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

The Ed Show for Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Mike Papantonio, Keith Ellison, David Cay Johnston, E.J. Dionne,
Jim Moore

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

At this hour, Moammar Gadhafi is on the run. Rebels have seized the
government and freedom is on the march in Libya.

The United States and NATO are on the brink -- on the brink of a
historic win against an evil dictator and Republicans just can't give the
president of the United States any credit.

This is THE ED SHOW, let's get to work.


in the hands of its people.

SCHULTZ (voice-over): The Obama foreign policy in Libya, a success.
We did it without boots on the ground.

But Republicans are still not satisfied. We'll remind you what they
said then and tell what you they are saying now.

After months of defending tax cuts for the rich, the Republicans have
opposed the president's tax cut. They were for it. Now, he's for it. So
they must be against it. Claiming it will hurt the economy. Oh! Now I
get it.

trust any of my opponents right now.

SCHULTZ: Presidential hopeful John Huntsman says what we've been
saying for years, the Republican Party has been captured about it radical
right. "Bush's Brain" co-author Jim Moore is here.

And in psycho talk tonight, the Donald is going on about one of his
favorite subjects.

DONALD TRUMP, BUSINESSMAN: What do we get out of it and why don't we
take the oil?


SCHULTZ: Good to you have with us tonight, folks. Thanks for
joining us.

As Libyan rebels celebrated freedom in Tripoli's Green Square,
President Obama spoke about what made it all possible, praising the NATO
and the Arab world for standing together.

Unfortunately, Republicans -- well, they still don't get that
concept, do they? Some of the same people who got us in the war in Iraq
which we're still fighting are criticizing the president for his handling
of a six-month mission that has actually succeeded.

Here's the story tonight. For the last 24 hours, the streets of
Tripoli have been filled with thousands of people celebrating the end of
Gadhafi's 42-year reign of terror. A reign of terror that took American

At the same time, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham
are Monday morning quarterbacking the way that President Obama handled six-
month long revolution.

The senators, they got together and released this statement today.
"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to
defeat Gadhafi. But we regret that this success was so long in coming due
to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our

McCain and Graham basically are upset we didn't risk more of our
bravest pilots and spend billions more of American dollars to get Gadhafi.
These senators supported failed strategies that cost us trillions of
dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In six short months, President Obama's strategy has united -- has the
United States and NATO basically on the brink of a big foreign policy
success with no loss of life. And, yet, it doesn't satisfy these two
senators for their quest for unlimited war?

Rick Perry, he got into it today. He pumped out a statement from the
campaign trail. "The crumbling of Moammar Gadhafi's reign of violent,
repressive dictatorship with the history of terrorism, is cause for
cautious celebration"? You mean you kind of like to have him back in

Perry didn't mention the United States once in his statement and
neither, of course, did Michelle Bachmann. She said, "I oppose U.S.
military involvement in Libya and I'm hopeful that our intervention is
about to end.

And, of course, the low-polling Rick Santorum took a dig at President
Obama in this statement, "Ridding the world of the likes of Gadhafi is a
good thing, but this indecisive president had very little to do this
triumph." Do you think they like the guy?

President Obama has proven that he is absolutely head and shoulders
above his political competition when it comes to his foreign policy. The
president made this statement from Martha's Vineyard.


Gadhafi regime is coming to an end. The future of Libya is in the hands of
its people. NATO has once more proven that it is the most capable alliance
in the world. And that its strength comes from both its firepower and the
power of our democratic ideals.

And the Arab members of our coalition have stepped up and shown what
can be achieved when we act together as equal partners.


SCHULTZ: What if the president came out and said, you know, if they
did it my way in Iraq, we'd be done a long time ago. I don't know, he's
not that kind of guy.

President Obama, as we all know, has taken a lot of heat for taking a
vacation in the middle of three wars, an economic issue and crisis in this
country that we're all dealing with, although the president has been
getting briefed on developments and actually -- he actually paid attention
to the intelligence. The last president didn't pay close enough attention
to an August 6th, 2001 presidential daily briefing that said bin Laden was
determined to attack in the United States. Remember those days?

President Bush was known to comment on the war on terror during his
vacation but his results were never really up to par.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I call upon all nations to do
everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now,
watch this drive.


SCHULTZ: Any difference in demeanor or seriousness?

President Obama is more effective decision maker than Bush ever was.
The president's decisions have led to the death of the world's number one
terrorist and the toppling of a major state sponsor of terror.

Republicans still will never give him any credit whatsoever. They've
been second guessing the president on Libya all along.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: The strategies confusing to
the American people only 21 percent believe President Obama has a clear
view of how to handle Libya. It's demoralizing to our allies, particularly
people on the ground that we're trying to help. And I think it's
encouraging to our enemies. So, this strategy is going to lead to a


SCHULTZ: Strategy to a stalemate. Does that mean that Gadhafi was
going to stay in power or he was going to be forced from power?

Senator Graham, how about a little clarification on that one?

Nobody has criticized President Obama on foreign policy like Dick
Cheney, shooter. He's been wrong on the war on terror more than anybody in
America. When Chris Wallace asked Cheney what he would do about Gadhafi --
well, he misfired big time.


DICK CHENEY, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: It's not enough to simply
sit on the sidelines and say get rid of Gadhafi. What are you going do
about it? How are you going to achieve it? Are you prepared to use the
resources of the United States to make that happen?

And it's been -- it looks as though what the policy of the
administration has been is to hope for Gadhafi's departure but not be
prepared to do enough to make sure it happens.


SCHULTZ: Don't you love how we save all this stuff?

President Obama was more than up to the task. But Republicans, they
just can't give him any credit at all. Now, so let's just imagine for a
moment that President Bush would have delivered the death of Osama bin
Laden and ended Gadhafi's reign of terror -- I don't think we would have
ever heard the end of it.

Conservatives, let's just imagine what they would be saying. This is
freedom on the march. Gadhafi was a bad guy. And this is the end of an

And I think that President Bush and the conservatives probably would
have jumped in front of the cameras and said, we smoked out a tyrant.

I mean -- you can bet we would have seen another "mission
accomplished" banner.

You know, do you remember the days when some questioned and
criticized the war after the capture of Saddam Hussein. I remember the
Howard Dean story because he came out and said he wasn't sure this made the
country safer.

He was accused of criticizing the troops, of being unpatriotic, and
endangering our troops in the field. I remember the rhetoric.

And, of course, Dean wasn't the only one. Congressional members took
heat. Media people were labeled as anti-American.

But you see? Before all that, politics stopped at the water's edge.
And now that President Obama has two, what I would say very solid foreign
policy successes, it appears to me that the Republicans only wrap
themselves in the flag if the president is from the Republican side and the
resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think.

Tonight's question, are the Republicans playing politics with Libya?
Text A for yes, text B for no, to 622639. You can always go to our blog at We'll bring you the results rate later in the show.

Joining me is a Mike Papantonio, host of the nationally-syndicated
"Ring of Fire" radio show.

Mike, great to have you with us.


SCHULTZ: Does any Republican have the character to admit that
President Obama had the correct policy in Libya as this unfolds?

PAPANTONIO: Ed, they can't, because ever since 9/11, when 3,000
Americans were murdered in terrorist act on their watch -- Republican
president, Republican Congress -- they've lost the high ground on being
able to say that they're the party of national security, they're the party
that can deal with national conflict questions. And because of that, we
see them confused. We see them almost irrational in their criticism about

The same thing we saw when Obama killed bin Laden. Or in this
situation, right now he was right about Gadhafi. He was right about Libya.
And that's killing them.

Because the contrast, Ed, is they were confused. They were
disoriented on what to do about Libya.

You remember one day they were saying one thing, the next day, it was
another. They were confused about what to do with the most violent
terrorist in the world who was responsible for Lockerbie.

Let me point this out. Ronald Reagan was the president during the
Lockerbie incident and George Bush Sr., if you recall, he's the guy that
gave Gadhafi a free pass on those murders when George Bush Sr. came into

Every single one of the serious Republican candidates, if can you
call them serious Republican candidates, have been wining like
schoolchildren when Obama didn't do what George Bush did, which was to lie
his way into the scam. The weapons of mass destruction scam.

Instead, we had Obama go to the United Nations, build a real
coalition, not a coalition with Albania and Latvia and Uzbekistan like
George Bush did, a comic book coalition. This president delivered
everything he said he was going to do.

SCHULTZ: And back in April, Sarah Palin jumped all over the
president at the particular time and she said this, "Simply put, what are
we doing there? You've put us in a strategic no-man's land."

And, of course, Rick Perry is out there getting after it today as
well, not giving any credit to the president whatsoever.

Is it all about politics and the war on terror or are they ever going
to give credit to President Obama for anything? Is this just the way it's
going to be? We're so politically divided that it used to stop at the
water's edge. It doesn't anymore.

PAPANTONIO: Ed, they can't. I mean, that's the sad thing about it.
This used to be the Republican -- calling card of the Republican Party.
We're the party that's going to keep you safe. We're the party that can
make good decision on national security.

Today, those same loud mouth Republican critics who were too afraid,
they were too afraid, they were too indecisive to know what to do about
Libya, to know what to do about Gadhafi. They should be apologizing.

SCHULTZ: What do you make of Senators McCain and Graham? I mean,
they've been around the block for a long time. Can't they recognize a U.S.
victory when they see one?

PAPANTONIO: You know what? They know this much. When they say
those ridiculous things enough, you notice what they've done here, Ed. You
won't even hear them equate Obama with this huge accomplishment in Libya.

You won't hear FOX News even use Obama's name on anything positive,
because that's part of the agenda.

They've lost this card. And now, you're going to see a move back to
the economy because they no longer call themselves the party of national
security. And it's killing them.

That's why you have graham and that's why you have Graham and that's
why you McCain out there saying the things like he didn't act fast enough.
How ridiculous.

SCHULTZ: Yes. Mike Papantonio, great to have with you us tonight.
Thank you.

Joining me now from Minnesota is Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison.

Keith, great to have you with us tonight.

I think a lot of Republicans out there this morning asking,
Congressman, what is the next step for U.S. involvement in Libya? Is that
clear in your opinion?

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D), MINNESOTA: Well, yes. I think it's clear.
And I think President Obama has been clear all along. I've been proud to
support this policy since the beginning.

I think President Obama's next move is to try to indicate to the
Libyan people that America has 200-year plus democracy, is at the ready to
try to assist in any way. There are going to be refugees. People are
going to need food, water, clothing --

SCHULTZ: All right. What's the cost? I mean, it sounds like we're

ELLISON: Well, look, I think that it makes sense to do it through
the international community. But the United States has to play a role.

We have a responsibility as the most powerful military nation and the
biggest economy in the world. We can't just band on this thing.

And the fact is, is that, you know, look, President Obama, from the
very beginning, when he gave that speech in Cairo, talking about how in
Arab world, in the Muslim world, we need to be talking about allowing
people to be free, to have a choice in their own government.

You know, since that great speech, a lot of things have changed in
the Middle East. I'm not saying it was because of it, but certainly he set
a tone and I think at this time, you know, when this part of the world is
moving forward, we got to be there to embrace that change and support those
Democratic impulses.

SCHULTZ: Back in March, Michelle Bachmann said the rebels could be
al Qaeda. Here it is.


REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: I have been very reluctant to
see the United States go into Libya. For one think, we haven't identified
yet who the opposition even is to Gadhafi. We don't know if this is led by
Hamas, Hezbollah or possibly al Qaeda of North Africa. Are we really
better off? Are United States better interest -- are our interests better
off if, let's say, al Qaeda of North Africa now runs Libya?


SCHULTZ: And we should point out that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
is on the intelligence committee. Does she have any idea what the hell she
is talking about, Congressman?

ELLISON: No, she has no idea what she's talking about. She's just
one of those people who reflexively attacks Obama under any circumstances,
never has anything good to say about him. And we should not hold our
breath for that to happen.

But the real issue is, look, you know, the transitional government in
Libya has been recognized by not only the United States but Egypt and a
whole multitude of countries aren't world. These people are responsible.
But they cannot do it alone.

So, international community needs to get aren't Transitional National
Council and help them push Libya into a strong state and to help get their
economy going again. I think this is the right thing to do.

SCHULTZ: All right.

ELLISON: So I think Libya will be a solid member of the
international community and its people will for the first time in 42 years
be able to make some decisions for themselves.

SCHULTZ: I mean, it was Ronald Reagan who ordered the bombing to go
after Gadhafi. In fact, at the time, the French would not allow American
jets to fly through their airspace.

ELLISON: Yes, true.

SCHULTZ: And how the tables have turned now. McCain was around back
then. But now, of course, now that we've got Gadhafi and a new government
is on its way in, the conservatives are quiet. I mean, it just speaks
volumes. The divide in this country goes way beyond our borders.

Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota --

ELLISON: I just wish they could put America first. America did a
good thing. They helped the Libyan people.


SCHULTZ: That was campaign, country first.

ELLISON: I should be everybody's.

SCHULTZ: It should be. You bet. Thanks for joining us tonight.

Remember to answer tonight's question there at the bottom of the
screen. I want to know what you think.

Congressional Republicans have finally found a tax increase they
love. And it's a tax hike that only affects the middle class.

And later, there's a brand new attack dog against the Republican
presidential field. But it isn't a Democrat. It's a Republican who is
part of the Republican presidential field.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And Paul Ryan is going to be the savior. Today,
Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin knocked down rumors that he might get
into the presidential race.

His statement reads in part, "I sincerely appreciate the support from
those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation. While
humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and, therefore, I
am not seeking our party's nomination for president."

Glad we got that out of the way. Maybe Ryan thought his plan to end
Medicare as we know it would be just too much for the American people to

But one thing is for sure, Ryan loves tax loopholes if it helps his
political donors.

"The Huffington Post" reports that Ryan has pushed for various tax
breaks over the years for companies that just happened to be some of his
top contributors. But when the president of the United States suggests
ending and extending a tax cut for the middle class, the Republican Party
suddenly finds a tax cut they don't like. That's next.

The presidential candidate no one cares about is talking about how
the other Republicans in the race are too extreme to be elected. And
coming from a conservative this really says something.

And the Trumpster gives I had opinion on Libya, saying why don't we
just take their oil? That is psycho talk tonight.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Now, this is the first line of an "Associated Press" news
article from over the weekend. "News flash: congressional Republicans
want to raise your taxes."

Now, that's not an opinion piece or a work of satire by somebody. I
mean, that is 100 percent reported fact.

Republicans who fought tooth and nail to extend the Bush tax cuts for
the rich want to raise taxes on almost half of all Americans out there.

When President Obama signed the Bush tax cut extension last year in
the lame duck session of the Congress, Republicans went along with the
president's request to include a payroll tax cut on wage earners. That tax
holiday expires this year. And now, Republicans are saying that they will
not approve an extension.

So according to the GOP, American workers should pay more taxes and
the rich should pay less. In case you're wondering why Republicans are
willing to be blatantly hypocritical? Well, here's the answer.


OBAMA: There are things we can do now that will means more customers
to businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes
again so families have an extra $1,000 to spend.


SCHULTZ: This tax cut is one of the president's top priorities.
It's a popular measure, among the middle class in this country and
supporters of economic growth. So, of course, Republicans, they're against

And, remember, this is the same Republican Party in which every
single candidate for president is against tax hikes even if it meant 10
times the amount of spending cuts. You can't get around it.

Let's bring in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston.
He's the author of "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich
Themselves at the Government Expense and Stick You with the Bill." And
he's also a columnist for "Reuters."

Great to you have with us tonight, Mr. Johnson.

You know, earlier this month, President Obama said that failing to
extend the payroll tax break and unemployment benefits could mean a million
fewer jobs and .5 percent less growth. Is that true in your opinion? Was
he accurate when he said that?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, FREE LUNCH: Well, it certainly can have negative
economic consequences. And on top of that, let's keep in mind that
deficits were running, the portion of them attributable to tax cuts for the
very best off among us are also damaging our economic growth.

SCHULTZ: Has there ever been a more clear cut position by the
Republicans that they favor the rich?

JOHNSTON: No. And, Ed, you know this is the third time in a year
Republicans have made it clear what their real view of the economy is. The
rich do not have enough. And the way to get more for the rich is to take
from those who have less. Third time in a year.

SCHULTZ: Well, take us down that road. What's its difference
between what wage earners will get from the tax breaks versus, you know,
what the wealthy gets from the Bush tax cuts?

JOHNSTON: Well, there is this fantasy argument made by Republicans
that only people who hire people are billionaires which is utter nonsense
that goes to a core of this. But, you know, a year ago, we had Congressman
Ryan over a year ago put forth his plan to save money on Medicare. For
every dollar you save in taxes, you spend $5 to $8 extra out of pocket.
Not a very smart plan in the sense of saving money overall.

Then, in December, the Republicans insisted on ending President
Obama's making work pay tax credit, which the White House said was the
largest middle class tax cut ever. Every working person in America who
made under $20,000 or married couples under $40,000 got a tax increase this
year as a result of that. They insisted on an adoption in payroll taxes
and this is their idea that they promoted.

Now they want to take it away. That will affect the middle class and
the upper middle class who are easily sacrificed because they are not the
political donor class who are behind the Republican plan.

SCHULTZ: And, of course, virtually every Republican has signed on to
Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform pledge, saying that they're just
not going to go for any tax hikes whatsoever.

Will they be, I guess, you say violating that pledge by blocking the
payroll tax holiday?

JOHNSTON: Well, I think based on Grover's pledge, and their pledge
allegiance not to the country but to Grover, not only would they, but this
isn't first time they've done it.

Remember back in 2006, the Republicans and President Bush raised
taxes on teenagers who had jobs and were saving money so they could afford
to go to college. I guess that's the fourth time the Republicans have made
it clear that tax cut for billionaires come first, and ordinary people,
well, you can pay higher taxes regardless of any pledges we've made to
Grover Norquist.

SCHULTZ: David Cay Johnston, thanks for your time tonight.
Appreciate it.

Verizon employees go back to work when the clock strikes midnight.
Now, that their strike is over, will the workers get the protections they

And "FOX & Friends" asked Donald Trump about Libya. Of course, he's
an expert. He said, his answer, of course, would make Dick Cheney proud.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for watching THE ED SHOW tonight. You know, the
largest labor strike in four years has come to an end. And Verizon workers
are set to resume their shift at midnight tonight.

Now we're talking about 45,000 members of the Communication Workers of
America in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They went
on strike a couple of weeks ago. They said Verizon showed an unwillingness
to negotiate in good faith.

Union Vice President Chris Shelton said that the impact of the strike
brought Verizon back to the negotiating table.


CHRIS SHELTON, CWA VICE PRESIDENT: The solidarity of our strike with
the public and the rest of the labor movement brought them back from the
table. I think that the fact that people understood this was a company
that made 19 billion dollars over the last four years, and paid five people
258 million dollars over the last four years, brought them back.

I think that their corporate greed and us portraying it in the public
brought them back.


SCHULTZ: The fight isn't over these -- for these working class
Americans. The major contract dispute with Verizon has yet to be resolved.
Verizon still wants to freeze their pension, curb salary increases and take
away company provided health care.

The outcome of this dispute could set a new benchmark for labor
negotiations in this country. We're in the midst of a national discussion
about cuts, cuts, and more cuts. That's all the Republicans know about.

The Communication Workers of America, I think they need to hold the
line on this one or risk putting more burdens on the middle class and
setting a low bar for future deals. Watch these negotiations.

Nobobdy really cared much about when what this guy had to say, Jon
Huntsman, until now. He's going after the other Republican presidential
candidates like there's no tomorrow. I like it.

The president needs a big plan to get us out of this economic
depression we're in -- are we in an economic depression? Something's got
to be done to get people back to work. E.J. Dionne makes a case for a
global strategy. He will join me later. You're watching THE ED SHOW on
MSNBC. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Lets's face it, folks, when
people hear the name of Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman,
most people think Jon who? He's kind of like that old "Sports Illustrated"
faces in the crowd, you know? Nobody really knows who he is.

But he's finally landed himself some attention. Because he's taken on
the crazies in the Republican field and further exposing his own party as
more extreme than it's ever been before. His easiest target may be
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann because of her ridiculous comments about
bringing down gas prices to under two dollars if she becomes president.


world that comment would come from. You know, we live in the real world.
It's grounded in reality. And gas prices just aren't going to rebound like


SCHULTZ: Huntsman was asked about Governor Rick Perry's comments on
evolution and global warming.


HUNTSMAN: The minute that the Republican party becomes the party --
the anti-science party, we have a huge problem.


SCHULTZ: And when he was asked if Perry was unelectable, Huntsman
said this --


HUNTSMAN: I think when you find yourself at an extreme end of the
Republican party, you make yourself unelectable.


SCHULTZ: And what I really like is Huntsman didn't let other
Republican contenders off the hook either.


HUNTSMAN: Well, I wouldn't necessarily trust any of my opponents
right now who were on a recent debate stage with me, when every single one
of them would have allowed this country to to default.


SCHULTZ: It's important to remember these criticisms are coming not
from a liberal Democrat, but from a man who describes himself as a center
right candidate.


HUNTSMAN: This is a center right country. I'm a center right
candidate. Right now, we've got people on the fringes.


SCHULTZ: Well, I disagree on that point. This is not a center right
country. They love to say that because of this goofy map they put up
there. But you think people in America care about health care? It's a
center left country, with an extreme right-wing on the other side.

Let's bring in "Huffington Post" contributor Jim Moore. He is the
author of the forthcoming book "Adios Mofo, Why Rick Perry Will Make
America Miss George W. Bush." That's the book coming out. I can't wait to
read it.

Mr. Moore, is Jon Huntsman spot on or just desperate to get some
attention or both? What do you think?

JIM MOORE, "THE HUFFINGTON POST": I think he's spot on, Ed. In fact,
he's doing the Republican party a very big favor, because basically what
he's doing is trying to see if there's any sane and sober people left in
the nominating process of the Republican party.

His strategist, by the way, is John Weaver, another Austin guy who is
a very intelligent, issues oriented guy. An honorable fellow in an often
dishonorable profession. I suspect John Weaver and Jon Hunstman sat down
and said, let's not go over there and dance in the dung with them. Let's
try to appeal to intelligent people and see if we can have an intelligent
discussion on the issue. Huntsman is calling their bluff.

SCHULTZ: Do you think this is going to work? I mean, Huntsman has
really hardly shown up to the game so far. I mean, could this be a game
changer for him?

MOORE: I think this is his only chance, because he doesn't -- he
doesn't have a chance trying to out-Perry Rick Perry. He's not going to be
more conservative or more radical than Michele Bachmann. So he's got to
talk about the issues. He can't go over there and talk about global
warming and say it's nonsense.

He's not going to be the anti-science guy. He's got to say, look,
we're destroying our party by taking these positions. Let's have an
intelligent and rational discussion on things that matter to this country.
This country is not wrapped up in the abortion debate. It's not wrapped up
on trying to suggest that evolution is nonsense.

There's some settled science surrounding these things. And this is an
intelligent man acknowledging that, hoping to salvage his party.

SCHULTZ: Intelligent man, no question about it. Has served his
country and done it honorably and is well respected. You told us last week
on this program, and we got a lot of response on it, that you thought that
Rick Perry was a waltz to get the nomination.

Now let's say Perry gets the nomination. How does a Jon Huntsman come
out, who is respected in the Republican Party -- how does he come out and
say, yeah, Rick Perry is our guy? And he should be president with all
these radical views? Doesn't this really separate the Republican party in
more than a few ways?

MOORE: I don't think -- I think you're completely correct in that
this is going to split them down the middle. I really don't see see Jon
Huntsman holding his nose and saying yee-haw Rick Perry, we're all the way
to the White House. Jon Huntsman really can't do that kind of thing.

So if Rick Perry is -- and I still believe that he's going to waltz to
the nomination -- when he becomes the nominee, he is going to have a very
difficult time going back and getting the people in his party who appeal to
Jon Huntsman and to whom Jon Huntsman appealed.

So the fixup that comes after that is going to be really complicated,
when you have gone way out to the right hand edge of the cracker and said
the things that Rick Perry has said. I don't see Jon Huntsman, at any
point in the future, Ed, coming back and saying, boy, am I excited about
Rick Perry?

I think Mr. Huntsman walks away very quietly and gets on with his

SCHULTZ: And I would speculate to say that maybe Bruce Bartlet does
the same thing? Maybe Karl Rove does the same thing? What do you make of

MOORE: Well, I don't think Karl Rove is ever going to endorse him.
There's a long history there of separation. And Bartlet is the same. And
everybody in the Bush family who supported him and who are supporters of
the Bush family and the Bush candidates, they're not going to be very
comfortable supporting Rick Perry.

I think there is going to be a real complicated problem within the
Republican party when Rick Perry becomes the nominee.

SCHULTZ: It just seems to me that Huntsman so far is the first one to
step up and say, you know, Houston, we got a problem in the Republican
party. After all the rhetoric, this guy seems willing to stake his
candidacy and his -- his campaign on, hey, I'm the normal guy. You know,
I'm kind of a Bob Dole Republican. You can talk to me.

And if this doesn't work -- I mean if he doesn't do a little bit
better when it comes to name recognition and polling and maybe not very
well in the next debate -- I mean this really is proof positive that the
Republican party has no chance of moderation whatsoever in the next
election cycle.

MOORE: I think that he's gone fishing. He's trying to see if there's
an actual beating heart of sanity within the Republican party and within
the nominating process. But right now, the people that control the
Republican party are not listening to Jon Huntsman.

People on the left, even people in the center, moderate Democrats are
looking at Jon Huntsman now and saying, hey, you know, I might cross over
and vote for him. But the people on right who love Rick Perry and who love
the things that Michele Bachmann are saying, they aren't going to go there.

The problem is going to be a very difficult one for the Republican
party to unite after this process. This primary is going to beat the heck
out of the Republicans in a way that Obama might not even be able to beat
them up.

SCHULTZ: Jim Moore, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks so
much. Looking forward to the book. Mitt Romney thinks a 12 million dollar
home is inadequate. Donald Trump wants to steal Libya's oil.

They're both nuts, in my opinion. But only one of them gets the honor
of being in the zone tonight. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Three thousand square feet of beach front property isn't
enough for the Richy Rich candidate Mitt Romney. Romney is planning to
bulldoze his 12 million dollar, 3,000 square foot home near San Diego,
California, and replace it with an 11,000 square foot home instead.

His spokesman says the current house is, quote, "inadequate for their
needs." Sounds like a pricey project for a guy who joked about being


MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I should also tell my
story. I'm also unemployed. And I'm not working.


SCHULTZ: I tell what you, folks, everybody wants to be this
unemployed, don't they? Romney's worth as much as 264 million dollars.
Good for him. Romney's California fixer upper isn't his only property. He
and his wife also have a town house in Massachusetts, as well as a 10
million dollar summer home in New Hampshire.

Romney recently sold a five million dollar lodge in Utah because he
said he's downsizing. Well, he's not downsizing anymore. His spokesman
says he's going to wait to bulldoze that house until after the presidential

Next, the kids on "Fox and Friends" asked Donald Trump about Libya.
And his slimy response lands him in the Zone.


SCHULTZ: And in Psycho Talk tonight, Donald Trump keeps hinting he
might jump back in the presidential race. I guess I'd have to brush off my
endorsement. But he sounds more like he's gunning for the top job at BP.
Trump was on with "Fox & Friends" this morning and weighed in on the
situation in Libya. Turns out Donald doesn't care about the Libyan people
overthrowing a tyrant.

He doesn't even care about what it means for American politics.
Donald Trump is only interested in oil.


DONALD TRUMP, "THE APPRENTICE": Why don't we take the oil? I mean
why aren't we reimbursing ourselves? You know, in the old days, when you
win a war, you kept -- to the victor belong the spoils, right? We fight
all these wars and we get nothing.

They come to us begging for help. Wouldn't you say OK, you know what,
we're going to help you. But when and if you're successful, we get half of
your oil? OK?

Our country is going broke and we're helping these people. And now
all of those rebels are going to be richer than the people of this country
because they're going to take the oil.


SCHULTZ: OK. Hold it right there. I see the light now. That's how
Michele Bachmann -- if she's elected president -- is going to get gas down
to below two bucks a gallon. She's going to take the oil from Libya. Her
and Donald working together?

Reducing the conflict in Libya to an international oil grab shows just
how narrow-minded the Trumpster is. Not to mention the fact that going and
taking their oil would violate international law.

Plus, Bush and Cheney already tried oil based foreign poll. It worked
out great for Halliburton, but not so good for regular Americans trying to
gas up their cars at the pump and heat their home. You know what I mean?

But this isn't the first time Trump has turned foreign policy into a
massive oil binge. Early this year, he said if the United States didn't
take oil from Iraq, American troops would have died in vain. Now Trump is
at it again. To complain about Libyan rebels being richer than Americans
and to say that the United States should go take their oil is arrogant and
wreckless Psycho Talk.

Go big, go long, go global. That's the economic advice "Washington
Post" columnist E.J. Dionne has for President Obama. Will the president
listen, coming up?


SCHULTZ: It looks like Eric Cantor provided us with some summer beach
reading. He has an editorial in "the Washington Post" today filled with
the same old, tired Republican rhetoric, less regulation, less spending,
less taxes.

But here's the kicker. Cantor accuses the president of engaging in
class warfare. Here are my cliff notes on this deal. Eric Cantor,
majority leader in the House, member of the Republican party who oversaw
one of the biggest redistributions of wealth ever in this country from the
middle class to the rich -- this is the guy who defends tax cuts for the
job creators who haven't delivered on any of them for ten years? Who
defends tax breaks for big oil, who fought against the Consumer Protection
Agency, less regulation on the banksters, who brought this country to near
economic collapse? All of those policies.

Cantor, who fights against unemployment benefits, Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, health care reform, the lot -- the guy who fights for
the ending of workers' rights through collective bargaining, who has
introduced no bills in the House in eight months that would deal with job
creation? This is the guy we should listen to on class warfare?

Coming up, as the president prepares to unveil an economic way
forward, "Washington Post" post columnist E.J. Dionne has some advice: go
big, go global.

Stay tuned. We're going home to E.J. when we come back on THE ED



when the president unveils the entire program that there's nothing in there
that reasonable people shouldn't be able to agree on. And if we make the
House Republicans, and particularly that Tea Party faction -- if we make
them the standard, we're in deep trouble.


SCHULTZ: That was White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod speaking
about the president's job proposal. Already ,the Republicans are hammering
the president's plan, which is expected to include an extension of the
payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance.

And as "Washington Post" columnist E.J. Dionne writes, that's a good
start, but it's not enough to get the United States economy going again,
and to help the faltering world economy. The president needs to go big, go
long, and go global.

Going big means immediate action to boost the economy, even though
this will increase the short term deficit. The federal government needs to
come to the aid of the state and lol government again. The budget cuts
they are being forced to make are precisely what the economy does not need

"Obama should not be shy about urging eventual tax increases,
particularly on the wealthy."

Joining me now is "Washington Post" columnist and senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution, E.J. Dionne. E.J., great to have you with us.

E.J. DIONNE, "THE WASHINGTON POST: Great to be with you.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Do you think that tax revenues are really in the

DIONNE: I think tax -- he's -- first of all, the president said he
wanted 1.2 trillion when he was negotiating with John Boehner. You cannot
talk about the deficit and be serious about closing it without an awful lot
of revenue. You just can't do it all with cuts, without evicerating
programs like Medicare. I guess we do owe Paul Ryan a debt for pointing
that out to us.

But I think the president really needs to come out there strong for
job creation. When you think about, as a country, we can borrow money at
two percent a year right now for ten years. We can do an awful lot of good
things for the country and put people to work in that period.

It's not just liberals who are calling for stimulus. John Harwood had
a very good piece in the "New York Times" today quoting two capitalists,
one of whom said capitalism isn't going to do this all by itself. That
wasn't a socialist speaking.

So the president needs to come out strong, A, because the economy
needs it, and, B, I think it will be good for him because he needs to
convey a stronger image than he has in the last month or so.

SCHULTZ: And Warren Buffett says -- he's been out there bragging
about a tax increase, saying that the president finally needs to put these
revenues on the table for serious discussion. And if you look at the
polling, you know, the American people are ready for something like that.
They want this shared sacrifice to start coming from the wealthiest

And to go big, as you write -- I think it poses the question, there's
a political element here that would be advantageous to the president, to
illustrate just what the Republicans are all about.

DIONNE: Right. If they are going to block job creation measures,
that's not good for them. I think they have lost ground. I mean, the
whole mess over the debt ceiling wasn't great for the president. But it
was terrible for the Republicans.

And the other piece of this, by the way, the go global part -- we
faced as a world the possibility of going into another Great Depression in
march of 2009. The leaders of the 20 richest countries got together and
they all agreed to stimulate the economy. And we did keep ourselves from
going off the cliff. I think he's got to call people together again.

SCHULTZ: And you write that going big is the president's only option.
What happens if he doesn't?

DIONNE: Well, I think it's his only option because he has to grab the
debate back. We have spent practically the whole year talking about
spending cuts. And the Republicans really have done a good job of
controlling the debate. And I think going big is the only way the
president can grab the debate back and actually be talking about the issue
people care most about, which is jobs.

SCHULTZ: E.J.,Dionne, thanks for your time tonight. Great work as

I asked earlier tonight, are the Republicans playing politics with
Libya? Ninety percent of you said yes; ten percent of you said no.

That's THE ED SHOW. I'm Ed Shultz. Of course, you can always listen
to me on radio, Sirius XM Radio Channel 127, Monday through Friday, noon to
3:00 p.m. And follow me on Twitter @EdShow and @WeGotEd.

"THE LAST WORLD" with Lawrence O'Donnell starts right now. We'll see
you tomorrow night.


Copyright 2011 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.>