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

The Ed Show for Thursday, Nov. 18th, 2010

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Rep. Jim McDermott, Scott Paul, Roy Sekoff, Ron Christie, Jack

Rice, Eric Boehlert, Joe Madison

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  Good evening, Americans.  And welcome to THE ED SHOW tonight from New York.

These stories are hitting “My Hot Buttons” at this hour:

They‘re rich, and they‘re selfish—Republicans.  They just decided to cut off unemployment benefits for thousands of desperate American families.  What they did today is un-American and shameful.  My commentary on that, plus reaction from the Democrat who sponsored the bill, Congressman Jim McDermott, in just a moment.

Well, FOX News President Roger Ailes says NPR is nothing but a Nazi outfit.  And the Republicans in Congress?  Well, they‘re carrying his water.  I‘ll take on Ailes‘ head first tonight in “The Playbook.”

Lefties are telling President Obama to do just that, go left. 

Billionaire Democratic donor George Soros says it might be time to look elsewhere?  What‘s that mean?  Is he talking about 2012?


That‘s a heck of a statement.  We‘ll get into it.  We‘ll tackle that one in tonight‘s “Battleground” story purchase.

And I was wondering where in the heck was the “drugster” today, he wasn‘t on the radio, he wasn‘t around to respond to Reverend Al Sharpton‘s comments of being kind of smacked up for the racist things he‘s been saying on the air lately.  We‘ll get to that a little bit later.

But this is the story that has me fired up tonight—as we head into the holiday season, special time for Americans, we should point out that millions of Americans in need just got stiffed by the Republican scrooges in congress.  A bill to extend unemployment benefits fell short of the two-thirds‘ margin needed to pass the House.  The vote today was 258-154.  Now what this means is that at least 2 million more Americans will join the ranks of the 99ers by the end of 2010.

The White House pounce on the Republicans for sticking it to the unemployed, while they fight to let millionaires have more tax cuts.  Robert Gibbs, rightfully, put this way: “I don‘t think that we want to leave here having fought for tax cuts for millionaires and against unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs.”  It makes pretty much common sense, doesn‘t it?

Well, Republicans love to talk about what the American people want, but they really don‘t have a clue operationally, do they?

Incoming speaker, Mr. Boehner, I think you ought to down that glass of merlot and pay attention to this one.  According to a new poll from the National Employment Law Project, 73 percent of voters, 73 percent of Americans, that the Republicans like to quote, say it‘s too early to cut back benefits for the unemployed in America.  Overall, 60 percent support an extension versus 37 percent who are opposed.

Now, the American people clearly want to help their neighbors in need, but Republicans, do you think they‘re listening?  Hell no.  Today, they voted for the 4 percent of Americans who think that the national debt is the most important issue out there.  That‘s how they voted.

Elected Republicans have absolutely no idea what it‘s like to go hungry or to go without a roof over your head.

So just who are these rich folks that don‘t care?  The average weekly unemployment benefit is just 310 bucks a week—we pretty much chump change to the suits in Washington, isn‘t it?

Because according to the Center for Responsive Politics, let‘s see, the tan man, the guy who‘s leading the charge on this—well, he‘s worth $3.6 million.  Ooh!  Cantor, he‘s up there at $4.9 million.  Mitch McConnell is at $19.9 million in the Senate.  That‘s what he‘s worth.  And my buddy, Darrell Issa, he‘s worth a cool $303 million.

These are the people who are making the decisions on the unemployed in this country.  Are they selfish?  You make the call.  The selfish lawmakers in my opinion, the Republican Party, they couldn‘t have picked a worst time to turn their backs on fellow Americans.  One week from tonight, Americans will be enjoying Thanksgiving, it‘s a special time of year, and the Republican Party has just given million of jobless Americans very little to be thankful for.

You know, I‘ve said it before, they‘re heartless, they‘re clueless, but now, they are really cruel, self-centered and un-American to treat unemployed Americans like road kill.  So, I guess what I have said on this program in the 20 months of being here on MSNBC with THE ED SHOW, I guess we could say it‘s been validated tonight.

Do you that we have never done this?  We have never had unemployment this high in America and denied benefits to unemployed people.  This is new territory for America.  This is your heartless lawmakers at work.

You know the Republicans—you know what they could have done?  They could have said, we‘ve got the holiday season coming up and there‘s going to be a lot of people out there who aren‘t going to have a very good holiday season.  We‘ll extend this into the New Year, but we‘re giving you a warning, we‘re going to cut it off from there.

No, they couldn‘t do that.  They couldn‘t do it.

There‘s a new poll out, Quinnipiac poll today saying that for the first time, the majority of Americans are against the Afghan war.  Where‘s the Republican Party on that?  They can‘t get enough of war.

But when it comes to unemployed Americans, when it comes to Americans who are on the verge of getting together as family, as we go to the holiday season, where are they?  They‘re nowhere to be found for their neighbor.  They are heartless and they are cruel.  And they are fighting at the same hour for tax cuts for the top 2 percent.

And we have an income disparity in this country that has never been this great since the Great Depression.  The graphics that have been shown on Rachel‘s show are pretty compelling.

So, where do you stand as an American tonight?  How do you feel about this?  Is this fair?

These people pay insurance.  It‘s unemployment insurance.  These are economic times that we haven‘t seen since the Great Depression.  Can we find it in our heart and in our soul to say, well, let‘s make an exception, let‘s go just maybe another eight or ten weeks, let‘s make a special provision here?  They can‘t do it.  They wouldn‘t do it.

So, 2 million more Americans are going to be sitting at the dinner table with nothing on it.

You see, this is a kitchen table issue that the Republicans don‘t care about because now that they‘ve had the Supreme Court rule in their favor when it comes to unlimited corporate money into their back pockets and into their special interest groups to nail people that they don‘t like politically, hell, they don‘t care about the unemployed.  These folks don‘t give to campaigns.  They‘re not going to help any Republican get re-elected.  There‘s no sense in helping these folks out.

We know they‘re Americans.  And we know they used to have a job and they used to pay taxes, but hell, they don‘t matter now.  We have to worry about the deficit because you know there‘s 4 percent of the American people that are really concerned about that.

This is political grandstanding at the expense of a lot of Americans who are going to be hurting—political grandstanding from the standpoint that, hey, we want to be the party of fiscal responsibility, so let‘s stick it to the Americans who‘ve lost their jobs.  You know the people that we outsourced?

They are cruel and they are heartless and I can‘t say it enough.  And you millionaires in the Congress, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  You are un-American.

Tell me what you think in our telephone survey tonight.  The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC.  My question tonight is: Does today‘s vote against extending unemployment benefits disgust you?  Press the number one for yes.  Press the number two for no.  And I‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.

Now, the 99ers are upset with our next guest, Congressman Jim McDermott.  He is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support.  He introduced the bill to extend unemployment benefits.

And also tonight, we have breaking news, that the House Ethics Committee has just rendered its suggestive sanction for Congressman Charles Rangel.  There was a 9-1 vote to censure Rangel and call for him to pay restitution.  And, of course, we will ask the congressman about that as well.

Congressman Jim McDermott joins us tonight.

Congressman, I had to get that breaking news in.  If you can comment on that first, if we could—the discipline that is facing your old friend Charlie Rangel, you‘ve served in the Congress with him for a long time.  How do you feel about this?  Does this go far enough?  And what restitution do you have in mind?

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D-WA), WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE:  Well, it‘s a sad day when a member of Congress comes before the ethics committee and gets a censure.  And I feel that Charlie knows, in fact, he admitted, that there were some reasons why this—why this is a reasonable thing for them do.  I don‘t know—I haven‘t had any chance to read what they‘re talking about with censures, so I‘d have to look at that before I could make a comment on that part of it.

SCHULTZ:  Has he been wronged in your opinion?

MCDERMOTT:  No, you know, I think that Congress people sometimes get going so fast, they don‘t pay attention to the rules.  Charlie made the point he was not personally enriched by any of this.  He was careless and didn‘t pay attention to the rules.  And did things that rules say you shouldn‘t do.  But it wasn‘t for a personal enrichment kind of thing.

When he‘s raising money for a college using congressional stationary that‘s against the rules, you‘re not supposed to use government things do that.


MCDERMOTT:  Well, that‘s clearly breaking the rules but it wasn‘t for his pockets and so I think that every once in awhile, somebody just needs to be brought up and people who need to be—to be made to look at rules so that all the other members see that there are rules around here and you just can‘t do whatever you want.

SCHULTZ:  Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she wanted to drain the swamp.  Does this go far enough in your opinion?  Is this draining the swamp and being clean on ethics?  And also, do you want Charlie Rangel to stay in the Congress?

MCDERMOTT:  I think the people of his district have re-elected him.  They know what the issues are.  I don‘t—and I don‘t think there‘s any feeling on the committee to try to expel him.  And I don‘t think—I don‘t think that would be the right thing do.


MCDERMOTT:  A lot of people have had censures or whatever sanctions and have gone on good careers.  So, I don‘t think that this is not the end, but it is bringing him up short and Charlie will respond to that.

SCHULTZ:  Congressman Jim McDermott, back to the unemployment story that we started with tonight.  You know my passion for it.  I‘ve been hard on the Republicans, and now it‘s been absolutely validated, this is who they are.  We have never done this in the history of this country with the unemployment this high to deny Americans and do it on the verge of the holiday season.

What‘s your response to the vote today?

MCDERMOTT:  Well, you‘re absolutely right.  In the 75-year history of unemployment insurance since the act in 1935, we have never denied benefits to people when unemployment was at this level.  And your commentary said it all, really.

I don‘t understand how people can say no to unemployment benefits and turn around in a week or so and be crying and winging around on the floor and saying, oh, we have to give these tax cuts to people who make more than $250,000 a year.  I mean, it is absolutely insane if you‘re going to have a just society that the people on the top keep getting more and the people on the bottom you say, hey, too bad.  You‘ve been out two years.  We paid you two years in benefits.  You‘re done.

That‘s simply not the American way.  We have never treated people in this society that way.

SCHULTZ:  And this—and this vote today definitely tells the 99ers that there‘s no hope for them because if there‘s not going to be another vote on this and you‘re going to have the House—is going to be controlled by the Republicans who voted like this, this pretty much permanently slams the door on the longtime unemployed, doesn‘t it?

MCDERMOTT:  Well, you know, Ed, I‘m not quite sure, because I think those people who are watching your show and watching the news tonight and the Senate is going to be saying, hey, maybe we should do something.  And I think what will be the most awful thing is they‘re going to slap it together with a tax cuts and say, well we‘ll extend the tax cuts, but we‘ll also give some unemployment benefits.

SCHULTZ:  Would you be in favor that?

MCDERMOTT:  No.  If you‘re going to give $700 billion to people on the top and you‘re going to give $14 billion to the people on the bottom, that just simply makes it more unfair.  And that‘s exactly what‘s been going on for the last 10 years.  To do more of it today would make no sense at all.

SCHULTZ:  Congressman Jim McDermott—great to have you with us tonight.  I appreciate your time.  Thanks so much.

MCDERMOTT:  See you.

SCHULTZ:  Coming up, Caribou Barbie thinks that she can win the presidency, but President Obama‘s biggest threat, politically, might actually be coming from the lefties.  “Huffington Post” co-founder Roy Sekoff sounds off on tonight‘s battleground story on that.

My crusade against the drugster‘s disgusting race rants is picking up steam.  Reverend Sharpton is calling for the FCC to put the hammer down.  The Black Eagle Joe Madison ramps up the heat against Limbaugh later on tonight on THE ED SHOW.

Plus, FOX News propaganda pusher Roger Ailes calls public broadcasters Nazis.

Donald Trump is talking smack.

And little old Eddie, that would be me, I found out last night that George Clooney watches this show.  That‘s pretty cool.  That‘s coming up on the playbook.

Lots more coming up on THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Coming up: one of the biggest businessman in the world just said that China is laughing at the United States and calling us a bunch of fools.  This has kind of got a lot of folk‘s blood boiling including mine.  I guess I‘m kind of sick and tired of China cheating all of the time and we doing nothing about it.

Scott Paul, the head of the Alliance of American Manufacturing is fighting the fight.  He‘s up next.

Stay with us.



DONALD TRUMP, BILLIONAIRE:  I have many people from China that I do business with.  They laugh at us.  They feel we‘re fools.  You know, they‘re getting away with absolute murder.  They‘re making the products that we used to make in this country.  They‘re making them in China.


SCHULTZ:  The Donald, he gets it.  It‘s time to tell China, you‘re fired.

China is eating our lunch and they‘re doing it by cheating.  They‘ve cheated—created, should I say, an unfair playing field for American workers and American companies.

Now, let me be very clear here.  China poses a major threat to this country‘s economy.  And the American people—bottom line—they‘re starting to get it.  This story‘s picking up steam.  A new poll shows 58 percent of Americans say China‘s economic power is a threat to the United States.  Just 35 percent say China‘s economic power is an opportunity.

Now, that is a sea change from back in the 1990s, when more Americans viewed China as an economic opportunity.

For more, let‘s bring in Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Mr. Paul, good to have you with us tonight.

That interview, of course, got a lot of attention, because Donald Trump said that he was thinking about running for president.  But what caught my attention was that he said things that I haven‘t heard politicians say.  Is he saying what has to be said?

SCOTT PAUL, ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING:  Yes, I think he is and I think that we need to say to politicians that don‘t stand up to China, you‘re fired as well.

That‘s one of the challenges here, is that it‘s not that China‘s taking these jobs, Ed.  We‘re giving them away.  And it‘s been a problem that we‘ve had for the last decade and we haven‘t seen an administration or a Congress willing to stand up to China and we need to do that.

And it‘s not about us being really protectionists.  It‘s about a level playing field.  I mean, Mr. Trump understands that.  He was a businessman.  And that‘s what we‘re asking for as well.  And I think it‘s a real problem when we don‘t have people in Washington that are willing to stand up and say what Donald Trump is saying.

SCHULTZ:  Well, we don‘t have elected officials talking the way that Trump is talking and what‘s interesting about this is that it‘s well-documented that he is a big-time free trader.  And Donald Trump is saying, what, if he‘s a free trader, he doesn‘t want any level of protectionism.  How do you interpret that?  What does he want?

PAUL:  Well, he wants what‘s called rules-base trade, which is where you have reciprocity.  It‘s kind of the golden rule, and we don‘t have that with China right now.  We have record trade deficits.  We have China cheating on their currency.  We have a lot of subsidies.

I mean, the House of Representatives voted in October to punish China

for its currency manipulation, overwhelmingly.  Even 99 Republicans

supported this bill.  It‘s something that the lame duck Senate should do

It would pass over overwhelmingly if Mitch McConnell brought it up.  I know that Senator Sherrod Brown wants to do it.  Senator Schumer wants to do it.  Even Senator Graham from South Carolina wants to do it.

It‘s one surefire way to tell China exactly what Donald Trump is, which is you‘re fired unless you play by the rules.  And that‘s what we need people to say.

SCHULTZ:  So, with the landscape here in America is, we have the anti-union, union-busted mentality.  We have the top 2 percent outsourcing jobs looking for more tax cuts.  We have China working us over on a trade deficit that is almost insurmountable at this point.  And now, we‘ve got conservative politicians saying, you know, they‘re laughing at us.

If this doesn‘t—if this doesn‘t wake up the American people, what will?

PAUL:  I tell you what, it should.  And another—some public opinion research earlier this year also showed that as many people thought that China had strongest economy in the world, as thought the United States had the strongest economy, which is again a sea change, Ed, from where things were in the ‘90s.

But this is an issue.  And trust me, we‘ve been out there talking about this and I know that you have as well.  This is an issue where union households, Democrats, independents, Republicans, and Tea Party voters all think that we‘re getting a raw deal from China.

The only set that doesn‘t seem to understand it is the inside the Beltway set that‘s part of both parties and that‘s kind of what we have to breakthrough there.

We have an opportunity with the China currency vote.  I hope the

Senate will take it.  The Obama administration has the chance to penalize -



SCHULTZ:  When is that currency vote?

PAUL:  Well, we‘re hoping to get it into the lame duck, but, you know, Mitch McConnell and the Chamber of Commerce and folks like that may be standing in the way.  But I tell you what, Ed, if that came to a vote, it would get at least 70 votes in the Senate.  There‘s no doubt about it.

And President Obama can make a decision on clean energy goods with China, put some tariffs on those.  He‘ll have to do that by January.

But again, it‘s another opportunity to say that you‘ve got to play by the rules.

SCHULTZ:  You just mentioned the most under-covered story in the media, 70 votes would unleash a real opportunity for the president to do something in this lame-duck session.  That‘s—it‘s big stuff and it relates right to jobs.

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

PAUL:  Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ:  Coming up: I‘ll be the first to tell you that the Beckster slant head and the rest of that crowd over there, they‘re a bunch of blow bags, but freedom of speech.  It makes America great.  A psycho lefty wants them and MSNBC to be muzzled?  It pains me to do it, but I‘ve got to tell it like it is—in the zone next.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, my friend from West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller.  I hope he‘s my friend after this, but I‘ve got to call it like I see it.  It‘s unfortunate that we have to throw a lefty in the “Psycho Talk” tonight—but, Senator Rockefeller, this is your day.

The senator from West Virginia dropped this bombshell in the middle of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing.


SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA:  I‘m tired of the right and the left.  There‘s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC, “Out, off, end, goodbye.”  It‘d be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and in their—more importantly, in their future.


SCHULTZ:  Senator, you can‘t do your work because of what we say? 

Ever listen to right-wing radio?

Senator, I think you need to see a doctor to get that bug out of you.  First of all, you are dead wrong to compare what we at MSNBC do to what those folks across the street do at FOX.  But ultimately, this really boils down to freedom of speech, doesn‘t it?  All views must be heard.  Even Beck and Hannity have a right to speak their mind.

It is an archaic attitude and it‘s archaic thinking to want to shutdown the editorial process in America.

This set we‘re devoted to hours to covering the mine disaster in your state, Senator, that killed 29 of your constituent.  We covered how the mine owner cut corners on safety and shined a light on the biggest story in West Virginia this year, in detail on cable.

Do you really want to shut that kind of coverage down or do you want to tell us what to say?  Or do you want to pull the plug on free speech altogether because you don‘t like the way we cover the single-payer folks and the health care debate, and why they didn‘t get a seat at the table during the health care debate?

Senator Rockefeller, the rocks go with the farm.  You know that.  For you to advocate pulling the plug on free speech to make it easier for you to do your job is shocking “Psycho Talk.”

Coming up: let the 2012 circus begin.  Caribou Barbie believes that she‘ll send President Obama packing and Trump goes on the stump.  But what might surprise you is that a lefty is throwing even bigger daggers politically.

Roy Sekoff, “Huffington Post” co-founder handicaps the horse race in tonight‘s “Battleground” story.

President Obama spiked the ball on those righties today.  General Motors went public and were on track to get all the money back to the government.  That would be a loan, not a bailout.  We‘ve got rapid-fire response on that.

Plus, Roger Ailes takes a queue from the Beckster, Tiger spills his guts and I‘ll tell you about my night with George Clooney.  We kind of rubbed elbows and he said, hey, Ed!  Career highlight.

You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  The “Battleground” story tonight.  Sarah Palin says, she‘s in.  Donald Trump is weighing a presidential run, and George Soros may be looking around for, I guess you could say, a better bet?  I think we‘re in for a wild ride for 2012, don‘t you? The landscape has changed dramatically for President Obama.  Billionaire democratic donor George Soros says it might be time for progressives to look elsewhere?  What‘s that mean? 

In a recent speech at the democracy alliance in Washington this week, a meeting of major democratic donors, Soros reportedly said, “We‘ve just lost this election.  We need to draw a line.  And if this president can‘t do what we need, it‘s time to start looking somewhere else.”  Soros also reportedly said that he is, quote, “used to fighting losing battles but he doesn‘t like to lose without fighting.”  Whether does all this mean?  One of Soros‘ advisers was quick to say that the billionaire is not looking for another candidate in 2012.  

Mr. Soros fully supports the president as the leader of the Democratic Party.  And Vachon went on to say that he was not suggesting that we seek another candidate for 2012.  He was stressing the importance of progressives being heard by elected officials.  The Democracy Alliance meeting was closed to the media, but “Huffington Post” got the story from sources inside of the room.  I spoke with some of them today and it was very clear that George Soros was not happy with the White House, President Obama, and the strategy being used and the lack of communication and the lack of fight. 

So where are we?  Roy Sekoff, founding editor of “The Huffington Post.”  Take all of that in, buddy.  What do you make of it?

ROY SEKOFF, FOUNDING EDITOR, “THE HUFFINGTON POST”:  Well, you said the right thing, what he was upset about is the lack of fight.  He wasn‘t looking for another candidate, Ed.  What he was saying was, you know we have to be more aggressive, Democrats and progressives need to be more aggressive countering this phony narrative that the Republicans keep putting out.  And what he‘s saying is that if the White House is not going to do it, which they haven‘t seemed really willing do, that maybe the money should go to the institutions that well.  So, that‘s really what he was saying about that. 

SCHULTZ:  Roy, what is, look elsewhere mean?  I mean, look elsewhere. 

Look elsewhere to other organizations?  Look elsewhere to other leadership? 

What does look elsewhere mean to?

SEKOFF:  Look elsewhere to other organizations that are going to be willing to be putting up that fight.  You know, Ed, we saw in 2010 the midterms, the big money came back, they came back on the other side.  

SCHULTZ:  Yes.  

SEKOFF:  With this outside parties.  You know with Karl Rove and how he‘s able to raise the money.  You know, Citizens United, that was sort of the demon spawn of Citizens United ruling was the 2010 race and I think what Soros is saying, we need some of that ourselves, you know?  Don‘t forget back in 2008, remember, Obama said I don‘t want any of those outside groups.  Give all of your money to me.  Funnel it all through me and the message will all be clear.


SEKOFF:  But now he‘s more open to it because he  saw what happened so he‘s saying, well, maybe you can give it to those groups who‘s going to throw a few bombs and throw a few haymakers,  at the White House seems very reluctant to throw.  

SCHULTZ:  Roy, when it comes to the political image, I mean, George Soros, I mean, he is painted by everybody on the right as being somewhat of the godfather of lefty media.  I want to be very clear, I don‘t know the man.  I‘ve never met him.  I‘ve never been financially connected to him.  But when he speaks about looking elsewhere, when he talks about being somewhat disgruntled about the way things are going in the White House, it‘s like everybody else is supposed to get in line.  But I can say independently that some of the things that they said in that meeting are exactly some of the voices that have been on this show including mine for months on end.  So. 

SEKOFF:  Well, you know, Ed, you know, when you get, as the president said, a shellacking like happened a couple of weeks ago, you‘ve got to do something, I mean, you know?


SEKOFF:  If it‘s broke you‘ve got to fix it.  


SEKOFF:  So, I think that‘s what you‘re feeling among the progressives in that group.  

SCHULTZ:  So is the line, imaginary line in the sand being drawn when it comes to the tax cuts for the top two percent, when they just voted today to deny unemployment benefits.  I mean, isn‘t this somewhat of a defining moment for the White House on where they‘re going to stand and maybe in a sense answer to what Mr. Soros is talking about?

SEKOFF:  You would hope so, right?  I mean, I don‘t think it‘s the final line in the sand for progressives.  I think you know, we‘ll pull together and say, well, you know what needs to be done?  However. 

SCHULTZ:  But for the White House strategy is what I‘m talking about?  I‘m talking about the White House strategy.  I mean, if the White House caves to the top two percent and comes up with some compromise, I think it‘s really going to support exactly what I think Mr. Soros was trying to get across and all these lefty donors at this alliance meeting. 

SEKOFF:  I don‘t think there is any doubt but I would say that I don‘t think that you‘re going to see the hard line being drawn by the White House on this.  I think that they‘re going to try to find a way to fudge it, we‘ll let it go for a while.  Maybe we‘ll have some kind of means test, that depending on if more jobs are created, you know, then it will expire, you know, then it won‘t expire but I don‘t think that they‘ll going to draw the hard line in the sand in this one, Ed, unfortunately.  

SCHULTZ:  Roy Sekoff always a pleasure to have you on THE ED SHOW. 

Thanks so much.

SEKOFF:  Good to see you me friend.  

SCHULTZ:  Now, let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these stories tonight.  Republicans, well they changed their tune on counterterrorism, didn‘t they?  Counterterrorism efforts at our nation‘s airports.  They won‘t stop complaining about those screenings and personal privacy violations. 

President Obama has scored a major victory with General Motors, here, here.  The American auto company made a triumphant return to the stock market today and taxpayers are on track to recoup their full loan and investment. 

And Senate Republicans are not doing it for the Gipper.  They‘re turning against Reagan‘s nuclear reduction plan.  All in the name of making President Obama fail.  This afternoon, Senator Jon Kyl said that there‘s no chance of a vote in the lame-duck session. 

Joining us tonight, Jack Rice, former CIA officer, and Ron Christie, republican strategist.  Gentlemen, always a pleasure.  Good to have you with us.  


SCHULTZ:  All right.  Let‘s go to the airport picture that has everybody‘s attention that was on “The Huffington Post” today.  Now, this is what it‘s come to.  We‘re getting felt up in airports and Americans are getting uptight about it.  Jack, you‘re a CIA guy.  Do we have to do this?

JACK RICE, FORMER CIA OFFICER:  Yes, the real problem is we haven‘t seen just how good these machines are.  In fact, the Italians had so many problems, they actually turned them off.  The Brits at the same time saw limitations in them and they had problems with them, too.  And so you start looking at just how far you take the fourth amendments, the search and seizure concept, and then you  have the questionable system  that‘s incredibly expensive, but you know here‘s the final line with it, which is fascinating.  What I saw from the GOP under President Bush is, whatever it is that President Bush wanted we should do it, but all of a sudden now, it‘s an outrage when it‘s under a democratic president.  I find that kind of interesting. 


SCHULTZ:  Ron, what do you think? 

CHRISTIE:  Well, you know, I‘m not going to get into the Bush and the Obama thing.  I‘m looking more of it more from the fourth amendment perspective as Jack just said.  I‘m very concerned about the invasive nature of these machines.  I want to make sure that TSA and the Homeland Security Department that they have these expensive machines, they‘re there to do what they claim they‘re there to do.  If they‘re not, Ed, it seems to me mighty invasive and really, really intrusive.  And I don‘t like the aspect of what we‘ve seen thus far from their initial rollout.  

SCHULTZ:  Well, I have to tell you, I don‘t want this to happen to me. 

I don‘t want this to happen to my wife at the airport.  


SCHULTZ:  And I don‘t think employees, for the TSA, should be subjected to doing these kinds of things in that photo that we saw.  I mean the next thing he‘s going to do is ask you to turn your head and cough.  I mean—how up close and personal do they have to get?  Put me in the machine.  I mean, what‘s wrong with going into a machine?  What do you guys think of that?  

RICE:  Well, Ed, I mean, if we think about this it‘s only yesterday I believe, it was that they finally said, well, if you‘re under 12, we won‘t do it to you.  I‘ve got four little kids and if I took my four year, I took the 6-year-old and the 8-year-old, am I going to put them through the machine?  Really?  Are we really going do that? But that‘s the kind of problem that we have to have, and because of what we have seen, the inability of these machines to do what it is that they were claiming and the incredible cost to actually do this and then these fourth amendment issues that I think Ron and I actually agree on in which scares me a little bit, Ron, I admit, that I think under those circumstances we really have to be careful here. 

CHRISTIE:  Well, that, let me just say this, Ed, the thing my wife didn‘t like going through these procedures either.  And before hand, the TSA folks used use to use the back of their hands when they were in these invasive areas and now they‘re using the front of their hand.  I mean, really?  I mean, do you really want to start feeling up people over the holidays?  I just, I don‘t like the looks of this one bit.  

SCHULTZ:  All right.  Let‘s go to the next story.  President Obama I guess you could say came out and spiked the ball today and I think rightfully so, I actually I think that they‘re a little bit late on it.  But of course, General Motors is a success story.  Here is the president. 


BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Today, one of the toughest tales of the recession took another big step towards becoming a success story.  General Motors re-launched itself as a public company.  Cutting the government‘s stake in the company by nearly half, what‘s more, American tax payers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested. 


SCHULTZ:  It was not a bailout.  It was a loan.  Ron Christie, isn‘t this a victory for America, to save over a million jobs?

CHRISTIE:  Of course it is.  I mean I was thrilled.  I thought the CEO of GM was very emotional on interviews that I saw yesterday and I thought he looked pretty good this morning, ringing the bell at the New York Stock Exchange.  

SCHULTZ:  But the Republicans were against it, Ron.  They just—you know they called it a bailout.  They said it was government motors.  They said that President Obama wanted to take over the car industry.  Now what are they saying?

CHRISTIE:  Well, well I can only speak for myself, Ed.  You remember I came on here and I said, you know, for goodness sakes, government‘s getting in a way of everything.  This is one of these cases where it looks like the government loan, government intervention worked.  And it‘s a story that is a good one, I‘m pleased with this.  I mean, you don‘t always have to look at things from a partisan perspective, good for GM.  

SCHULTZ:  What do you think, Jack?  I mean, government has a place in helping business. 

RICE:  Of course it does.  This is an investment in America.  Not just in business but in all of those employees and all those other companies that are support companies and satellite companies that are tied to GM.  The success of this is something that I think all should acknowledge, sadly, we see this sort of left and right dichotomy when this isn‘t that.  This is a pro-American story, and everybody involved has benefited, including the American taxpayer, and that‘s something we should all be proud of and I think something that we should remember in the broader sense.  

SCHULTZ:  Ron Christie, why isn‘t—why aren‘t the Republicans in favor of this new treaty with the Russians, when the reduction in the stockpiles is far or less than what other republican presidents had when it was signed.  What about that?  

CHRISTIE:  Well I think it‘s a question of the time frame, Ed.  I think the constitution provides for the president to submit a treaty for the ratification and the Senate and their due deliberate course to ratify it or reject it.  And I think the question they‘re saying that we need have this treaty ratified in a lame duck whether it ends week this week or next week.  I think causes a little concern for Republicans.  Let‘s look at the merits of the treaty.  Let‘s make sure it‘s in the best interest of the United States.  

SCHULTZ:  Well, they did that.  

CHRISTIE:  Not arbitrary, I know but I‘m saying, let‘s not put an arbitrary date on it.  Why do we have to get it done by the end of next week?  I mean, explain to me the compelling national security interest that why have to be done by the end of next week.  

SCHULTZ:  Because the Russians are ready to sign.  They‘re expecting it.  The administration puts a lot of time and effort into this.  Your thoughts, Jack.

RICE:  Well, this is an outrage, frankly.  I mean, this is a perfect example where you see politics actually stepping in the place of national security.  We‘ve seen this so many times.  You can see the president, just today, he had republican and democratic secretaries of state including Kissinger and others, Baker was up there too.  You saw this from guys on Republicans now who are finally saying, this is outrageous for the Republicans to actually do this.  

SCHULTZ:  It‘s all about not giving President Obama a victory.  It‘s all about not giving President Obama a victory.  Jack Rice, Ron Christie, great have with you us.  

RICE:  Sadly.  

SCHULTZ:  Ron, doggone it nobody yelled at you tonight.  


CHRISTIE:  What‘s the world coming to, Ed.  

RICE:  Next time.  Next time.  

SCHULTZ:  You know, it must have been that new treaty that we were talking about.  

RICE:  That‘s it.

CHRISTIE:  Take care, guys.  

SCHULTZ:  Coming up.  The day after calling the president a far left socialist.  FOX News Chief Roger Ailes blasts the journalist at the NPRS Nazis.  Wow!  Now I know where Beck gets all of his material.  This guy is sold a better propaganda pusher. 

Eric Boehlert, Media Matters tells us why Ailes is unfair and unbalanced.  Next.   


SCHULTZ:  And it‘s still not too late to let us know what you think.  The number to dial tonight is 1-877-ed-msnbc.  Tonight‘s telephone survey question is, does today‘s vote against extending unemployment benefits disgust you?  Press the number one for yes, press the number two for no.  Again, that number to dial is 1-877-ed-msnbc.  We‘ll right back.


SCHULTZ:  And in my “Playbook” tonight, FOX News Chief Roger Ailes is calling people Nazis.  A day after slamming President Obama and calling a far-left socialist who has a different view and a different belief system than most Americans, FOX News president and propaganda pusher, Roger Ailes blasted NPR for firing Juan Williams.  Get over it.  He said this, “They are, of course, Nazis.  They have a kind of a Nazi attitude.  They‘re the left wing of Nazism.  These guys don‘t want any other point of view.  They don‘t even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda.”

I mean, I just cannot believe this guy is whining about other points of views.  This is the president of a so-called network news division?  Calling national public radio Nazis, Americans how feel about that?  Today, he tried to walk it back in a letter to the anti defamation league.  He wrote, “I was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word but I was angry at the time because of NPR‘s willingness to censor Juan Williams for not being liberal enough.” 

For more, let‘s bring in Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters for America.  What do you make of the comment and the log back?  Eric, good to have you with us tonight.  

ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA:  Thanks for having me.  You know, now we know where the crazy in FOX News comes from, it comes from the top.  I mean this is just really amazing.  This kind of rhetoric, as you say, someone associated to a news organization is just amazing.  And what about this bogus apology, A, he doesn‘t call off the president of the NPR and, you know, have the decency to apologize that way.  He claims that he was ad-libbing, what does that mean?  He‘s having an on-the-record interview with the reporter.  That‘s called attacking.  And he, you know, he pretended like a slip of the tongue.  He used Nazis like three times in one sentence but this is how they think over at FOX News and this is how they talk on the air and off the air.  They have chosen to you know trivialize an epic genocide in an effort to score partisan points against Democrats. 

SCHULTZ:  Why isn‘t. 

BOEHLERT:  It‘s beneath contempt and they cannot stop themselves.  

SCHULTZ:  It is beneath contempt.  Why is NPR a target all of a sudden by the right wing?  

BOEHLERT:  Well, because they got rid of Juan Williams and not because he wasn‘t liberal enough but because he routinely violated apparently their ethical guidelines in terms of appearing on FOX News.  You know, FOX embraced him as some sort of martyr and sort of this—turned it into a case of censorship.  I think Roger Ailes hates NPR because they practice actual journalism.  NPR, anyone in the business will tell you, is an absolute gold standard of reporting in journalism in this country and he can‘t stand that.  

SCHULTZ:  Here‘s Ailes going after NPR and then of course coordinating with the republican effort in the Congress.  

BOEHLERT:  Right.  

SCHULTZ:  To defund NPR, here‘s Congressman Cantor today. 


REP. ERIC CANTOR ®, VIRGINIA:  This proposal would eliminate tax payer funding for national public radio.  To be clear, it is not the government‘s job to tell a news organization how to do its job.  But what‘s equally ascertain is that it should not be the taxpayer‘s responsibility to fund news organizations with a partisan point of view. 

SCHULTZ:  It is public radio and they get seven percent of their total budget is from the taxpayers.  Eric, we‘ll come back with this in a later date and talk more about it because it is part of their agenda.  Good to have you with us tonight. 

One final page, Big Edie, that‘s me, hanging out with the Hollywood stars last night, well, one of them.  The biggest one ever, George Clooney says he watches the show.  Of course, he was honored for his humanitarian work, getting the Ripple of Hope award at the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights.  That award‘s center was fantastic last night.  Mr. Clooney—George Clooney, I mean, I can tell you this that he is a class-act and he was more than well received.  Thanks for watching the show.  

Coming up, the drugster, now why in the world would he take the day off?  I think he‘s feeling the heat coming from Reverend Sharpton after the show last night.  The black eagle Joe Madison, cranks up the pressure next on THE ED SHOW.  Stay with us.


SCHULTZ:  Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.  Rush Limbaugh has been on a racist bender as of late and besides ticking me off, he‘s got folks wondering if the FCC should intervene.  Within the past few days, he‘s posted the racist image of House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn chauffeuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi and called Obama‘s time in the White House, quote, “graffiti” on the walls of American history.  Here‘s Al Sharpton responding to that last night.  


REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK:  I think that the congressional black caucus, progressive caucus and others, ought to take this up with FCC.  There ought to be a line on race, on gender, on sexual status, there ought to be a line where people have the right to say what they want but they do not have the right to use federally regulated airwaves to malign people because of groups.  And I think that Mr. Limbaugh and others should have to be subjected to that line, as you and I and anyone else.  And he will have to deal with that.  


SCHULTZ:  XM satellite radio talk show host, “The Black Eagle,” Joe Madison with us tonight.  Joe, what do you make of this?  

JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Well, you know, I realize that if you go back into radio, even in the days of segregationists, we have not heard this type of conversation on radio, even when segregationists were at their height.  And so, the reality is that it‘s not only the FCC that has to look into it, but I think that stations that carry Limbaugh‘s program have got to ask themselves, do they really want to be associated with this throwback to the kinds of racial baiting that he is engaged in.  So, before coming on this program, I talked to the Reverend Al Sharpton and asked him to pull together a coalition of his organization, National Action Network, the NAACP, the Urban League and other organizations, and to do exactly what the anti-defamation league would do.

And that is to go to Clear Channel and to other stations and networks and have a conversation about the decency or lack of decency on the part of Limbaugh and then to officially take this to the FCC and see where it lands.  Because one has to ask themselves, do you really want to subject your audience to this throwback era when racism ran rampant and you didn‘t even hear it on radio in those days like you‘re hearing it today.  

SCHULTZ:  Dr. Laura, Don Imus, they paid a price professionally.  Do you think Limbaugh is too big to fail?

MADISON:  No.  The answer—the single answer to that is, absolutely not.  If he‘s too big to fail, then our society has failed, Ed, because we‘ve grown past that.  We really don‘t want to hear it.  And those people who do want to hear that type of thing, really are dinosaurs.  

SCHULTZ:  So there is a movement.  

MADISON:  Yes.  

SCHULTZ:  There is a pushback coming from minority groups against Limbaugh‘s racist comments.  This will be the first time he‘s ever been collectively challenged.  And I commend you for it, Joe.  It‘s long overdue.  

MADISON:  It has to be done.  Look, no other group would put up with this.  

SCHULTZ:  Yes.  

MADISON:  And I think that collectively the coalition will—I think they will have results. 

SCHULTZ:  We will stay on this story.  Good to have you with us tonight, Joe Madison.  

MADISON:  Thank you for inviting me.  

SCHULTZ:  You bet.  

MADISON:  Tonight in our telephone survey I asked, does today‘s vote against extending unemployment benefits disgust you?  Ninety six percent of you said, yes.  Four percent of you said no.  That‘s THE ED SHOW.  I‘m Ed Schultz.  Chris Matthews, “HARDBALL” is next.  We‘ll see you back here tomorrow night.  Have a great one.



Copyright 2010 CQ-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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,

copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>