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

The Ed Show for Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Sherrod Brown, John Conyers, Joe Arpaio, Brian Bilbray, Ron
Christie, Joan Walsh, Stephen A. Smith, Lizz Winstead

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW tonight from New York.
These stories on the table and hitting “My Hot Buttons” at this hour.

Look, I think Wall Street wants President Obama to fail, totally.  I think big business, along with the Republicans, well, they are working hand in hand, and they are trying to make this the president‘s Waterloo. 
Commentary on that coming up in just a moment. 
And the guy who calls himself America‘s sheriff, Joe Arpaio, is the target of a Mexican drug cartel.  Drug kings reportedly have a $1 million bounty on Arpaio‘s head. 
I‘ll get the story straight from the sheriff at the bottom of the hour. 
And not-ready-for-primetime Tea Partier Sharron Angle admits she‘s trying to control the media.  I‘m throwing her in the “Zone,” because that‘s where she belongs.
And a tough day for this broadcaster.  As a Minnesota Viking fan, Brett Favre says he‘s retiring for the third time.  Stephen A. Smith in the “Playbook.”  Here‘s the tough thing: I think he‘s serious this time.  But there are options.
This is the story has me fired up tonight.  You know, I believe in my heart that big business in this country wants President Obama to fail at everything. 
Wall Street versus Main Street, that‘s not what it is anymore.  It‘s Wall Street versus the working folk of America.  That‘s what this midterm is about. 
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan put it like this --  
ALAN GREENSPAN, FMR. FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN:  I‘ve never seen anything like this.  I‘ve been in and out of Wall Street since 1949, and I‘ve never seen the type of animosity between government and Wall Street.  And I‘m not sure where it comes from, but I suspect it‘s got to do with a general schism in this society which is really becoming ever more destructive. 
SCHULTZ:  Oh, it‘s fear.  It‘s fear of regulation. 
This morning, the current Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, was asked about a cold war between Main Street and the White House.  Geithner stood his ground and stood up for Wall Street regulation. 
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, TREASURY SECRETARY:  There‘s nobody here or across the country that would argue that our system worked, that would argue it was not broken.  And so our job was to make sure we put reforms in place that would prevent a crisis like this from happening. 
SCHULTZ:  So, they‘ve got some people on Wall Street that are unhappy campers.  Wall Street isn‘t only upset because of regulation, they are scared of losing the Bush tax cuts.  They want to see this country fail so they can protect themselves from a four percent tax increase. 
Wall Street is sitting on more than $1 trillion, and it‘s treating the American worker like road kill.  And there are culprits. 
The Carlyle Group, in my opinion, one of the biggest private equity firms of the world, its managing director, David Rubenstein, made this accuse on “The Charlie Rose Show.”
DAVID RUBENSTEIN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CARLYLE GROUP:  We have $1.8 trillion on the balance sheet of U.S. companies that are not spending that money because they are not sure where the regulatory situation is going to be, where the tax situation is going to be.  I think they have some concerns about the economic growth, so they are sitting on the sidelines. 
SCHULTZ:  Hold it right there.  They constantly make the case as if the president of the United States himself wants so much regulation that Wall Street can‘t breathe at all. 
Folks, if you don‘t follow this news cycle as intense as many Americans do, just grab this.  It‘s good that Wall Street is doing well, because that‘s your 401(k), that‘s your college savings, that‘s a lot of things.  That‘s economic growth for folks who are in the market, but there are not that many people in there because they don‘t have disposable income. 
There will be no economic growth with the select few holding on to $1.8 trillion.  They need to get off the sidelines and quit outsourcing American jobs. 
Rubenstein says the real economic growth is coming to emerging markets. 
RUBENSTEIN:  In the year 2014, for the first time, the emerging markets‘ GDP will surpass that of the developed markets.  So the world is moving to the place where the emerging markets have much great economic growth and much greater size. 
CHARLIE ROSE, HOST:  That includes China, India and Brazil. 
RUBENSTEIN:  China, India and Brazil, right.  They are the three biggest and the most visible of them. 
SCHULTZ:  So what‘s the emerging market?  What does that—let me explain as I see it from somebody who supports labor in this country. 
Wall Street and big business doesn‘t view the American worker as an emerging market.  Hell, they cost too much. 
They are addicted to cheap foreign labor.  They would much rather pay a line worker in India or anywhere else pennies on the dollar instead of investing in the American way of life. 
This is why I keep pounding the table for economic patriotism.  The race to the bottom line, that mentality we‘ve seen over the last 30 years, is now coming home to roost.  China is eating our lunch while millionaires are trying to protect themselves from a four percent tax increase to get our fiscal House in order. 
Face it, this is nothing more than a Wall Street Waterloo.  That‘s what it is.  America will never get out of this economic ditch until these companies get in the game with the American worker. 
I think this is corporate extortion—play our game or you‘ll lose. 
And it‘s not the best thing for the country at all.  It‘s un-American. 
The big boys on Wall Street, we‘re hearing from all the bigwigs, well, they fear.  They‘re fearing Obama.  They‘re fearing. 
They don‘t have anything to fear.  The Supreme Court is at the table for them.  The Supreme Court set the table for them. 
These companies can buy any issue and any candidate they want.  We clearly see that they can control job growth in this country and keep their mitts on the money because the old saying is it takes money to make money. 
What the Republicans did last week in shutting off access to capital through the community banks for small businesses really represents the political stench in this country.  Remember, it‘s Wall Street versus the working folk of America.
And just remember, the definition of emerging markets is cheap labor. 
That‘s what it is. 
Tell me what you think on our telephone survey tonight.  The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC. 
My question tonight is: Do you believe big business wants to see President Obama fail?  Press the number 1 for yes, press the number 2 for no, and I‘ll bring you the results later on in the show. 
And one thing that we must keep in mind, that this president has put a lot of incentives on the table for small businesses.  He‘s done a lot of good things when it comes to setting the table for growth.  But if you can‘t get the money, how are you going to grow? 
And I want to alert our radio listeners on “The Ed Schultz Radio Show.”  Starting tomorrow, for a full week, we are going to take nothing but phone calls from small businesspeople.  I need you to tell me if I‘m wrong. 
I know I‘m not, but I want to hear your story.  How do you feel about the Republicans saying no to the community banks, the small banks of America that have less than $10 billion in assets?  That‘s who would have been getting the money.
But you see, the big bankers, oh, well, we can‘t have that.  That‘s the government getting involved in the private sector. 
In the meantime, they are trying to protect their backside.  They are sitting, admittedly from the head of the Carlyle Group, on the sideline with $1.8 trillion, tight with the dollar, because they don‘t want to see President Obama succeed because they fear regulation. 
This is where the Democrats didn‘t push far enough.  How about reinstating Glass-Steagall?  Could we do that?  Well, they didn‘t go that far because they caved into Wall Street and didn‘t regulate as much as they should have, in my opinion. 
Joining me now is Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown.  He‘s a member of the Senate HELP Committee. 
Senator, the begging question from me to you tonight is, if you could explain to our viewers, what do you see as an emerging market?  What does that mean, when a big Wall Street tycoon says, well, you know, emerging markets?
What is that? 
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO:  Well, they—you know, I‘ve watched for the last 10 years.  I was in the House of Representatives from Akron and Lorain, Ohio, before I was in the Senate in ‘07.  And I watched a lot of these corporate leaders lobby Congress to weaken—to basically change the rules dealing with China, dealing with Mexico, NAFTA, PNTR, CAFTA, all that.
And then they say, well, the only place we can sell goods is in these emerging markets, and then they don‘t really sell goods there.  They move our production there and sell back here.
And, you know, they‘d lobby and they‘d say we want access to a billion Chinese consumers.  Really, they wanted access to a billion Chinese workers.  And we‘re paying for that attitude. 
And now these companies blame—you know, of course they blame workers for the high wages that American unionized workers make, but American workers, frankly, as we know, don‘t make nearly as much as German workers and Japanese workers and other European workers that are able to export products out of their country.  So it‘s a bit of a shell game they are playing.  And, you know, we‘ve got to produce. 
We‘ve got to produce.  We‘ve got to make things in this country.  We‘ve got to invest in manufacturing, as you‘ve made that argument for months. 
SCHULTZ:  Well, I totally believe that this is truly the soft underbelly of the Republican Party going into the midterms.  It‘s very clear. 
You‘re either with Wall Street or you‘re with the working folk of America and the small businesses that are begging for capital to be able to run their businesses and expand and hire more people.  And I think the lines are very clear.  The lines have been drawn in the sand. 
Now, how do the Democrats take advantage of this? 
BROWN:  Well, you hit the nail on the head.  Last week, we put a Bill on the floor that would have helped small banks free up capital to loan to small companies.  We‘ve raised the limits—
SCHULTZ:  There‘s nothing bigger.  I don‘t mean to interrupt you.
Folks, I want you to—absolutely, you talk about the obstruction and the “party of no.”  There‘s nothing bigger in the last year, what the Republicans have done, than to block what the Senate was trying to do last week, period.
BROWN:  Yes, that‘s exactly right.  From a humanitarian standpoint, the worst thing they did was block unemployment compensation week after week after week, and that‘s a good economic development tool, too.  But what they did last week to their own—you know, to many of their own voters, the chambers of commerce, the small-town banks, the small manufacturing companies—I have companies all over Akron and Dayton and Springfield and Xenia that are tool and dye makers, machine shops.  They need capital, and they have got customers. 
SCHULTZ:  Absolutely.
BROWN:  They have got the capacity to expand.  They have got workers that want to come back and work.  They have got productive workers.  And these companies—they‘re not getting the capital, and this last week would have helped them to do that if Republicans hadn‘t said no. 
SCHULTZ:  You know, Senator, I find it amusing listening to the conservatives.  When you ask them a question about, OK, give me some definition, what regulation don‘t you want?  Well, you know, we‘re just—we‘re fearful.  Business leaders that I talk to, you know, they are afraid, they really don‘t know where the market is going. 
They are masters in speaking in generic terms that say nothing. 
BROWN:  Yes.  And the uncertainty they talk about now, they might have had some uncertainty going into health care, uncertainty going into Wall Street reform, but those bills are done.  Those laws are in place.  It‘s not uncertainty. 
You were right at top of the show, Ed, when you were talking about what they want is they are afraid that the tax cuts they got from George Bush for people making $500,000, $1 million, $5 million a year, that those tax cuts are going to be taken away.
And they want it the way it was, and that‘s what the elections are about.  We‘ve got three guys in Ohio running this year, three Republicans.  All three were in the House or Senate.  One was the president‘s trade representative, President Bush II. 
SCHULTZ:  Portman? 
BROWN:  And they are arguing—yes.  They—the choice is, do you want to go back to what they were doing?  Because the arguments they are making, they are going to do the same thing if they get back in office as they did the last 10 years. 
SCHULTZ:  They have got the Bush tax cuts right now, so where are the jobs?  They are not doing anything to help anybody.  It‘s all about obstruction. 
BROWN:  Well, look, one more point, Ed.  Look, in the eight years of Bill Clinton, 22 million jobs were created.  In the eight years of George Bush, not much more than one million jobs were created.
And the other thing is wages for those people who had jobs stagnated or went down in the Bush years.  They went up in the Clinton years.  So the tax cuts and the deregulation clearly weren‘t working, and then look what happened to the whole economy in 2007 and ‘08.
So we know what good economics is. 
SCHULTZ:  Senator, good to have you with us tonight. 
BROWN:  Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ:  I appreciate your time. 
BROWN:  My pleasure. 
SCHULTZ:  We‘re going to stay on this.  This is what it‘s all about. 
It‘s economic extortion, in my opinion. 
I mean, not giving Americans the chance to go out and have the entrepreneurial spirit and take the chance.  We‘re too tight with the dollar. 
We took money, then we went to Wall Street and said OK, fix this.  But now we won‘t go to small businesses in this country and say you know what?  You‘re going to get the same opportunity. 
That‘s what this election is about.  Do you want to go with the Republicans, or do you want to go with the party that believes in people and believes in giving people an opportunity to get better in life? 
But, of course, emerging markets are going to be in China and Indonesia and India.  That‘s where they are.  That‘s where their interest is. 
I can‘t talk about this enough. 
Coming up, President Obama is getting after it.  I love it.  He‘s slamming the “party of no,” and keeping the W. connection strong, and warning voters not to get amnesia.  Congressman John Conyers of Michigan delivers it next, right here on THE ED SHOW.
And “Psycho Talking” Tea Partier Sharron Angle thinks reporters should be more friendly to her.  You will not believe what she said to Fox News. 
All that, plus “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead is here, and she takes on Bill O‘Reilly in a special edition of “Club Ed.” 
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.
SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW, and thanks for watching tonight. 
Democrats want to make sure we all remember President George W. Bush and how he drove this country into the ditch.  That‘s the strategy.  And with the help of fellow Republicans, we‘re not making any progress. 
President Obama hammered the Republican Party at a fund-raiser in Atlanta. 
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  They don‘t have a single idea that‘s different from George Bush‘s ideas.  Not one. 
Instead, they are betting on amnesia.  That‘s what they‘re counting on.  They‘re counting on that you all forgot.  They think that they can run the okey-doke on you, bamboozle you. 
SCHULTZ:  The Democratic game plan heading into the midterms is to keep the connection between the Republicans and the former president alive. 
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman John Conyers of Michigan.  Michigan, a state that‘s been hit by unemployment, and Michigan a state that‘s having a Democratic and Republican primary today. 
Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. 
Do you like this strategy?  Is this the right way to go, to remember President Bush and his administration and what happened in his eight years? 
REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN:  Well, we can‘t forget the past, because it‘s those problems that we‘re correcting.  But in addition, we‘ve got to keep a scorecard, Ed, of all the things that we‘re trying to go forward with that have been stalled by Republicans. 
Imagine—unemployment compensation extension, we got a couple of Republicans to vote with us.  On health care reform, no Republicans in the House or the Senate.  On small business assistance, $30 billion to help small business, we got two Republicans again. 
SCHULTZ:  So you believe that this is the correct strategy.  I mean, obviously the president, the most recent numbers that are out there in his job approval rating, look something like President Bush -- 41 percent approval, 53 percent disapprove.  And, of course, the Generic Ballot has Republicans at 48 percent, Democrats at 43 percent. 
Is this a strategy that you think will work, or do you think that there‘s Bush burnout and people are tired of hearing about it? 
CONYERS:  No, I don‘t think there‘s Bush burnout because, you know, many of the people—and some of them were admitted members of the Tea Party—when we were trying to pass health care reform, thousands would (INAUDIBLE) us and as demand that we don‘t pass it, that it was unconstitutional, et cetera.  But guess what?  When they got a letter saying that their dependants will now be on from 18 to 26 as dependants, that wasn‘t so bad. 
Here‘s President Obama talking about the small business bill.  Here it is. 
OBAMA:  There‘s a bill in the Senate that would cut taxes for small businesses, would help them get the loans they need to hire again. 
Republicans say they‘re the pro-business party.  Isn‘t that what they say?  You would think this is a bill that they would want to pass.  And, yes, day after day, week after week, they keep on stalling this bill and stonewalling this bill and opposing this bill. 
Why?  Pure politics.  They are more interested in the next election than the next generation. 
SCHULTZ:  John Conyers, you‘ve been around this a long time.  Can President Obama turn this around?  Is he going to be an impact on the campaign trail?  He‘s going to visit, like, eight states in a short period of time. 
CONYERS:  Well, I think that he‘s carefully picking where he‘s going to go, but remember, there‘s a lot of corporate media talking about we‘re going to lose the House.  That is not really very feasible because it would take much more than the 39 seats that is the difference between us for that to happen. 
SCHULTZ:  You think you‘ll hold the House? 
CONYERS:  I think we‘ll hold the House because the pain and the suffering and the logic and the truth of what the Democrats are trying to do, and who is saying no, no, no, plus the Tea Party—and I‘ve got to give Sarah Palin credit for this.  Between her and Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, they have got a little bit of infighting of their own they‘ve got to control. 
SCHULTZ:  John Conyers, always a pleasure.  Good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.
CONYERS:  Thank you for the invite. 
SCHULTZ:  Coming up, Sharron Angle managed to say something so outrageous about the media, even Fox News was appalled.  Well, that spins her right into the “Zone” next. 
SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, a dandy, Harry Reid‘s Tea Party challenger Sharron Angle.  She just hits the bull‘s eye every time, doesn‘t she? 
She has been ducking the media ever since she won her primary back in June, and really for good reason.  Because every time she shows up on TV, she ends up saying stuff like this --  
SHARRON ANGLE ®, NEVADA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE:  We needed to have the press be our friend. 
UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Wait a minute.  Hold on a second.  To be your friend? 
ANGLE:  Well, truly—
UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That sounds naive. 
ANGLE:  Well, no.  We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported. 
SCHULTZ:  Don‘t tell anybody she has red hair, will you? 
Wow.  Now, you know it‘s bad when Fox News is calling the newest Tea Party queen naive. 
Hey, Sharron, I‘ll tell you how your wish can come true.  Move to China. 
Their media censorship means that the press would only ask questions that you want to answer.  Or better yet, maybe you can check out Iran.  If journalists there don‘t report the news the way you want, well, they can get arrested. 
You‘d like that, wouldn‘t you? 
Here in America though, we have this thing called freedom of the press.  It‘s kind of in the Constitution.  You can ask your Tea Party buddies for a copy.  They will have one for you. 
Republican leaders better hope Sharron Angle goes right back into hiding, because a wannabe public servant saying that she wants to control the press is “Psycho Talk.”  
Coming up, Mitch McConnell.  Well, he has sunken to a new low and sunken the immigration debate to where it should have never gone.  He wants to scrap the Constitution and treat innocent children like criminals. 
Congressman Bilbray has taken it even further than that, and we will go at it in just a moment.
And Newt Gingrich blasted the Obama administration today, calling them incompetent, dumb, dangerous.  And I can‘t wait to respond to this fraud. 
And we‘ve got Stephen A. Smith tonight because Brett Favre is in the “Playbook,” in the retirement zone.  No, I think he‘s going to play.  Well, maybe not.
And “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winsted is in the house for a special edition of “Club Ed.” 
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.
SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  The Battleground story tonight, the man who calls himself America‘s toughest sheriff may have a bounty on his head.  A Mexican drug cartel has reportedly offered $1 million to anyone who would kill Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Too many people, Arpaio is a hero for his aggressive enforcement of Arizona‘s anti-immigration laws, but he‘s run into trouble with the law himself.  He‘s currently under investigation, federal investigation, for alleged racial profiling and abuses of power. 
Sheriff Joe Arpaio joins us tonight on this issue.  Sheriff, good to have you with us tonight.  
SCHULTZ:  What‘s your response to being, I guess, a hunted man by some?
ARPAIO:  You know, I get threats constantly.  Two years ago assassination in Mexico lining up.  It was $5 million.  We‘re down to $1 million in the latest threat, but, you know, you take it serious.  My people investigate all these threats.  I‘m not going to be intimidated by anyone, especially human smugglers, illegal immigration, the narcotics traffickers.  I spent four years in Mexico City, head of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, in Texas and Arizona, so I know a little bit about the drug traffic in that country, but I‘m not going to be intimidated.  As I said, we‘ll going continue our programs. 
SCHULTZ:  Well, there have been some pretty tough instances so far.  There‘s been gun shots at Congressman Raul Grijalva‘s office.  In fact, he responded on this program last night and wanted to hear from you.  Here he is.  I want your response. 
RAUL M. GRIJALVA (D), ARIZONA:  What I find Ed, to be very disturbing right as well, I haven‘t heard a statement from Brewer, the governor, Pearce, Arpaio.  They don‘t have to agree with me on my position on 1070 but I wish they would agree with me that the condemnation of the acts of violence is not the way to solve this problem, and I hope I hear from them soon.  
SCHULTZ:  Sheriff, what do you say to that?
ARPAIO:  Well, I agree.  This is awful what they did to the congressman.  I wish he would support me when they demonstrate in front of my buildings for two years calling me Nazi, Hitler, every name in the book.  I wish he would address that, but, you know what?  There are civil ways to get things done, and what happened to the congressman is sad, and we should never threaten officials, whether you agree with them or not.  That‘s not the American way. 
SCHULTZ:  How do your constituents feel, and are you making progress your way?  You have been very vocal about how you‘re going to operate and then you‘ve gone out and done it just the way you said you are going to do it.  How do your constituents feel the way you‘re operating, and are you making progress?
ARPAIO:  Well, after 40,000, we have investigated, arrested, detained in our jails of illegal aliens for the last three years enforcing other state laws, I think we‘ve been pretty successful which causes people to go after me.  There are politicians that don‘t like what I‘m doing, but you know what?  I‘m enforcing the law, Ed.  Been very successful.  Crime has gone down and illegal aliens are leaving the area.  
SCHULTZ:  They are leaving the area.  You‘re on record saying, they are leaving the area.  
ARPAIO:  That‘s what everybody says, including the Hispanic community. 
They are all afraid, 100,000 have left.  I‘m going by what they say.  
SCHULTZ:  OK.  But you don‘t have any hard data that they are.  
ARPAIO:  No.  How do you find?  How do you figure it out?  How do you add it up, 100,000?  We don‘t count everybody that leaves the county. 
SCHULTZ:  Sheriff, national story that‘s brewing out there is in
reference to the 14th amendment.  Where do you stand on that?

ARPAIO:  I don‘t have a stand.  I think we ought to look at it.  Let‘s se if that constitution should be changed.  It will be very difficult, but I think it‘s something that should be addressed by Congress or others.  
SCHULTZ:  Sheriff Joe Arpaio, good to have you with us tonight. 
Thanks so much.  
ARPAIO:  Thank you.  
SCHULTZ:  The Battleground in Arizona is setting of fierce immigration debates all over the country.  Republicans are ratcheting up their hate baiting of illegal immigrants.  Now, minority leader in the senate, Mitch McConnell, wants to take a look at changing the constitution.  His latest republican interested in stripping citizenship from American-born babies of illegal immigrants.  The GOP‘s take is the parties broke the law sneaking into the country, and we don‘t want to reward them for illegal behavior.  I think, really, this is wrong-headed.  It is shameless, anti-American and sets a very dangerous precedent.  We are the reason why we have this problem because we haven‘t enforced the laws that we‘ve got on the books.  Changing the constitution would be the wrong thing to do. 
Joining me now is Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray of California.  He‘s the chairman of the immigration reform caucus.  He takes it a step further.  He wants the 14th amendment repealed now.  Got to give you a chance to respond to this one, congressman.  
SCHULTZ:  Why do it now?  What does that accomplish?
BILBRAY:  Absolutely not.  Wait.  Wait.  Absolutely not.  We should not repeal the 14th amendment.  We should apply the law equally.  Ed, you may not know it, but we do not allow these children of diplomats to get automatic citizenship.  The fact is the Supreme Court has ruled on this, that people that are visiting the United States do not warrant subject to the jurisdiction which is the 14th amendment conditions.  It doesn‘t say everyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.  It says those that are born here and subject to the jurisdiction which means that at the time of their birth their parents could be tried for treason.  That‘s why diplomats‘ children do not get citizenship today. 
You may think that‘s mean-spirited but that‘s the law.  That is why American-Indians were not allowed to get automatic citizenship under the 14th amendment.  Congress had to take action in 1924, and if you don‘t believe that, look at the old case in 1872.  The Supreme Court has ruled about this, and it‘s not about just illegal aliens.  It‘s really about people coming here, we have wealthy foreigners who fly to the United States.  They visit the United States, they give birth and then they claim automatic citizenship, and I think you would agree no one would say that somebody who is a tourist is subject to acts of treason because they are only sojourns people here and initially don‘t fall in that category either.  
SCHULTZ:  Here‘s my issue with this whole thing congressman is that all of a sudden, this is an issue.  All of a sudden the republicans don‘t have the White House, they don‘t have the House, they don‘t have the senate, and all of a sudden now, this is an issue.  
BILBRAY:  It‘s been an issue.
SCHULTZ:  Where‘s the Republican Party been on this for the last 100 years?
BILBRAY:  Ed, I‘ll tell you in 1995, I introduced the bill, birth right citizenship act.  
SCHULTZ:  It didn‘t go anywhere.  
BILBRAY:  Well, it ended up with almost 100-plus co-sponsors.  You‘re right.  They were worried about the perception here, but what I‘m saying to you, do you think that a wealthy foreigner should be able to fly into the United States, stay here for a few weeks and get automatic citizenship for their child even though they are not subject to the jurisdiction?
SCHULTZ:  Congressman, I appreciate your question to me, but you and I didn‘t write the constitution.  We‘re just supposed to follow it, and amending the constitution in the middle of an immigration fight because both parties in this country have been inept to enforce the laws that we have right now I think is a bridge too far.  
SCHULTZ:  It sets a dangerous precedent.  
BILBRAY:  Ed, I agree with you.  You don‘t have to amend the constitution today.  The children of diplomats are not given automatic citizenship. 
SCHULTZ:  These aren‘t diplomats, you know that.  
BILBRAY:  Whoa, whoa, because they are not subject to the jurisdiction, but foreign tourists and illegals fall under the same category.  The fact is we have not given—we have not taken action.  Congress did not take action.
SCHULTZ:  I‘ll ask you again.  Why is that anchor babies all of a sudden are the best thing the republicans have got going on immigration reform?
BILBRAY:  That is not the best thing.  The biggest issue we have is that we should enforce the laws as they rest.  And I still ask you, if the 14th amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court and ruled that not everyone born on U.S. soil gets automatic citizenship in 1872, the Supreme Court ruled on that, Ed, show me the ruling where the Supreme Court has ever ruled that a tourist or an illegal alien gets automatic citizenship.  You can not find in the books of the Supreme Court rulings that they ever made that ruling.  
SCHULTZ:  I‘ll give you an answer if you can give me an answer on why the Bush administration never went down this road?  Never.
SCHULTZ:  They never went down this road, congressman.  
BILBRAY:  He was busy going down the road of amnesty, and that‘s why people are furious at him that he was trying to reward illegal activity rather than maintain the rule.  The constitution works both ways. 
SCHULTZ:  So, Mitch McConnell in your opinion is wrong in what he‘s saying?
BILBRAY:  I think he‘s got to study the law and the Supreme Court ruling, and I‘d ask him to look at the L case 1872.  
BILBRAY:  And the cases have always ruled that those permanent resident aliens that are engaged in commerce here, they can—they can get automatic citizenship for their children but not sojourns and people visiting. 
SCHULTZ:  I‘m glad you‘re asking Mitch McConnell because he‘s in the senate and I‘m not.  So, at the end of this interview, you‘re asking the right guy finally.  
BILBRAY:  Ed, I appreciate it totally.  I‘m a son of an immigrant.  This birth right citizenship thing, it was very near and dear to me because my mother flew all the way from Guam because she was worried about my status.  
SCHULTZ:  And I appreciate that, and then, you know, a lot of Americans who are in this country legally who may be married or have a spouse that has come across the border and been here for years, these folks feel like they are being targeted because of the political wrangling that‘s going on in Washington. 
BILBRAY:  Ed, I appreciate that.  It‘s just like people thinking that you‘ve got to be born in the United States to be president.  You don‘t have to be.  That‘s a legend.  We‘ve got to clarify that McCain could be president.  
SCHULTZ:  Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.  
BILBRAY:  Absolutely.  
SCHULTZ:  Now, let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these stories. 
Newt Gingrich went berserk while speaking to a group of young conservatives this afternoon.  Young and impressionable, I might add.  He says that President Obama is the most radical president ever, period.  And slammed the administration as dumb, incompetent and dangerous. 
The senate is not expected to get any of its major legislation passed in the next 72 hours before the August recess.  I think the democrats should use this time to get something done for the 99ers or risk the wrath of voters in November. 
And right wing heads, they are exploding after a New York City board cleared the way for the Muslim community center near ground zero. 
Joining us tonight, Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief, and Ron Christie, republican strategist.  Let‘s start with this clip of Newt Gingrich accusing the Obama administration of being incompetent.  Here it is.  
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER:  We currently have an administration so incompetent that it can‘t even name who our enemies are.  It refuses to talk honestly.  It doesn‘t believe in two plus two equals four.  
SCHULTZ:  All right.  Ron Christie, do you agree with Newt Gingrich?
RON CHRISTIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  In that particular instance I do.  I think this administration, when you look at the stimulus bill, they were sending checks to congressional districts and people who didn‘t exist.  You look at an administration that says that we have overseas man made contingency operations as opposed to fighting a war on terrorism.  These are very serious times.  These are very serious economic, political and military issues that must be confronted by this administration, and on certain issue after issue I don‘t think that they have been very competent in their application of the law to the issues at hand.  
Joan Walsh, your response?
JOAN WALSH, “SALON.COM” EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:  First of all, this administration has had amazing success in bringing, in killing, capturing, otherwise dealing with Al Qaeda leadership, so that‘s the first thing he‘s wrong on, and, you know, Ed, your friend and mine, Governor Dean, was paying compliments to Newt Gingrich a couple weeks ago saying he would bring intellectualism and ideas to this race.  It‘s clear that Newt Gingrich thinks the way to win—the way to the presidency is to roll in the mud with Sarah Palin and insult our president rather than to bring forth ideas.  It‘s really disgusting.  
SCHULTZ:  Well, I find it disgusting that he thinks the health care bill is radical when all it says in a number of issues that Americans can‘t lose their health care.  I don‘t know what—how that‘s radical at all.  
WALSH:  It‘s a Mitt Romney. 
CHRISTIE:  Where do I start?  Excuse me.  Where do I start?
SCHULTZ:  Ron, why don‘t you start with this, don‘t you think it‘s OK for Americans to lose their health insurance when they get sick because that‘s what that law does.  
CHRISTIE:  No.  Actually, Ed, you and I have talked about this over the year.  I think it is a ridiculous infringement upon the American constitutional system that we have here in a power and innumerate power system when the federal government for the first time is using the commerce clause to say that an American citizen must buy a particular good or service from a private entity.  That‘s ridiculous.  
SCHULTZ:  That‘s not the point I was making.  
CHRISTIE:  I know the point you‘re making, Ed, I agree with you. 
SCHULTZ:  Allowing insurance companies to drop.  That‘s what he claims is radical.  That‘s what Newt Gingrich says is radical.  
CHRISTIE:  No, it‘s more than that.  
WALSH:  He‘s the radical.  
CHRISTIE:  It‘s radical when we heard that the cost curve is going to come down, it‘s going to go up.  We heard that we can save money as adding to the deficit.  
SCHULTZ:  Well, there was a White House report yesterday Ron, that saved $8 billion because of Medicare and what we‘re doing right now.  
CHRISTIE:  And there‘s a Congressional Budget Office report that says this is going to bust the deficit.  Oh, the public approval is going up.  And now we have 58 percent of the people who say we should repeal this. 
This is a. 
WALSH:  Run on that, Ron.  Have your friends run on that, and we‘ll see how good it does...  
CHRISTIE:  This is a radical bill.  This is something that the American people really don‘t like on either side of the political spectrum and I think that the democrats are going to pay the price in November.  
WALSH:  Take it away, take it away, Ron.  
SCHULTZ:  Joan Walsh, what about the 14th amendment?  Now the children of illegal immigrants, now they are the target by Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, your thoughts?
WALSH:  You know, first of all, Mitch McConnell is just a coward because he sounded like he was maybe for it.  Today, his office told Greg Sargent he‘s against it, so he‘s really trying to play both sides of this issue, pander to the base where this is becoming a big idea but also be cautious and conservative and not let people know really how he stands.  Sure, we‘ll have hearings, and this is—I think the democrats are going to run on this, too.  You want republicans back.  You‘re going to have hearings on the 14th amendment.  My God what, a waste of time.  
SCHULTZ:  Ron, what about it?
WALSH:  You‘ll going to have Darrell Issa with impeachment, running with impeachment hearings, I mean, it‘s going to be just be hilarious.  
CHRISTIE:  I think it‘s actually good for parties on both sides of this issue to have a hearing.  I think, for those folks like me.  
WALSH:  Oh, my god.  
CHRISTIE:  Those folks like me who believe that the constitution is very clear, that if you‘re of the jurisdiction of another power, that you‘re not automatically conferred citizenship, I think we have a good case there and I think folks like Joan here say oh, my goodness, that we should automatically give illegals the right to have citizenship, both sides should have their say.  This should not be a political issue.  This should not be something.  
WALSH:  I thought you guys cared about the constitution?
CHRISTIE:  Excuse me, I didn‘t insult you.  The issue here is that American citizens...  
WALSH:  I wasn‘t insulting you.  
CHRISTIE:  We should understand what it means to be a citizen of this country.  
SCHULTZ:  We‘ve got to run.  Ron Christie, Joan Walsh, we‘ll do it again.  Thanks so much.  
WALSH:  Thanks, Ed.  
SCHULTZ:  Coming up, Stephen A. Smith sounds off on Brett Favre‘s third retirement.  That‘s next in the Playbook.  Stay with us.
SCHULTZ:  It‘s still not too late to let us know what you think.  The number to dial is 1-877-ed-msnbc.  Tonight‘s telephone survey question is, do you believe big business wants to see President Obama fail?  Press the number one for yes, press the number two for no.  Again, the number to dial 1-877-ed-msnbc.  We‘re right back. 
SCHULTZ:  And in my Playbook tonight, well, here we go again.  Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre says he‘s retiring.  The 40-year-old future hall of famer reportedly told the team he‘s not returning, sent text messages to teammates saying, quote, “this is it.” 
Joining me now, Stephen A. Smith, nationally syndicated talk show host and columnist for “The Philadelphia Inquirer,” he‘s on vacation in L.A., but he‘s fired up to talk about this one tonight.  This better not be it.  I need one more year out of this guy.  Is it?  What do you think Stephen A.?
STEPHEN A. SMITH, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED TALK SHOW HOST:  Well, first of all, I‘m glad you need it.  They weren‘t going to win the division anyway.  That would have went to the Green Bay packers, a story for another day.  This man is completely pathetic and the reason why he‘s pathetic Ed, is because he hasn‘t given us an opportunity to enjoy his greatness.  Instead we‘re constantly talking about whether or not he‘s going to retire or not.  This is going to be the third  time that he announces his retirement but you need to  understand, Ed, it‘s been since 2002 that this man has been hinting and indicating he was going to retire. 
It is why he was forced out of Green Bay unceremoniously by their
higher-ups, because they got tired of his nonsense which was impeding the
growth of Aaron Rodgers, not to mention the fact that it was holding his
teammates back.  And that‘s the stuff that gets lost in this equation.  How
incredibly selfish this man has been, 69,000 passing yards, 11 pro bowl
appearances, three-time league MVP, a super bowl championship which by the
way was 14 years ago, but we forget about that.  Instead, we talk about
this man as if a statue should be erected for him, and the problem is he
won‘t give us an opportunity to celebrate him because we‘re too annoyed by
him talking about retirement 
SCHULTZ:  I don‘t care about the statue.  I just care about him taking a snap because we will be better off with him taking a snap than we are doing a statue.  
SMITH:  Well, first of all, Ed, first of all, Ed, let‘s be fair to our viewers here.  The bottom line is you love Minnesota.  You‘re from there.  
SCHULTZ:  Yes.  
SMITH:  I understand because it‘s either Brett Favre or Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels.  My God, we can understand why you.  
SCHULTZ:  Jackson‘s got no game.  We got to have Brett Favre if we don‘t get this thing done.  And I hope he says.
SMITH:  No.  He‘s not getting anything done.  
SCHULTZ:  He had a great year last year, Stephen A.  He had unbelievable numbers last year.  
SMITH:  Ed, this ain‘t politics.  This is sports.  What I told you about debating this with me.  The fact is this man has thrown the interception in the NFC championship game two of the last three years.  He hasn‘t won a Super Bowl in 14 years.  It was Super Bowl XXXI.  That‘s the last time you heard from...  
SCHULTZ:  Stephen A., you‘re the man.  
SMITH:  Come on, now.  Stop it.  
SCHULTZ:  Good to have you with us tonight.  Thanks so much.
SMITH:  All right.
SCHULTZ:  Coming up, FOX News is getting a front row seat at the White House, Bill O‘reilly wants to get on the action.  Lizz Winstead here to tell him where he can sit next in Club Ed.  Stay with us.     
SCHULTZ:  Welcome back.  It‘s time for a special edition of Club Ed with “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead.  You can see Lizz do standup at comics in New York City coming up August 5th.  Go to for tickets, and believe me, she will knock it out of the park. 
All right.  FOX News, Lizz, is going to get a seat in the front row and O‘reilly says, he‘ll be there sometime or another.  Beck and Hannity will be there.  What do you make of this?
LIZZ WINSTEAD, “DAILY SHOW” CO-CREATOR:  It‘s sort of unbelievable.  Quite frankly, it‘s sort of like having Gloria Allred in the front of a Tiger Woods presser.  It just doesn‘t seem to be the best idea for anyone involved.  We‘re going to hear a lot of dumb questions.  It makes me harken back and long for the days of Jeff Gannon.  
SCHULTZ:  Yes, you never know.  They might put him on the payroll just to fill that seat. 
WINSTEAD:  Oh man.
SCHULTZ:  You never knew.  All right.  Sarah Palin writing on her hand again.  
WINSTEAD:  Dude, here‘s what‘s crazy.  So she‘s busted by Chris Wallace, and he says, what‘s on your hand and then she goes into some long explanation about how she wanted to make sure she wrote it on her hand so that liberals couldn‘t say she didn‘t fact check and then she wrote the wrong information on her hand.  When your hand can‘t pass a fact check, you should be stricken from the record of having anything to say to anybody.  It‘s like, I don‘t trust she could write her own name on her hand and get it correct.  I don‘t trust it.  
SCHULTZ:  All right.  And the Tea Party, of course, full of diversity as of late.  
WINSTEAD:  I know.  You know, who would have thought that the Andrew Breitbart-sponsored diversity Tea Party rally would fail miserably.  I mean, at this point Mel Gibson could rally more Russian models than Andrew Breitbart could wrestle diversity.  It‘s ridiculous to even think that.  When you give away free water and people don‘t even stop to get free water because your message is so flawed, you‘ve got a bad message.  
SCHULTZ:  All right.  And finally, I have to ask you this because you really are a Minnesota girl.  What about Brett Favre finally retiring, we think?
WINSTEAD:  You know what.  I am so tired of Brett Favre.  He needs to go Favre, Favre away.  He‘s never retiring.  He‘s just got to the stop with the retiring.  The texts are getting as bad as, you know, Mel.  Stop.  
SCHULTZ:  Lizz, do a great job as you always do at comics on August 5th.  
WINSTEAD:  Thanks, Ed.  
SCHULTZ:  You bet.  
WINSTEAD:  Tonight in our telephone survey I asked, do you believe big business wants to see President Obama fail?  Ninety eight percent of you said yes, two percent said no. 
That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  I‘ll see you live tomorrow from Washington, D.C.  Looking forward to that. 
“HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now on the place for politics, MSNBC.  Have a great one.  We‘ll see you tomorrow at the free health care clinic in D.C. 
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.>