duty in the Navy for

creating a poor command climate. 

Joe Sestak, the worst attendance of any Pennsylvania congressman and

near the bottom of the entire Congress.  Last year alone Sestak missed 127

votes.  Sestak says the missed votes weren‘t important.  He went

campaigning instead. 

Let‘s say no to no-show Joe. 


SCHULTZ:  Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak joins us now on THE ED

SHOW Tonight. 

Congressman, good to have you with us. 

REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  Good to be back, Ed.  Thanks. 

SCHULTZ:  Have you missed all those votes?  Is that accurate? 


SESTAK:  You know, it‘s interesting.  I guess Arlen Specter is a Hugh

Hewitt of the U.S. Senate. 

Look, last summer I had to make a decision to get into this race after

the Democrat establishment said not to.  And I spent three weeks going

around Pennsylvania and missed a few votes, but my father was on his death

bed between June and September.  World War II vet.  Never left the ICU


So like any good son in Pennsylvania I rushed up on certain nights to

see him.  We laid him to rest in Arlington Cemetery. 

The bottom line here is, my overall voting record is 95 percent.  I‘m

pretty proud of it.  I‘m pretty proud that we passed more bills than any of

the senator in Pennsylvania last year.  I was called the most productive

legislator in my office. 

It is opened, Ed, seven days a week and handle four times constituent

(ph) cases of the average congressional office. 

But here‘s the U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, 30 years in Washington, we

have two wars overseas, a savage recession at home we‘re coming out of, and

this is what he brings to the public? 

You know, just like Hugh, he won‘t come on your show, perhaps.  He

won‘t even debate me except for one night downtown Philadelphia during the

Mets-Phillies game. 

SCHULTZ:  Do you want to debate him again?  Do you want to—do you

want to debate -- 

SESTAK:  I would debate him every day. 


SESTAK:  Have us both on.  He turned down “Meet the Press” to go on

with me.  He can‘t -- 

SCHULTZ:  Arlen Specter -- 

SESTAK:  He‘s not a Democrat.  So he can‘t argue -- 

SCHULTZ:  Wait a minute.  Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Hold on a second.  Arlen

Specter turned down “Meet the Press” with you? 

SESTAK:  Yes.  Yes, he did.  He‘s turned down something like eight

debates so far with me. 


SESTAK:  And only one will do, downtown Philadelphia, during the Mets-

Phillies game. 

SCHULTZ:  All right. 

SESTAK:  “Meet the Press.”  Imagine the transparency we could have. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the Quinnipiac -- 

SESTAK:  And accountability. 

SCHULTZ:  What about the Quinnipiac poll that‘s out right now?  He‘s

up on you 53, 32 percent, but 15 percent are undecided.  How are you going

to turn this around if this is accurate? 

SESTAK:  Well, as you know, the last two polls since then have me

down, like the Rasmussen, 44-42.  So it‘s a dead heat right now.  The polls

are changing rapidly right now because, you know, Ed, out there—not in

Washington, but out there. 


SESTAK:  People are trying to keep their jobs.  They‘re just trying to

hold on and now they‘re turning to this primary. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman -- 

SESTAK:  And you know, they‘ve already made a verdict in Arlen Specter

because that other poll I mentioned is 52 percent undecided.  We‘re going

to win this for the working families. 

SCHULTZ:  Got to run. 

SESTAK:  And for being honest. 

SCHULTZ:  Congressman, good to -- 

SESTAK:  Thanks a lot. 

SCHULTZ:  Good to have you with us tonight.  I appreciate your time. 

SESTAK:  Good to be here. 

SCHULTZ:  One final page in the “Playbook” tonight.  We got a new

addition do THE ED SHOW family. 

Yesterday afternoon our director Jeff and his wife welcomed a baby

girl.  Her name Mikayla Quinn.  And she‘s gorgeous.  Yes.  She joins her

sister, Ansli. 

Congratulations to Jeff and family. 

Coming up, Mr. Intellectual Honesty and machine gun Michele want you

to believe they are victims of violence.  Great American Bob Shrum will be

here to separate fact from “Psycho Talk.”  That‘s next on THE ED SHOW.” 

Stay with us. 


SCHULTZ:  And finally tonight on The Ed Show, Congresswoman Michele

Bachmann has made it into the right wing club over across the street.  Good

old boy Sean Hannity defended his psycho sister on his show yesterday. 


SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  There seems to be a coordinated effort

to intimidate, silence and demonize any critic of this administration. 

You, in particular, have been singled out here. 

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA:  One word that we‘ve heard a lot

just in this last week is the word “violence.”  And that when people on the

right are disagreeing with the Obama administration, that we‘re fomenting

violence, that‘s what they equate violence with. 


SCHULTZ:  Yes, sure.  Democrats think righties are violent because we

disagree with them?  It couldn‘t have anything to do with crazy rhetoric

like this. 


BACHMANN:  Now in Washington I‘m a foreign correspondent on enemy

lines.  I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous. 


SCHULTZ:  But so far playing the victim has kept Bachmann in the

spotlight.  So she kept it up over the weekend in a speech to some tea

partiers in Chicago.  This time she claimed former President Bill Clinton

is after her. 


BACHMANN:  Bill Clinton gave a speech yesterday—the former

president—and the Center for American Progress, John Podesta‘s group,

and gave a speech and he called me out in his speech.  And he said because

I‘m using a term like “gangster government” I‘m responsible for creating

the kind of climate of hate that could lead to another Tim McVeigh and

another Oklahoma City bombing. 

How do you like that? 

The former president of the United States decided I‘m important enough

to take on.  This is a gangster government.  There is no two ways about it. 


SCHULTZ:  Well, for more, let me bring in Bob Shrum, Democratic

strategist and professor at NYU. 

Little in-house cleaning here.  We call it Bachmann/Palin overdrive. 

I mean, they just keep serving it up. 

Gangster government, is that over the top? 

BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  It‘s way over the top, and look, we

know from what we went through in this country in the 1960s, the killing of

(INAUDIBLE), the killing of Dr. King, this kind of language contributes to

a climate of violence which could have really tragic consequences. 

I think back, you know, to the first presidential debate in 2004.  And

John Kerry began that debate by saying President Bush and I love this

country.  We both just—we each have a different vision of where to lead


I think if Ronald Reagan, who could have respect and friendship for

Tip O‘Neill and Ted Kennedy, or JFK who had disagreements with Barry

Goldwater but could respect him as an individual and never engaged in that

kind of rhetoric, I think that‘s the standard that we ought have to in this

country if we‘re going to make the democracy work. 

SCHULTZ:  Are we at fault for covering it, Bob?  I mean, you know,

we‘re in the news business.  I mean we cover what people say, but the

rhetoric of Bachmann and the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, you know, locked and

loaded—reloaded and all this stuff, how are we supposed to handle that? 

I mean this is what these people believe. 

SHRUM:  Well, I think with the nomination of Sarah Palin which was a

“Hail Mary” pass that never got John McCain anywhere near the end zone, we

opened a new chapter in the kind of freak show in American politics. 

And you hear it not just from them, you hear it from a congressman

from Georgia, who‘s talking about people need to take up arms.  They need

to be ready to fight their own government.  You hear it today from the

people who are out there with guns in Washington, D.C. 

A scraggly little mob, actually.  But they‘re threatening a new civil

war.  It‘s hard not to cover the freak show.  But to some extent when we

cover it we do give it oxygen. 

SCHULTZ:  Bob Shrum, always a pleasure.  Great to have you with us


SHRUM:  Thanks, Ed. 

SCHULTZ:  Tonight in our telephone survey I asked you what is more

harmful to America?  Cops who racially profile or illegal immigration? 

Sixty-eight percent say cops who illegally—racially profile, 32 percent

say illegal immigration. 

That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews

starts right now on the place for politics, MSNBC.  We‘ll see you back here

tomorrow night for THE ED SHOW, 6:00 Eastern. 




Copyright 2010 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.>