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

The Ed Show for Monday, November 14, 2011

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Mike Papantonio, John Feinstein, Joan Walsh, E.J. Dionne, John Nichols, Eric Boehlert

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

Breaking news: Jerry Sandusky is talking and defending himself.

The disgraced Penn State football coach granted his first interview to
Bob Costas. The full interview airs tonight at 10:00 a.m. on NBC`s "Rock
Center." We will play you a portion of the interview, shortly.

This is THE ED SHOW -- let`s get to work.


Basically because I`m a frustrated playground director I guess.

SCHULTZ (voice-over): Explosive new allegations about the judge who
granted Jerry Sandusky`s bail. And another alleged victim of sexual abuse
has come forward. John Feinstein of the "Washington Post," and "Ring of
Fire" radio host and attorney, Mike Papantonio, are here with the latest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re an embarrassment to our party.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t you get out before you make a bigger
fool of ourself?

SCHULTZ: That embarrassment is now leading in the polls.

"Salon`s" Joan Walsh is here on the rebirth of Newt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re the first domino.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: Yes, this is our moment.

SCHULTZ: Tonight, Wisconsin voters get their moment. John Nichols of
"The Nation" is here for a countdown to the Walker recall effort.

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: I`m really tee`d off that the public school
system doesn`t teach history anymore and the kids don`t know what to do.

SCHULTZ: And Bill O`Reilly has historians tee`d off. It turns out
Bill-O`s new book on Lincoln has some problems with the facts.

O`REILLY: I want to remind you not to make statements you can`t back
up on this network.


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

Alleged child rapist Jerry Sandusky is defending himself tonight,
claiming that he is not a pedophile. And Mike McQueary, the graduate
assistant who is now an assistant football coach at Penn State who might
have stopped a 2002 incident now claims he did. In an interview with Bob
Costas for "Rock Center," Sandusky defended himself. "I`m not a
pedophile," he said. "I`m innocent of these charges. I could say that
I`ve done some of those things, I`ve horsed around with the kids. I`ve
showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their legs
without intent of sexual conduct," Sandusky said.

When Costas asked him if he had done anything wrong, Sandusky said, "I
shouldn`t have showered with those kids."

Another huge development tonight, an e-mail obtained by NBC News, Mike
McQueary, who`s an assistant coach now at Penn State on administrative
leave, wrote to friends and former teammates, "I did the right thing, you
guys know me. The truth is not out there fully. I didn`t just turn and
run. I made sure it stopped. I had to make quick, tough decisions."

And there`s more. Today, the judge in the case is coming under big-
time scrutiny. Pennsylvania District Judge Leslie Dutchcot has done
charity work for the Second Mile charity, the kids organization founded by

Charity works is common in -- for the -- charity work is common for
judges, but the appearance of a possible conflict of interest is a problem.
And it doesn`t end there.

Judge Dutchcot and her husband donated money to the Second Mile
charity in 2009. In 2007, the board chairman of Second Mile, Roger Stone,
hosted a fund-raiser for Dutchcot for her campaign for district judge
according to records of the committee to elect Leslie Dutchcot.

State Representative Mike Vereb of Pennsylvania said, "I`m sending off
a letter to chief justice to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to look at
the reports that are out there, and if, in fact, this district judge has a
conflict of interest."

When Jerry Sandusky was brought before the Judge Dutchcot on 40 counts
related to sexual abuse of children, prosecutors requested $500,000 bail in
an electronic leg monitoring system. But Judge Dutchcot freed Sandusky on
$100,000 unsecured bail. No leg monitor.

Sandusky`s preliminary hearing is set for December 7th.

Attorney General Linda Kelly has said more charges are possible.

In an interview from 1987, Sandusky talked about the Second Mile
charity he founded.


SANDUSKY: How did it all start? Basically because I`m a frustrated
playground director I guess.

I enjoy being around children. I enjoy their enthusiasm. I just have
a good time with them.

I really enjoy the personal contact. I get a lot of personal contact
in my life through my family, through our athletes.

Everybody needs people to care for them. Sometimes they don`t want
it. Sometimes they don`t understand what you`re trying to do, but they
want to be disciplined.

One of the biggest things would be the trust that would be developed.
What we`re trying to be is what we think to be of as a true friend.


SCHULTZ: A ninth victim has now come forward according to the
lieutenant who heads the criminal investigation. The man is now in his 20s
and knew Sandusky through the Second Mile charity.

The long list of people who might have stopped Jerry Sandusky keeps
growing. The CEO of the Second Mile charity, Jack Raykovitz has resigned.
He was head of the charity for the past 28 years.

Second Mile was notified by Penn State officials in 2002 after a
horrifying shower incident. Raykovitz said he was only told an employee
was uncomfortable seeing Sandusky in the shower with a boy. Raykovitz did
not notify police.

In 2005 or 2006, according to the grand jury report, another victim
met Sandusky through the Second Mile charity.

Sandusky continued to have access to children from the Second Mile
until 2008, when he notified the board he was being investigated.

This fits the same unforgivable pattern we have seen in this case.
Time and time, people in positions of authority and leadership had an
opportunity to do more. They didn`t. And more children were allegedly

Over the weekend, President Obama gave his opinion on the scandal.


State indicates that at a certain point, folks start thinking about systems
and institutions and don`t think about individuals. When you think about
how vulnerable kids are, for the alleged facts of that case to have taken
place and for folks not to immediately say nothing else matters, except
making sure those kids are protected, that`s a problem.


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

Tonight`s question, should the judge have recused herself from
Sandusky`s case? Text "A" for yes, text "B" for no to 622639, and you can
always go to our new blog at I`ll have the results later on
in the show.

Let`s bring in Mike Papantonio, attorney, and the host of the radio
show "Ring of Fire."

Mike, good to have you with us tonight.

Your response to those comments by Sandusky in the interview. He`s
defending himself, saying that he is not a pedophile. What do you make of

MIKE PAPANTONIO, "RING OF FIRE" HOST: He`s looking at 400 years, Ed.
He`s building his case in the media. We see it time and time again these

Look, this is -- this is the problem with people doing nothing. Had
they done what they were supposed to do, there`d be evidence. You have --
you have a whole procedure that you use in a rape case. Now it comes down
to his word against any children who might come forward.

Some children may decide they don`t want to come forward. They`re 20,
23, 24 years old. They may say, I don`t want to do this.

So, the problem here is he`s building his case because he`s looking at
400 years, and you know what? His game is to say, there`s really no
physical evidence, there`s some eyewitness testimony, I can overcome the
eyewitness testimony.

He`s fighting for his life because, right now, he knows that if he
goes to prison for 400 years, he`s going to be the victim in a sexual

I got to tell you something -- as this thing builds, you`re going to
continue to see him spinning his case in the media.

SCHULTZ: Mike McQueary, the assistant football coach, is saying now
that he stopped the shower incident, in an e-mail to his friends. What
about that? I mean, does that conflict with the grand jury report?

PAPANTONIO: Completely. It completely conflicts with the grand jury
report. And you`re going to see these fine changes taking place right now.

Look, the -- at the end of the process, he didn`t call the police.
That`s what anybody, any responsible adult would have done. He didn`t do

The grand jury looked at this. They questioned him. They had all the

They never said that he tried to interrupt this encounter. They never
said he did anything honorable. He called his daddy and then talked to Joe

So, what we`re going to see, Ed, we`re going to see fine spins to all
this. And as you see the fine spin, what you`re actually seeing is
something that`s going to be presented in a defense.

SCHULTZ: All right. Mike, let`s talk about the judge. Does the
judge in your opinion have a conflict of interest, and have you ever seen
anything like this? Such a close association?

I mean, we`re talking about political fund-raising. We`re talking
about someone who has worked for the charity. Obviously, she must know

What`s your take on this? Have you ever seen anything like this?

PAPANTONIO: It`s not even a close call, Ed. She had the duty to
recuse herself. Under the law, there`s a concept that says if there`s the
appearance of the judge doing something wrong, the appearance of
impropriety, she has the duty to say, look, there are half a dozen other
judges that can hear this, let me bring them in, let them be the trier of
fact here.


SCHULTZ: What do you make of the fact he is free and unmonitored on
40 felony accounts?

PAPANTONIO: Well, what she did is she freed a -- right now, the only
thing we know, all the way back to `98, is we have a sexual predator. And
in her mind, she thought it was more important to do whatever`s going to
please her personally rather than even doing something as simple as putting
a GPS monitor on.

This man lives right next to an elementary school. His backyard backs
up to an elementary school playground. She knows those facts. The
prosecutors told her those facts.

The prosecutors went through everything. They did what they were
supposed to do. They fought for the right thing and that is to put him in
jail, $500,000, certainly secured. And at the very least, put a GPS
monitor on the man.

SCHULTZ: Should there be bail guidelines just as there are often
sentencing guidelines?

PAPANTONIO: They can -- look, they can have a Uniform Act, Ed, that
protects children. The Uniform Act says that under no circumstances can
you let a guy like this out. The federal government has the right to come
up with some uniform rules and it`s time they do that.

As a matter of fact, it`s a shame Pennsylvania didn`t have some
uniform rules like that. Some states do.

SCHULTZ: Mike, good to have you with us tonight. Mike Papantonio,
attorney, and also host of the "Ring of Fire" radio show.

The fallout from Penn State and Joe Paterno continues. Six different
advertisers pulled their ads from Saturday`s game according to "The Wall
Street journal." One media buyer told "The Journal" I`m advising my
clients to move out of the games for the short term.

The big 10 is removing Joe Paterno`s name from the trophy given to the
winner of the championship game. The victims, themselves, are reportedly
torn over the effect their courage is having on Penn State`s football

Let`s turn to sports commentator and writer John Feinstein.

John, good to have you with us tonight. Also the author of the
upcoming book "One-on-One: Behind the Scenes with the Greats in the Game."

What do you make of Sandusky`s denial so early in all this?

JOHN FEINSTEIN, SPORTS AUTHOR: Well, I don`t look at it from a legal
standpoint, Ed, the way Mike does. But I think he`s 100 percent right that
he is obviously going to try to spin as much as he can, because what has he
got to lose at this point?

In the minds of the public, he`s guilty. It has nothing -- there`s a
complete difference between innocent until proven guilty in a court, and
innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion.

In the court of public opinion, he`s already guilty. So, he might as
well go on with Bob Costas and say, hey, I was just horsing around.

Anybody who buys that story, honestly, I know legally he`s innocent
until proven guilty, but anybody who buys that story, Ed, I`ve got
oceanfront land in Nebraska I`d like to show him tomorrow morning.

SCHULTZ: What`s your reaction to the e-mail from the assistant
football coach, Mike McQueary? I mean, e-mails get out. He should have
known they get out. And is this a strategy, you think? Do you expect him
or others to try to defend their actions?

FEINSTEIN: Well, again, I don`t know Mike McQueary personally, but I
think you`re right. We all know that e-mails do get out. When you put
something in writing nowadays, it`s not going to stay secret.

So, maybe he didn`t want it to be secret. Maybe -- I`m sure he`s read
and heard all the people saying, why didn`t he stop it? Why didn`t he do
something? Why did he run out of the building? The way his grand jury
testimony would indicate he did.

So now, he`s trying to say to people he cares about, his friends,
look, it`s not the way it sounds. I did more than the grand jury report
says I did.

Again, as Mike said, it`s he said/he said, so we really don`t know and
I`m not sure we ever will know exactly what happened in that building that

SCHULTZ: And, Mike, your reaction to the game being played on
Saturday, money over $300,000 has been raised for children who have
experienced child abuse, Penn State seems to be trying to do the right
thing. Now that the game was played, do you still think it was the right
thing to do?

FEINSTEIN: Were you speaking -- you said Mike. I thought you`d gone
back to Mike. I`m sorry.


FEINSTEIN: I think, yes, as I said to you last week, I think playing
the game, I think trying to raise money, trying to use some of the money
that came into the school for the game, for kids who have been sexually
abused, is absolutely the right thing to do. They weren`t going to call
the game off, realistically.

I thought the way the Penn State players handled themselves when they
came out of that tunnel hit the right note. And what I mean by that is if
they were just coming out there to win one for coach Joe, they`d have come
charging out of that tunnel. They didn`t do that. They understood this
was not your typical football Saturday, that a tragedy has occurred here.
And I think they were respectful of that, even though clearly this has
affected their lives, too.

And I think if they can use the money for a charity group, if they can
raise awareness and if Penn State can begin to say, we know this was wrong,
rather than the reaction we saw last Wednesday night on campus, then that`s

SCHULTZ: John Feinstein, thank you for your time tonight. I
appreciate it.

FEINSTEIN: My pleasure.

SCHULTZ: Coming up: Jerry Sandusky defends himself for the first
time. We have an exclusive clip of Bob Costas "Rock Center" interview.
It`s about a minute long. You don`t want to miss this.

Stay with us. That`s next.


SCHULTZ: Coming up, Jerry Sandusky`s first interview since the Penn
State scandal broke. Bob Costas interviewed the disgraced coach for NBC`s
"Rock Center" tonight. The full interview airs on that show at 10:00 p.m.
We`ll have an exclusive preview, next.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Breaking news tonight on the Penn State child sexual abuse
case. NBC`s "Rock Center" obtained an interview with Jerry Sandusky and
his lawyer just a short time ago. We now have an excerpt of the interview
that was conducted by Bob Costas.


BOB COSTAS, NBC NEWS: Mr. Sandusky, there`s a 40-count indictment.
The grand jury report contains specific detail. There are multiple
accusers -- multiple eyewitnesses to various aspects of the abuse. A
reasonable person says where there`s this much smoke, there must be plenty
of fire. What do you say?

SANDUSKY (via telephone): I`d say that I`m innocent of those charges.

COSTAS: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every

SANDUSKY: Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those
things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts.
I have hugged them and I have touched their leg, without intent of sexual


SCHULTZ: The entire interview can be seen on "Rock Center" with Brian
Williams tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, and 9:00 p.m. Central.

Let`s bring back Mike Papantonio.

Mike, is Jerry Sandusky hurting himself by doing an interview like

PAPANTONIO: It`s the only thing he can do. He`s not going to take
the stand, anyway, Ed, when it comes down to it, so he has nothing to lose.
Again, looking at 400 years. I thought Costas was very smart going back to
the essence of where this all started, and that`s the grand jury report.

This isn`t speculation, Ed. These are grand jurors who heard
testimony. They saw -- they had whatever physical evidence there was,
which was probably very, very little at best. But the point is, they heard
testimony. They had witnesses.

So, at this point, to believe him based on the fact that you`ve got
all of this time that`s passed with a grand jury looking at the fact and
making these conclusions. They`re very specific, Ed. The first page of it
talks about witness testimony where he performed oral sex on victim number
one. The next page talks about witness testimony, witness testimony on
almost every page here.

So, he`s got a big thing to overcome. But to answer your question, he
has everything to lose, and at this point, we know in a trial, he will
never take the stand, impossible.


PAPANTONIO: So why not go ahead and play it out in the media? And
that`s the best he`s going to be able to do.

SCHULTZ: He says that he`s done some things without intent of sexual
contact. How is that going to play for his defense? And you, of course,
just held up the testimony there that certainly conflicts with what he`s
saying in the Bob Costas interview.

PAPANTONIO: Intent comes up, Ed, when there`s a questionable issue,
when there`s a close call. There`s to close call when you have
eyewitnesses saying there was oral sex taking place or that he was fondling
the child. That type of intent issue comes up if there`s a close call with
evidence that`s not clear.


PAPANTONIO: But, again, just like Costas focused on, this grand jury
statement of facts is compelling. It`s almost difficult to read, Ed. It`s
so compelling. Because of the fact --

SCHULTZ: Is Jerry Sandusky trying to win over the crowd, so to speak?
Is he trying -- I mean, there`s a tremendous amount of love from fans
towards the Penn State football program. This guy`s been around that
community for a long, long time.

Is this about winning in the public arena as much as anything else?

PAPANTONIO: Ed, he can win in the public arena. At best what
Sandusky is going to be able to accomplish is maybe do something for Penn
State and make it not look so bad for Penn State.


PAPANTONIO: But when it comes down to that courtroom, when the jury
sits and listen to these facts, all this spin doesn`t do him a bit of good.
Now, it might say, in the long run, I guess it could maybe save Penn State
some money over the millions of dollars they`re going to have to pay. But
the truth is, this is all about his last-ditch effort to save his legacy,
which is at this point not existent.

SCHULTZ: Costas asked the lawyer why he came out today. And he said
that it was important that Sandusky get his side of the story out, and
they`re just trying to play this out in the court of public opinion.
Obviously, that`s what`s happening. That`s my opinion. But would you --
if you were defending Sandusky, is this a move that you would have made?

PAPANTONIO: No. Not at all. There`s no reason to do this.

All he can do right now is this: he can count on the fact that --
Sandusky`s best shot here is to say there`s no physical evidence, because
the people that should have reported him were cowards. And had they done
what they should have done, we would have physical evidence. It`s very
easy to find physical evidence in a rape case.

SCHULTZ: And doesn`t he somewhat run a risk? You know, the victims
are going to hear and see this interview. And this could motivate them to
really come forward. I mean, other victims that are out there. What about

PAPANTONIO: Well, that`s right. Every time he`s in the public domain
talking about this, I remember last week, Ed, you asked me what should
Paterno do?

I said Paterno should keep his mouth shut, because every time these
people make a statement, they make the victims that much angrier. They
look at what`s happened. They know the lie. They become angry.

They may say at one point I`m going to pass on this because I don`t
want to go through it. But when they hear this guy standing up there,
sitting up there lying, it does motivate them to take action.

SCHULTZ: Mike Papantonio, thank you for your staying with us tonight.
And we want to remind you to watch the entire interview with Jerry Sandusky
and his attorney conducted by Bob Costas coming up on NBC`s "Rock Center"
with Brian Williams at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific and 9:00 p.m.

Michele Bachmann is bellyaching about airtime during the debate. The
Minnesota congresswoman gets equal time in "Psycho Talk," next.

In less than four hours, the people of Wisconsin will start the effort
to send Scott Walker packing. And the governor is already buying airtime
to save his job. John Nichols brings us the latest.


SCHULTZ: And in "Psycho Talk" tonight, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
is accusing CBS News of media bias for not asking her enough questions
during the GOP debate over the weekend. But just a couple of months ago,
Bachmann was preaching about the free market determining who gets to speak.


net neutrality, or whether it`s the Fairness Doctrine, are we really going
to go down the road where the federal government will decide who gets
speech and who doesn`t?


SCHULTZ: So, Michele Bachmann wants the marketplace to decide. Well,
in this case, the marketplace has decided. She`s at 5 percent in the
polls. It seems to me, CBS was exercising the free market. Making a
decision that maybe people didn`t want to hear her answers seeing that
she`s so low rated in the polls.

Even the South Carolina Republican Party who hosted the debate
disagrees with Bachmann on this one. A spokesman said, "Congresswoman
Michele Bachmann seemed to receive a fair number of questions and had ample
opportunities to answer."

Furthermore, the marketplace helped Bachmann during a debate in
August, just before she won the Iowa straw poll. Bachmann got the most
questions out of any candidate. I didn`t hear her complain about 2 percent
Tim Pawlenty not getting enough time. Bachmann was more than happy to take
full advantage of her status as a rising star at the time.


BACHMANN: I was at the tip of the spear fighting against the
implementation of Obamacare.

A one-term president.

Unconstitutional individual mandate.

I introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

I like Sarah Palin a lot.

I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Congress gave Barack Obama a blank check for 2.4 trillion dollars.


SCHULTZ: Well, since August, the tables have turned and the
marketplace has determined Bachmann belongs in single digits. So for
Michele Bachmann to blame media bias for not getting enough questions is
whiney Psycho Talk.

The Cain train, I tell you what, it goes off the tracks. The pizza
man is asked about some place called Libya. He can`t give a straight
answer. We`ve got the unbelievable video next.

Bill O`Reilly`s book gets banned at a historical museum. This is a
dandy. You`re not going to want to miss this one.



think this idea of 99 percent and one percent is grotesque European,
socialist class warfare baloney.


SCHULTZ: There`s red meat and there`s the new leader in the
Republican clubhouse for 2012. A fresh poll today shows Newt Gingrich
sitting at the front of the pack at 28 percent. How did that happen?

Since October, Gingrich has surged 13 points, while Cain is down five
points. Romney has dropped four. And Perry is down eight percent. It`s
been a long, very strange trip for Newt and the GOP.

The former Speaker announced he was running for president back on May
11th of this year. A few days later, Newt was on "Meet the Press" and
referred to Congressman Paul Ryan`s plan to privatize Medicare as right
wing social engineering.

Charles Krauthammer called it a statement -- that statement a capital
offense and declared Gingrich`s candidacy over. Then, less than a month
into his campaign, Gingrich blew off a right wing faith and freedom
conference to take his third wife on a luxury cruise, which prompted his
staff, well, to quit and go running to Rick Perry.

Since then, Republicans have been trying to out -- trying to lock out
-- trying some other presidential candidates as well, only to decide Newt`s
the best they`ve got. Newt Gingrich is all about more money for
millionaires. And he`s a cheap labor conservative.

But he is red meat to the Tea Party. And he has enough political
moxie to work his way through a debate without shooting himself in the

Joining me now are E.J. Dionne, senior fellow of the Brookings
Institute and columnist for the "Washington Post," and Joan Walsh, editor
at large, Great to have both of you with us tonight.

I want to play this. Here`s a voter`s reaction to Newt trashing Paul
Ryan`s Medicare plan when he was down in Iowa.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

GINGRICH: I didn`t do anything to Paul Ryan.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in
the House. You`re an embarrassment to our party.

GINGRICH: I`m sorry you feel that way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t you get out before you make a bigger
fool of yourself.


SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, how did that turnaround take place? Look where
Newt is today. What do you make of it?

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Well, you know, I think the Republican primary
is wonderful. It`s kind of like a children`s t-ball game where everybody
gets a chance to win. Everybody gets a chance to be in first place for a
little while, Ed.

And it`s very nice for all of their egos. You know, Newt has not
gotten any attention because he`s been so far behind in the polls and came
out so terribly. If he`s really going to be the front runner, Newt`s
baggage -- he has so much baggage that his baggage has baggage.

He`s not going to survive a really close primary where he`s suddenly
going to get the full focus, the full spotlight on him. It`s not going to

SCHULTZ: E.J., what do you make of Newt Gingrich`s surge in the
polls? To 28 percent; who would have thought this was going to happen?

E.J. DIONNE, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Who thought that the Republicans
would be so egalitarian, giving absolutely everybody a chance at first
place? I mean, I think what you`re seeing is a big chunk of the Republican
party that just can`t get to Mitt Romney. And they keep looking for
someone else.

And I was struck in the CBS poll last week that if you put together
the 17 percent undecided and the 14 percent who said they wanted somebody
else, that`s 31 percent for none of these guys.

Now, CBS doesn`t press people. So you get a bigger undecided,
although I think that`s more accurate. But what it says to me is there`s
still an opening for someone. And I have this odd idea, I know, that there
may be room for draft movement.

There have been draft write-ins, particularly in New Hampshire, a
state that`s friendly to write-ins and that counts them. And I wrote this
in a blog and a prominent conservative wrote me -- and, believe me, this
person doesn`t agree with me very much. He said, that`s a great idea and
started talking about a draft write-in for Jeb Bush.

So I think there are still a lot of Republicans out there looking for
somebody. In the meantime, they park with the alternatives to Mitt Romney.
And Newt`s the one right now.

SCHULTZ: Newt Gingrich is benefiting from his competitors making
mistakes. He`s getting help like this gaffe that was produced by Herman
Cain at an interview on foreign policy. Here it is.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you agree with President Obama on Libya, or

CAIN: OK. Libya -- President Obama supported the uprising, correct?
President Obama called for the removal of Gadhafi. Just want to make sure
we`re talking about the same thing before I say yes, I agree, or no I
didn`t agree.

I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason --
no, that`s a different one.

I got to go back. See, got all this stuff twirling around in my head.


SCHULTZ: The guy has no game. He`s not ready for prime time. He
doesn`t know. If you`d have asked Newt Gingrich that question, he`d have
reeled it off, although he`s changed his position on it. But the guy, it`s
like he`s afraid to make a mistake.

I have to ask you, Joan, what`s worse, that or the Perry gaffe in the
GOP debate last week? What do you think?

WALSH: Oh, quite honestly, that is worse. I mean, that is
ridiculous. And it`s about, you know, crucial foreign policy issue. And I
mean, it`s just horrifying.

SCHULTZ: It`s almost as if he wasn`t watching the news.

WALSH: Yeah. It`s as though he didn`t have a clue and he was rifling
through notes in his head and he was really stuck. I mean, that -- you
know, he`s tanking in the polls, Ed. He`s really falling fast. And that
will be another rock around his neck. I mean, he just can`t survive that.

SCHULTZ: In the same interview, Cain says he supports collective
bargaining. Then he was asked a follow-up question. Here it is.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you favor collective bargaining for federal

CAIN: They already have it, don`t they? Yeah. They already have --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they don`t.

CAIN: They have unions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have unions.

CAIN: They have unions. OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they don`t have the same bargaining --

CAIN: They don`t have the same bargaining powers. Here, again,
collective bargaining I support, as long as it doesn`t create an undue
burden on the state, the government, the taxpayer. That`s the issue.


SCHULTZ: That interview today was conducted with the editorial board
of the "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel." How unprepared, E.J., is this guy?

DIONNE: Yes, I was thinking when I heard that today that in a
Republican primary, you might survive for a while sexual harassment
charges. You cannot survive supporting public employee unions. I mean,
that was just extraordinary. And it`s painful to watch.

And I think, you know, watching that footage that you just showed of
Cain, and watching the footage over and over again of Rick Perry not being
able to remember the third agency he wants to abolish, when people start
feeling sorry for you watching the video, that`s when you know they`re not
going to vote for you for president.

WALSH: Not presidential.

SCHULTZ: So after ten debates -- and we still have a bunch more to go
-- Joan Walsh, your assessment of the GOP field?

WALSH: Oh, it`s just terrible. It`s an abomination. It would be
very hard to be a Republican right now. And, you know, newt, we`ve got a
man who`s most famous for serving his wife with divorce papers when she`s
recovering from cancer surgery. We`ve got the only speaker in history
who`s ever been disciplined by Congress on an ethics charge.

You know, it`s just -- if this is the best -- if this is now the best
they can do against Mitt Romney, that`s pathetic.

SCHULTZ: E.J., what do you think?

DIONNE: I think Republicans, themselves, aren`t happy with this
field. I mean, Romney keeps surviving because relative to all these other
guys, he`s competent and he knows what he thinks. He may change his mind
about it fairly often, but he knows what he wants to say in a debate. And
that`s why the conventional wisdom is eventually people will have to get to
him by default.

But I`m still waiting for him to take a big lead in the polls. There
is this big resistance to him in the primaries. And I wonder what that
will say about enthusiasm in the fall if he does get the nomination.

SCHULTZ: All I can say is there has to be a lot of Iowa farmers out
there who are Republican scratching their head, trying to figure out how`s
this all going to work out?

DIONNE: Maybe you should enter the Republican primary, Ed. Why not?

WALSH: Really, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Me? Yeah, right. E.J. Dionne, Joan Walsh, always a
pleasure. Good to have you with us. You bet.

Scott Walker is pulling out all stops to save his job, and the recall
hasn`t even started yet. John Nichols coming up with the latest , and it
is interesting.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Can Wisconsin pull an Ohio?
Well, when the clock strikes midnight in Wisconsin tonight, thousands will
begin a campaign to recall union busting Governor Scott Walker from office.
More than 20,000 people have trained to kick off a petition drive asking
for Walker`s removal.

Organizers have 60 days to get about 540,000 valid signatures in order
to force a special election. Scott Walker has already mounted a defense.
Starting tonight, the Walker campaign is running 300,000 dollars in
television ads throughout the state of the Wisconsin. No one should be
surprised at Walker`s aggressive stance.

Earlier this year, he spoke to a prank caller pretending to be Tea
Party billionaire David Koch. Walker said Republican governors like
himself and John Kasich needed to stick to their plan.


GOV. SCOTT WALKER (R), WISCONSIN: I talk to Kasich every day. John`s
got to stand firm in Ohio. I think we do the same thing with Rick Scott in
Florida. I think Snyder, if he got a little more support, probably could
do that in Michigan.

When you start going down the list, there`s a lot of us new governors
who got elected to do something big.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re the first domino.

WALKER: Yes. This is our moment.


SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Washington correspondent for "the Nation"
magazine, John Nichols. Why do I feel like an old time DJ spinning the
hits on these tapes that are just so priceless? John, great to have you
with us tonight.

JOHN NICHOLS, "THE NATION": It`s good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: You know, last week`s result in Ohio, I mean, does that
motivate the folks of Wisconsin, that there`s light at the end of the
tunnel, that this stuff can actually happen? What impact is that going to
have on the Wisconsin recall campaign?

NICHOLS: It has a huge impact, Ed. In fact, I was at an interfaith
dinner up in Appleton, Wisconsin, last night, and I just mentioned the word
Ohio and everybody started applauding. So people here followed the Ohio
fight very closely. And it`s notable that the governor did as well.

Governor Walker was out the night of the Ohio vote claiming that the
Ohio law was very, very different from Wisconsin`s, that he is very, very
different than John Kasich. But the bottom line is that Koch Brothers tape
that you just played reveals that Governor Walker saw himself really as the
quarterback for a nationwide push on this issue.

And he spoke of talking to Governor Kasich on a daily basis. So
people see the connection.

SCHULTZ: We`re talking about possibly 70 million dollars coming into
the state of Wisconsin to help protect Walker`s job. How was Walker able
to fund raise against the recall campaign before it even started?

NICHOLS: Well, they kick started the campaign, themselves.
Hilariously enough, a donor to Governor Walker filed a bogus recall
petition, or recall certification, about a week ago. And that allowed the
governor to start collecting unlimited amounts of money.

There`s a quirk in the law that says if you`re targeted for recall,
all of the campaign finance limits go off. So the Koch Brothers could
write Governor Walker a million dollar check, even a 10 million dollar
check. And the governor is putting the money he`s raised already to use.

He didn`t -- he`s not just buying ads. He bought a prime time spot in
the middle of the Packers/Vikings game tonight. That`s the most expensive
bit of television turf you can buy.

SCHULTZ: It certainly is. He has 60 days to get it done.
Wisconsinites have got to get over 540,000 signatures. Are they going to
pull an Ohio and get 1.3 million? How tough is that going to be?

NICHOLS: Ed, I want to remind you, Ohio has twice as many people. So
getting to 1.3 million would be pretty tough. There are many Wisconsinites
who talk about getting to 700,000, 800,000, even a million signatures.
That`s a big deal.

Because when the Ohioans filed that 1.3 million, that`s when everybody
knew that they had to take that fight seriously. It will be similar in

SCHULTZ: And the polls are showing that people do want this recall
effort to move forward. And they want Walker out. But that margin, I
understand, has been narrowed quite a bit. But also, is it a mistake to go
after some other Republicans?

I understand that there are three that are also going to be involved
in the recall effort. We`re talking about Republican senators in the state
of Wisconsin who are in somewhat predominantly Democrats areas. Is that

NICHOLS: That`s correct. There are three Republican senators around
the state, in Chippewa Falls, Wausau and Racine, who held seats that were
Democratic until 2010. All three of those are union towns. The calculus
is that going after Republicans who voted against collective bargaining in
union towns is a pretty good bet.

But look, everything that`s going on in Wisconsin now is really
blazing new territory, Ed. We have not ever had a recall of a governor.
We haven`t had all that many recalls of state senators until this year.

So it`s -- they`re blazing a lot of new turf. What`s fascinating to
me is across Wisconsin tonight, at midnight, thousands and thousands of
Wisconsinites will be up in offices, some of them finishing off with Packer
parties, others in pajamas, folks having rallies. So there`s a great
energy out there, and people seem to be incredibly excited.

I think that excitement`s been underestimated by the governor and a
lot of his donors. But it`s definitely there.

SCHULTZ: Going to be a great story to follow. Do the math; 540,000
Signatures, 60 days to get it done. It`s going to take a very intense
effort. John Nichols of "The Nation." always a pleasure. Thanks for your
time tonight.

First it was Michele Bachmann. Then it was Rick Perry. Now the
Republican party`s grasp of American history hits a new low. Bill O`Reilly
gets a history lesson next on THE ED SHOW.


SCHULTZ: Tonight in our survey I asked, should the judge have recused
herself from Jerry Sandusky`s case? Ninety eight percent of you said yes;
two percent of you said no.

Coming up, Bill O`Reilly isn`t letting facts get in the way of a good
story. Eric Boehlert, Media Matters, joins me next.


SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, if you want a history lesson, Bill
O`Reilly probably isn`t the best guy to ask. O`Reilly is the co-author, we
think, of the new book "Killing Lincoln." He says he wrote it because he`s
looking out for the kids.


BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I wrote the book for two reasons.
Because number one, I`m really tee`d off that the public school system
doesn`t teach history anymore and the kids don`t know what they`re doing.


SCHULTZ: Makes sense, they don`t teach anymore, huh? After all,
O`Reilly was a high school history teacher some 30 years ago. But reports
by historical groups says that the book is filled with factual errors. The
book says General Lee and Grant met only once. It provides the wrong date
for a fire at Ford`s Theater.

It refers to the Oval Office before it was built, along with many
other errors. The National Park Service refuses to carry the book in the
Ford`s Theater museum bookstore because of the mistakes. It doesn`t sound
like the book lives up to the high standards of the accuracy of Fox News,
does it?


O`REILLY: I want to remind you not to make statements you can`t back
up on this network. We don`t do that on this network. Other networks do.
We don`t.


SCHULTZ: But I guess it`s OK to write them. But O`Reilly isn`t
backing down. Today he told "Politico" his book is being attacked by
enemies. I`m joined tonight by Eric Boehlert, senior fellow, Media
Matters. Great to have you with us.

Are you surprised O`Reilly is defending inaccuracies rather than
correcting them? Good to have you with us tonight, Eric. What do you make
of it?

News version of U.S. history I guess. Safe to say this book will not be
used in any schools this year, next year, or 20 years from now.

As you mentioned, the Parks Service looked at it, said it doesn`t pass
their test, too many errors, not enough documentation. If that reminds you
of a certain show at 8:00 on Fox News -- it wasn`t just the Park Service.
A leading Civil War magazine just came out with a review and referred to
the book as "strange fiction."

So, of course, the enemies are after Bill O`Reilly. Apparently
enemies are any historians who pick up the book and look at it.

SCHULTZ: I was going to ask you that. The Civil War Society magazine
"North and South," said the book -- the word they used is unreliable. I
guess is Bill O`Reilly saying these historians, these experts, are enemies?

BOEHLERT: That`s right. Anyone who picks up the book is an enemy.
Again, look, this just passes along sort of the Fox News approach to world
history, to current events. It`s whatever Bill O`Reilly wants it to be,
whoever, you know, is behind the chair.

He told "Newsweek" last month this book took six months to write. He
co-wrote it with someone over the phone and e-mails. Now it`s pretty
obvious that`s the problem.

This book is riddled with errors. Now he`s saying there`s only four
mistakes. The Park Service woman wrote a memo four pages long and she said
she didn`t even look at the whole book. There`s probably more. Again,
this is -- unfortunately, this is what Fox News looks like when they expand
beyond current events and try to look at U.S. history.

SCHULTZ: So how does he correct it?

BOEHLERT: How does he correct it? He doubles down. What do they
always do at Fox News? There`s nothing wrong, there`s nothing wrong. The
problem is he`s threatening to write more of these books. He said if this
history book is successful, he`s going to do more like this. I mean,
please, Bill, do not write a book about the Kennedy assassination, whatever
you do.

SCHULTZ: Well, the Ford Theater gift shop is going to carry the book.
So I guess it`s all about promotion. But for him to write this book saying
because high school history teachers are not teaching the kids, and he has
to just come in and set the record straight -- I`ll tell you what, that is

Great to have you with us tonight, Eric. Appreciate your time.

That`s THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. You can listen to me on Sirius
XM Radio channel 127, Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00 p.m. And follow
me on Twitter @EdShow and @WeGotEd.

"THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts now. Good evening, Rachel.


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.>