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

The Ed Show for Wednesday, March 6th, 2013

March 6, 2013

Guests: Richard Cohen, Daryl Johnson, James Peterson, Barton Gellman, Rep.

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

America is on the brink of something very dangerous.

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


JAMES YEAGER, CEO, TACTICAL RESPONSE: I am not letting my country be
ruled by a dictator. I`m not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one
inch further, I`m going to start killing people.

SCHULTZ (voice-over): The biggest threat to the United States is
within our borders. A shocking new report shows anti-government hate
groups are thriving in America.

A new Dick Cheney documentary reveals he has no regrets.

INTERVIEWER: Creating the sensation of drowning, you don`t consider


SCHULTZ: Tonight, the new Showtime documentary, with featured author
Martin Gellman.

Plus, there is evidence of Republican voter fraud in Florida. We`ll
bring you the details.

President Obama dines with Republicans. And Karl Rove is back to
predicting things.

The congressional panel weighs in on the president`s GOP outreach and

BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS: Give me one damn program he said he would

SCHULTZ: And Bill O`Reilly loses control over body and mind.

O`REILLY: Not entitlements, what program?

ALAN COLMES, FOX NEWS: Why do you want to yell?

O`REILLY: Because you`re lying.

SCHULTZ: Tonight, we`ll break down Bill O`Reilly`s childish behavior
with Bill O`Reilly`s very own body language expert.


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

You know, there are some events that happen in your lifetime, some big
news events, and you can remember exactly where you were when that news

This is the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19th,
1995. I`ll never forget where I was. We were fishing on Lake Erie. And
we came off the lake, and we were staying at this cabin, and I was the last
one to go up to the cabin. And everybody was just fixated, because I can
see through the windows, a big picture and everybody was just fixated on
the television, and I thought to myself, something big has happened.

When I got in there and I saw the news, I could not believe that this
had happened on American soil. That someone had done this to fellow
Americans. And that`s why I`m fired about these facts tonight.

Thanks to a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, we know
that anti-government patriot groups are now at an all-time high in this
country. We need to pay attention to this, folks.

The increase in threats on the president of the United States and
other government targets is similar to the period of time before the
Oklahoma City bombing. Researchers are out front, asking the American
government to create an interagency task force to deal with the problem
before it`s too late.

So let`s just break down a few numbers here. In 2008, there were only
149 known militia groups in this country. Last year, there were 1,360,
more than eight times as many.

Houston, we got a problem.

And as you can see, from the Southern Poverty Law Center`s chart, the
last time we saw this number of armed nationalist groups was in the Clinton
years. The Southern Poverty Law Center says it was a similar spike back in
1995, just as we are seeing today.

Now, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center has written a
letter to the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department
recommending two departments combine resources to protect against an active
aggression against the American government.

Now, these numbers jumped when President Obama became president. They
have now jumped again as he has taken on the National Rifle Association.
The NRA has done everything in its power to paint the president of the
United States as some threat to gun owners everywhere.


WAYNE LAPIERRE, NRA: All that first-term lip service to gun owners is
just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true
intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term.


SCHULTZ: Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. Let`s forget what the
American people want, oh, it`s President Obama.

It doesn`t stop with the NRA. The rhetoric of the conservative media
has turned dangerously alarming.


ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS: The Obama administration, through all this
appeasement and apologizing, answers to the Koran first and to the
Constitution second.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Barack Obama is destroying America based on lies.

O`REILLY: You don`t like Obamacare. You feel that it`s
unconstitutional, bad for the country and on and on.

GLENN BECK: It`s going to destroy us.

O`REILLY: OK. Going to destroy the country.


SCHULTZ: Going to destroy us.

Getting 30 million more people health care is going to destroy us.

Most of the militia groups named by the Southern Poverty Law Center
claimed that they are not hate groups, and they are only exercising their
constitutional rights.

But all it takes is one person to create another Oklahoma City

Take James Cummings. Before Cummings was killed in a domestic
violence situation in 2008, he was preparing an attack on newly elected
President Obama with what? A dirty bomb.

The Centers for Disease Control says Cummings is the first American to
come close to assembling the elements of a fully radioactive dirty bomb.

In a 2010 "Time" magazine cover, the story about extreme militias,
Cummings` wife is quoted as saying, "His intentions were to construct a
dirty bomb and take it to Washington to kill President Obama. He was
planning to hide it in the undercarriage of our motor home."

She says her husband had practiced crossing checkpoints with dangerous
materials aboard, taking her and her daughter along for an image of

This is really a frightening reality of extremism in America.

The latest report from the Southern Poverty Law Center shows how
dangerous it is and how we cannot let this go unchecked. We need to pay
attention to this report. I know I am.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question: does the government need to pay more attention to militia

Text "A" for yes, text "B" for no to 67622. You can always go to our
blog at You can leave a comment and there and we`ll bring
results later on in the show.

Quite a discussion on this topic tonight. I am joined by Daryl
Johnson. He is a former senior analyst for domestic terrorism at the
Department of Homeland Security and author of "Right Wing Resurgence."

Also with us tonight, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty
Law Center.

And also on board tonight is Dr. James Peterson, director of Africana
studies and associate professor of English at Lehigh University.

Gentlemen, great to have you with us tonight.

Mr. Cohen, you first. What kind of reaction have you received from
this report now that it`s been out by your organization, the Southern
Poverty Law Center?

lot of concern, of course, about the numbers that we`re talking about, the
increase in the number of these conspiracy-minded anti-government groups,
the increased in the number of right-wing plots. A lot of talk about it, a
lot of concern.

But we haven`t yet heard from Secretary Napolitano or General Holder.
I think it`s really, really very important for them to take this seriously
and to increase the number of resources that they`re devoting to this
growing problem.

SCHULTZ: So you see a real parallel before Oklahoma City and right
now, moving up as far as the rhetoric, the number of groups, and the
activity that`s out there?

COHEN: Absolutely, Ed. And you know, six months before the Oklahoma
City bombing, we sent a letter to Attorney General Reno saying that we were
really very, very concerned. And, you know, we feel that same kind of
concern now.

And I want to point out one thing. You know, you gave the number,
almost 1,400 of these anti-government groups. Those figures were collected
before the Newtown massacre and before all of this right-wing craziness
over, you know, proposed gun control laws now. And so, I think that we`re
likely to see a further spike in these numbers.


Mr. Johnson, you wrote the 2009 analysis for the Department of
Homeland Security about right-wing extremism. It was heavily criticized by
conservatives everywhere. You were repudiated by the DHS under pressure,
and left the agency.

Has that experience colored your opinion at all when you hear reports
like this come out?

my opinion is the fact that Department of Homeland Security has not changed
since I left. Despite this huge spike in the number of anti-government
groups, they still only have one analyst looking at domestic non-Islamic

I find that just quite startling and unsettling to me.

SCHULTZ: What should be done about it?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the SPLC is taking an important step in
recommending an interagency task force. But there`s other things that can
be done. We have a whole generation of analysts and law enforcement
officers who have been coming up through the ranks that had no idea what
they`re dealing with because they weren`t on the job back in the 1990s.

So I would encourage training. We need to have commitment on the
state of -- federal, state and local law enforcement to long-term
undercover investigations looking into these groups.

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Johnson, how do you know what to take serious and
what is a joke? I mean, where do you draw the line? And can analysts
actually get to a point where they say we really need to watch this group,
they are going to be trouble?

JOHNSON: Yes, that`s one of the difficult aspects of the job. I
think one of the things you can look at is the different types of movements
we have present here in the United States, and look at the histories. Do
they have a history of violence? Are they making current calls for
violence? Are they making threatening language either towards minority
groups or towards government officials?

These are the types of things that analysts and officers should be
looking at.

SCHULTZ: James Peterson, can we ignore the fact that these groups
have increased the intensity under an African-American president?

PETERSON: Absolutely not. I mean, that`s an important factor in this
whole discussion. We`ve seen other studies that have tracked the rise of
racial animus over the course of Mr. Obama`s presidency. And, Ed, you`ve
done a lot of work on this show to try to talk about the kind of language
we see coming from the right sometimes, sometimes from political readers
around socialism and some of the racialized language.

The reason why we want to be cautious and sensible about that kind of
language is it stokes the flames of this sort of radical right-wing groups
that are interested in training and preparing for warfare.

Now, listen, these groups have the right to do that. But at the end
of the day, our government and citizens have to be very, very vigilant
about the own extremism that exists in our society.

SCHULTZ: What would trigger, Mr. Johnson, a group to do something?

JOHNSON: Well, we`re looking at an issue that I hope wasn`t going to
come to fruition during this next administration. That`s the issue of gun
control. This is a very inflammatory issue for these types of groups who
have been arming themselves.

And actually, they`ve had conspiracy theories that are perpetuated on
the Internet for the past, you know, four or five years talking about this
very fact, that there might be a gun ban.

And so, when we have these types of events like the Newtown massacre
that brings up these issues, they always have the potential to agitate
these groups further.


Mr. Cohen, in your letter, you brought up the example of this man, who
posted a rant on YouTube about firearms. Here it is.


YEAGER: I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I`m not
letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I`m going to
start killing people.


SCHULTZ: Are guys like this taken seriously as threats, or is this
all talk? Mr. Cohen, what do you think?

COHEN: You never know. But who knew of Tim McVeigh before the
Oklahoma City bombing.

Let me make another point, Ed, if I could. And that is we would never
minimize the threat of Islamic terrorism in this country.


COHEN: You know, 9/11 is, you know, the Pearl Harbor of our
generation. At the same time, there have been many more right-wing plots
than there have been Islamic plots over the -- since that period of time.
The west -- a West Point counterterrorism agency learned or reported that
the number of right-wing plots had increased fourfold since the 1990s. So
we`re really looking for a better balance of law enforcement resources
devoted to this issue.

SCHULTZ: I would imagine this puts a lot of pressure on local law
enforcement as well to make sure that they`re going to have the training so
they can recognize these kinds of things as well and then report them up
the chain.

Mr. Peterson, Doctor, what about the news today of increased racial
tension at Oberlin College campus? Officials at the school are on high
alert. School campuses particularly vulnerable when it comes to hate

PETERSON: I don`t think that they are. I think one, Oberlin has such
a rich tradition. It`s been such a progressive institution for so long
that it`s sad to see them being challenged by this.

What you find on college campuses is there are a lot of incidents of
racialized graffiti, a lot of black face incidences. And when you take all
those things together, there is obviously a lot of work for us to do to
sort of reduce tensions on college campuses. And a lot of this has to do
with diversity issues, different cultures, different people coming into
contact and making sure we`re being vigilant on college campuses in the
same way we need law enforcement to be vigilant around in dealing with some
of these right wing extremist groups that we`re talking about here.

So, I think universities is kind of a separate issue. There are
challenges. We need to address them. Some of them we can address in the

Many of them have to be addressed structurally by hiring more faculty
of color, hiring more administrators of color, recruiting and retaining
students. There is a comprehensive plan we need to use for the university

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Cohen, I would imagine we can see your report on
the Southern Poverty Law Center Web site. I would encourage our viewers to
do just that.

PETERSON: It is a very important report.

SCHULTZ: It is very important. No question. You bet.

Daryl Johnson, Richard Cohen and James Peterson, thanks for your time
tonight on this very important subject.

Remember to answer tonight`s question, right there at the bottom of
the screen. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter @EdShow and on
Facebook. We want to know what you think.

Well, shooter, he is back. He said if he had a chance, he`d do it all
over again the same way. That`s next.


SCHULTZ: And coming up on THE ED SHOW, congressional committee on
President Obama`s big dinner date tonight with the righties. It is going
to work?

And the mayor of cable news, ooh, what a meltdown, I mean a meltdown.
And his very own body language expert joins me tonight to talk about what
was Bill doing.

My radio show, Monday through Friday, Sirius XM Radio Channel 127,
noon to 3:00. Listen up.

Share your thoughts with us on Facebook and on Twitter using #EdShow.

We`re coming right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Thanks for watching tonight.

Dick Cheney is back in a brand-new documentary. The former vice
president looks at his time in the Bush presidency and says that he would
do it all over again and not change a thing.

The Showtime documentary is coming out next Friday, and it`s called
"The World According to Dick Cheney." Cheney says, "If I had to do it
over again, I`d do it over in a minute."

Cheney`s power in the Bush presidency was diminished in Bush`s second
term. And in 2007, Cheney wanted to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear
reactor, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice disagreed.


CHENEY: Condi recommended taking it to the United Nations. I
strongly recommended that we ought to take it out. I thought it would sort
of, again, reassert the kind of authority and influence we had that we had
back in `03 when we took down Saddam Hussein and eliminated Iraq as a
potential source of WMD.

There are certain bright lines out there, and you do not cross them.
And one of the bright lines is you don`t provide nuclear technology to
terrorist-sponsoring states.

Condi was on the wrong side of all these issues so we had significant


SCHULTZ: So, consume, that folks. Think about it. Cheney wanted to
reclaim the glory days of his huge mistake in Iraq by bombing Syria?

Memo to Dick Cheney, the final report on Iraq has just come out, and
it provides the cold, hard truth: $60 billion was spent on Iraqi
reconstruction with almost nothing to show for it, $767 billion was spent
on the Iraq war, including military costs, 4,786 U.S. soldiers were killed
in Iraq between 2003 and 2012.

This is all part of Dick Cheney`s legacy, and he`d do it al over

Let`s turn to Bart Gellman tonight, "Time" magazine contributing
editor-at-large and author of "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency." He
contributes to the documentary.

Bart, good to have you tonight.

BARTON GELLMAN, TIME MAGAZINE: Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ: Are you astounded by this?

GELLMAN: You know, the thing I like about this film, and I am
interviewed in it as well that Cheney lets down his guard a little bit. He
is sort of more Cheney than the Cheney we knew. Lots of things we always
suspected he thought or knew he thought but he never said out loud, he says

SCHULTZ: Cheney says that he wouldn`t change a thing. I mean, how do
you possibly explain this kind of thinking, that there is no admission of
any mistake whatsoever?

GELLMAN: Well, that alone is a part of Cheney`s ideology, never to
look back and never to acknowledge any change of heart.

Look, the fact is if you were to ask Dick Cheney would you like to
trade whatever results you think you`ve obtained in Iraq for, you know,
over a trillion dollars in costs when you consider the indirect costs and
probably 100,000 lives in Iraq and nearly 5,000 American lives, it`s very
hard for me to believe he would say, yes, I`ll take that deal. But he
can`t admit that, looking back.

SCHULTZ: Here is the former vice president on waterboarding, his
answer. Here it is.


INTERVIEWER: You don`t consider a prolonged period of creating the
sensation of drowning, you don`t consider it torture?

CHENEY: I don`t.

Tell me what terrorist attacks is it you would have let go forward
because you didn`t want to be mean and nasty fellow? Are you going to
trade the lives of a number of people because you want to preserve your


SCHULTZ: A couple of questions here. I think that`s twisted
thinking. And there are Americans out there who think that he may be a war
criminal. Your thoughts on all that.

GELLMAN: Well, I am fascinated that he contrasts what he did with
honor, as if honor is a luxury. I`ve never heard him say that before. And
he says honor kind of contemptuously.

SCHULTZ: He says this about torture, when clearly torture does not
provide the kind of intelligence that our intelligence agency is looking
for. You can`t rely on it.

GELLMAN: Yes. Well, to me, the interesting question most of all is
the moral one. Do you want to be the country that does this sort of thing,
even if it worked? There are less things that worked that we don`t do.

SCHULTZ: He rationalizes it and says, what terrorist attack would you
like to stop?

GELLMAN: Yes. Well, I mean, he also says that the warrantless
domestic surveillance programs saved hundreds or thousands of lives
depending on which day he is saying it. And you can`t find a whole lot of
support for that either.

SCHULTZ: This is Cheney talking about Bush, asking him to be vice
president in the documentary. Here it is.


CHENEY: He looked up at me and said you`re the solution to my
problem. The reason I finally said yes was because I was convinced he was
deadly serious about it being consequential position.


SCHULTZ: Did this vice president manipulate the president of the
United States?

GELLMAN: Well, in several cases, I think I can document in my book
that he did. But on the vice president thing, look, George Bush was
attracted to him from the beginning. What Cheney did was he ran the whole
vetting process, found out everything one could possibly find out about all
the other candidates, never subjected himself to any of that kind of truth

And, by the way, he admits in this film for the first time that he did
not subject himself, he did not fill out the questionnaire, he did not get
that kind of scrutiny. The story at the time officially was that he was
fully vetted in exactly the same way as the other candidates.

But he creates this whole process, finds everyone lacking, and, you
know, there is nobody left but himself by the end of it.

SCHULTZ: He is arguably one of the most powerful vice presidents
ever, or influential, however you want to word it?

GELLMAN: Oh, I think it would be almost impossible to dispute that he
is the most powerful vice president we`ve ever had. He is the most
powerful person in government we`ve ever had who wasn`t the president.

SCHULTZ: And did that relationship continue into the second term
behind the scenes?

GELLMAN: The relationship was badly fractured by an incident in the
election year 2004, having to do with the warrantless domestic surveillance
and a meltdown over at Justice. There had been a rebellion at Justice for
three months because they had come to believe that domestic spying was

Cheney withheld that from Bush while he tried to put down the
rebellion. And it came to a moment when two dozen top Justice Department
officials were about to resign. Bush found out hat morning and Cheney said
he would have let them resign, which is the same thing as saying he would
have ended Bush`s presidency, because no one gets reelected after having
the whole Justice Department resign.

SCHULTZ: All right. I`m look forward to the documentary. Great to
have you with us. Bart Gellman, thanks for your time tonight.

We found voter fraud. I`ll give you a hint: it`s not these guys.

And Bush`s brain is whining about President Obama`s plan to win the

THE ED SHOW congressional committee is going to straighten all of that
out tonight. Stick around.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.

Voter fraud, isn`t that the excuse the Republicans give every time
they try to restrict voting rights? They`ve spun some pretty heavy stories
and crazies in the past, haven`t they?

Like for instance, members of the New Black Panther Party at polls in
Philadelphia. That was one of their favorites. Unaffiliated election

Or there is always ACORN, they love to pin it on them, that`s one of
their favorite scapegoats.

A poll from December found that 49 percent of Republican voters
thought ACORN stole the 2012 election from President Obama. The problem
with that story is, is that -- well, ACORN was defunded by Congress in
2009, and disbanded in 2010. But Republicans don`t follow the news. ACORN
doesn`t even exist anymore.

No, it seems like every time there is an actual case, I mean an actual
case of voter fraud, it`s coming from the bad guys, the Republicans. Like
the executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party who pleaded
guilty to charges for phone jamming. Or the Republican campaign manager in
Maryland convicted of trying to influence votes through fraud. Or Indiana
secretary of state convicted on six felony counts of voter fraud, theft,
and perjury.

There is more. The latest, two employees of the Republican-aligned
Strategic Allied Consulting, they have admitted to forging voter
registration forms down in the state of Florida, as reported in "The Miami
Herald." If Strategic Allied Consulting sounds kind of familiar, it`s
because the company has been accused of multiple instances of voter fraud
in several states since 2004.

They`ve been around for a while. That didn`t stop the RNC from
briefly hiring the firm to oversee their 2012 voter registration efforts in
swing states. The voter fraud Republicans talk about is imaginary. The
voter fraud coming from their own party, believe me, it`s the real deal.

President Obama wants to take the gavel out of John Boehner`s hands.


REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Hell no, you can`t!


SCHULTZ: The Congressional panel weighs in on why Republicans are so

Some bad news for a Minnesota newspaper means good news for the letter
G. Details ahead.


BILL O`REILLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Give me one damn program he said he
would cut.


SCHULTZ: And anger takes control of Bill O`Reilly.


O`REILLY: Not entitlement. What program?

ALAN COLMES, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Why do you want to yell?

O`REILLY: Because you`re lying.


SCHULTZ: Tonight, Bill O`Reilly`s very own body language expert
breaks down Bill O`Reilly`s very own body language.


SCHULTZ: And we are back. Thanks for staying with THE ED SHOW
tonight. We are following breaking news at this hour, as President Obama
meets behind closed doors with about a dozen Republican senators. I say
good luck. The meeting is set to last for another hour or so at the
Jefferson Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Senior administration official says the Jefferson is neutral ground.
God forbid if they go to the White House. And the timing is crucial. The
leaders aren`t facing a pressing deadline so they could, hey, maybe
actually have a productive conversation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is not at the table tonight.
Instead, the president is talking to Tea Party folks like Ron Johnson and
Pat Toomey, without the normal obstruction. Now, here is what could be on
the political menu. The main course is reportedly budget issues. But the
president could add some sides like immigration reform and gun control.
You guys want to talk about that.

At the same time, the president meets with willing Republicans, there
are new signs of obstruction just down the street. This is live. You are
looking live at Senators Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and also Senator
Lee as they stage an old-fashioned filibuster to block the president`s
nomination of John Brennan, CIA director. They`ve been talking for almost
nine hours straight so far.

And then, of course, there is Karl Rove, who says that the president`s
bipartisanship is actually an evil plot to take over Congress in 2014.


KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The second term is a political
legacy. That means that you then deal with all of these issues from a
political perspective. Not from a perspective of how do we resolve them,
but how do we use them politically. And that`s not good for the country.


SCHULTZ: Yeah, Karl, how do you resolve them when they say, when it
comes to the budget process, no more revenue, it`s over, we`re done
talking? Of course the president has to turn to the midterms, because
that`s what the American people want him to do.

Tonight the president might want to have some antacid instead of
dessert over there at dinner.

Let`s turn to our Congressional panel tonight. Congresswoman Gwen
Moore of Wisconsin is with us this evening. Also Congresswoman Terri
Sewell of Alabama and Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington.

Well, I have to say, this is going the distance, exhausting every
effort to try to at least get up close and personal with people that
absolutely hate you. Jim McDermott, can you deal with these guys at all?

think so. I think that as long as Mitch McConnell is worrying about Ashley
Judd and some candidate on the far right attacking him, he is going to
continue to use the filibuster to tie up the Senate and make it impossible
for majority rule in the United States Senate.

If you don`t have majority rule in the United States Senate, you will
never get anything over to the House that will force John Boehner to put it
on the floor and let the Democrats and a few reasonable Republicans pass
it. That`s what happened with the Violence Against Women Law. And that`s
what is going to have to happen on all this budget stuff.

It is not going to be done with John Boehner having full control of
his own caucus.


MCDERMOTT: He has to get it out of the Senate. And Mitch isn`t going
to let him.

SCHULTZ: Congresswoman Moore, is the president going the extra mile
tonight? Can he make any gains behind closed doors?

REP. GWEN MOORE (D), WISCONSIN: Well, I have to tell you, I think the
president is taking advantage of the fact that he has seen that there are
factions within the Republican party. No longer are they sticking together
like glue. And they have a lot of different priorities.

And so I think that it`s important for him to reach out to them. Some
are interested in his deficit-cutting strategies, looking at cutting some
of the entitlement programs. Others may -- don`t really care that much
about defense spending. And I think the president is sort of taking
advantage of the various factions that there are.

He has seen that Boehner nor Mitch McConnell can deliver the votes.
So he is doing what I think is really important, and that`s breaking bread
with them.

SCHULTZ: Terri Sewell, are you concerned that the president might
give the store away just to get a deal? I know that there is a progressive
letter that is being sent around and signed by a number of members of the
Congress. I`m not sure if you`re on that list or not and if you have
signed it. But there is a real concern that the president will chip away
at the big three. And that`s exactly what these guys want to do. Your

REP. TERRI SEWELL (D), ALABAMA: Look, I think it`s really important
that he reach out to the Republican party. I think that he has been asked
several times to reach out. And I think outreach is really important. Of
course, I think hope springs eternal. But we should be prepared for the
worst. It will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow morning,
and whether there will be Monday morning quarterbacking by the Republicans.

I think that his efforts are important, definitely optically, I`m
hoping realistically.

SCHULTZ: What do you mean prepared for the worst? What do you mean
prepared for the worst?

SEWELL: Well, I actually think when I look at -- think about the 12
people who have been invited, some of them have not been the most -- well,
should we say receptive to the president and his policies. So I`m afraid
that they`ll come out tomorrow and talk negatively about the meeting and
set us back, and not moving forward.

SCHULTZ: "The New York Times" has been reporting that the president
has been reaching out in conversations to restart the budget talks. Jim,
are you concerned he might be too nice? President Obama is one of the
nicest guys you`re ever going to meet. He wants to do a deal. He has even
said we`re not all going to get what we want. What kind of language is

MCDERMOTT: Well, the president has, I think, gone the extra mile with
the Republicans too many times, frankly. I think what is going to happen
is that on the 1st of April, when the sequester takes hold and the
continuing resolution is ended, you will have people start to react to
airports being closed and to national monuments and museums --


MCDERMOTT: -- and national parks being closed. People are going to
begin to see the chaos that is being created by the Republicans in all this
manufactured budget stuff.

SCHULTZ: I got to ask you, today the House passed a bill extending
federal funding to keep the government operating past March 27th. Now, all
three of you voted no on this. Gwen Moore, what about that?

MOORE: Oh, I can tell you that, you know, it was not honest brokering
to say that we`re going to give the Defense Department an ability to escape
the effects of the sequester by being able to make decisions about spending
and not do that for the rest of the government. I can tell you that my
hope, Ed, is that the cure for the sequester is not worse than the disease.
And that is the only thing I fear about this kumbahyah dinner, especially
with U.S. Senator Johnson being there, who has a voracious appetite for
nothing but deficit cutting and not at all being concerned about, you know,
the welfare of people.

SCHULTZ: Terri, why did you vote against this? Did it cut too deep
in areas, protecting defense? Your thoughts.

SEWELL: Yes. I think that I thought that the arbitrary cuts for
discretionary spending and giving flexibility only to the military, Mil-Con
and defense, was just not something that I could support. At the end of
the day, I think we are all about deficit reduction. But it should be done
in a strategic and targeted way, and not an arbitrary way. And I don`t
think giving flexibility only to defense and military is what the people
that I represent would be supportive of.

SCHULTZ: I give these guys maybe 10 minutes after the meeting before
they`re in front of the media, conservative media, ripping into the
president or something that was said at this meeting tonight. But you got
to give the president credit for at least trying to do something about it.

Great to have all of you with us tonight. Congresswoman Gwen Moore,
Terri Sewell and Jim McDermott, good to have you on THE ED SHOW. Thank

Tonight, we go inside the mind of Bill O`Reilly with his very own body
language expert. And we`ll do it live. You won`t want to miss this.


SCHULTZ: There is always good news and bad news, isn`t there? Well,
we`re going to start with some good news. At last night`s Oklahoma Thunder
basketball game, high school basketball coach Heath Kayfell (ph), he is
about to win 20,000 dollars for hitting a shot from half-court. I mean, it
is great news. Holy smokes, and that is a nice check, isn`t it?

But the real story about the family comes out in the Oklahoma
newspaper this morning. They report that the coach`s wife was recently
diagnosed with cancer, and they`re going to use the money the pay their
medical bills. God bless them. I hope it all works out for them and they
have a speedy recovery.

More headlines making good news. We have a pile of good news, but we
can only use so much. How about that Dow just kicking ass? Another high

Here`s a good headline, don`t you think, CEO of Costco is coming out
for, what, a minimum wage raise? That`s right, which is another good
headline for workers across America with depressed wages.

Then there is this headline from the "Mankato Free Press," which is
not good. I`ll let you figure it out why. The Free Press realized the
error after the Internets picked it up. They say next time they`ll use --
just use the G. Good idea.

There is some good car news out there today. Ferrari unveiled a new
car that is being called the world`s fastest hybrid. It`s called the
Lafari. It tops out at 230 miles an hour. The Lafari is fast, I would
say. The bad news is it costs over a million dollars, and we don`t have
any video of the car. And that`s just the way it is. So here is some
footage of a more affordable Suzuki sticking a landing in a corn field.

Finally, good news about the British royal family. Everybody knows
Kate Middleton and her husband, the Duke of Cambridge, are expecting a
child. The only question is about the gender of the child. Today the
British press reports that the Duchess accidentally let it slip that she is
having a girl. The Duchess is denying the story. Luckily we have our own
royal expert standing by to clear up any confusion.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: While at Wembley, I got the phone call from Daniel
asking me if I would loan my Playstation. Being at Wembley, I told him
he`d have to wait until I come home. (inaudible) come home, got in my car,
took down the Playstation.


SCHULTZ: The bad news is we have not erased that from our archives.
That settles it. But it is good news.

Tonight in our survey, I asked you does the government need to pay
more attention to the militia movement? Ninety six percent of you say yes;
four percent of you say no.

Coming up, you may have heard about this. More on Bill O`Reilly`s
body language. Stay tuned, with his very own expert here on THE ED SHOW.
Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: All right, the Big Finish tonight, this may come as a shock
to you, but Bill O`Reilly lives in his own version of reality. He has his
own set of facts. Not many people do. And whenever anybody challenges his
set of facts with actual facts, Bill O`Reilly, you know what he does? He
gets really, really mad.

Last night, O`Reilly called on conservative Monica Crowley as well as
Fox News`s token liberal Alan Colmes, who is a good guy, to discuss the
sequester. O`Reilly is convinced that President Obama has not offered a
proposal to avoid the spending cuts. Alan Colmes attempted to correct
O`Reilly`s assertion. And that`s when O`Reilly just lost it.


O`REILLY: He has to say here are the programs that are going to go
down. Here is how we`re going to reform Medicare and Social Security. And
the man refuses to --

COLMES: That`s not true.


O`REILLY: Hold it. Because I`m getting teed off at you. Give me one
damn program he said he would cut.

COLMES: He has cut entitlements.

O`REILLY: Not entitlements, what program?

COLMES: Why do you want to yell at me?

O`REILLY: Because you`re lying.

COLMES: I`m not lying.

O`REILLY: You are lying here.

COLMES: Don`t you sit this and call me a liar.

O`REILLY: No, you`re lying!

COLMES: You don`t like the president. You don`t like what he is
doing. But don`t sit there and call me a liar.



COLMES: We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar.
That`s not necessary.

O`REILLY: No, you are lying here.

COLMES: I am not lying. We have a disagreement. There is a
difference between having a disagreement and calling me a liar. That`s a
personal attack.

O`REILLY: This is why I`m calling you a liar. Give me one program he
said he would cut.

COLMES: He would cut Medicare and Medicaid.

O`REILLY: That`s not specific program.


SCHULTZ: OK, folks, for the record, Medicare and Medicaid are
specific programs. But let`s not allow facts to get in the way here. In a
situation like this, Bill O`Reilly calls in a body language expert to
analyze what just happened.


O`REILLY: With us now, body language maven, Tanya Reiman. Now,
everybody is saying what was with the -- what is that?

TANYA REIMAN, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT: A lot of times people will
stammer like that when they`re trying to collect their thoughts.

O`REILLY: Now when we last left Nancy Pelosi, you were saying that
her hand gestures don`t match what she is saying.


O`REILLY: Is the same thing here?

REIMAN: I constantly see that. And one of the interesting things I
saw tonight was, as she is pointing, it`s like her fingers are stuttering.
As this interview progresses, you can see that he is doing double barrels,
which of course we know that that just emphasizes the point and shows you
how upset he is about it.

When you look at two people who are friends, you don`t see contempt in
the eyes of one.

O`REILLY: So you are entirely convinced --

REIMAN: That they do not care for one another, yes.


SCHULTZ: And joining us tonight on THE ED SHOW, body language analyst
Tanya Reiman, author of "The Power of Body Language." Great to have you
with us tonight.

REIMAN: Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ: All right, let`s break it down, the meltdown. What did you
see there?

REIMAN: Bill was consistently who he is. He started off. He wasn`t
that angry. And then as the conversation continues, you notice the hand
goes from a regular hand to a fist. And that`s the first sign that anger
is starting to build. But this is still frustration. And you know that,
because as he is speaking, his brows go up instead of down.

When the brows go up, it`s to emphasize a point. When you truly get
to the point of anger, the brows come down and you get a glare in the eye.
As the conversation progresses, you see his jaw starts to tense up, and
then there`s the inward lip roll. And that`s really when you start to
notice a change in the voice.

And what happens is, because voice is so responsive to emotion, when
we start to feel stress, we don`t use our lung capacity properly. And
that`s when our voice changes and we start to hear the difference.

SCHULTZ: A short time later, John Stossel called O`Reilly out for
overreacting. Here it is.


JOHN STOSSEL, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: You were out of line.

O`REILLY: I wasn`t out of line. I was maybe out of line with my
tone, but not with the facts of the matter.


SCHULTZ: Was he showing any remorse there at all?

REIMAN: No, because I think he is who he is. He was angry at that
moment, and he demonstrated that anger.

SCHULTZ: Was he acting?

REIMAN: When he was angry with Colmes? No. Because it`s a buildup,
and that`s what you`re looking for. Was it a buildup. We`ll see a
contrast when we get to the next clip. No, he wasn`t feigning.

SCHULTZ: Let`s go to the O`Reilly archive here. This is an oldie and
goldy. Here it is.


O`REILLY: I don`t know what that means, to play us out. What does
that mean? To end the show?


O`REILLY: All right. Go, go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In five, four, three --

O`REILLY: that`s tomorrow and that is it --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Again. Five, four, three --

O`REILLY: that`s tomorrow, and that is it for us today. And we will
leave you with a -- I can`t do it. We`ll do it live.


O`REILLY: We`ll do it live, (EXPLETIVE DELETED) it! We`ll do it
live. I`ll write it and we`ll do it live.


SCHULTZ: What can you tell after watching that clip?

REIMAN: OK, so you see the difference. And this is what I was
talking about between frustration and anger. When you start off, he is
consistent. Again, he starts off, he`s a little bit frustrated. The brows
go up. But as it progression, what happens? The brows come down, and now
you see that he is becoming angry.

In addition to that, you see that quick breath. And that`s that -- we
need to oxygenate the brain in order to prepare for -- you know, the fight
or flight kicks in, and we`re ready for any kind of potential danger.

SCHULTZ: Does he have anger issues?

REIMAN: I can`t tell you that. I`m not a psychologist.

SCHULTZ: What is with the finger-pointing?

REIMAN: This is one of his keystone signals. He is an aggressive
individual, and he points to people to indicate that he tells them.
Especially you`re in my house, so this is where I live, and you can`t come
in here and tell me what to do. And that`s one of his trademark signals.
He`ll never change that.

SCHULTZ: All right. O`Reilly often resorts to finger-pointing, as we
talked about. But what does it tell you about how he handles conflict? Is
he a very domineering guy?

REIMAN: It`s a dominant personality trait. When people do that, they
typically do it in a way to say that I`m this one who is in charge here.
And that`s why, over the years, we`ve seen that politicians have changed
from like the finger-point to a more lighter point so that people don`t
feel offended. Because when someone points at you, there is an opportunity
for you to feel offended. Does it mean you always will? No, but there is
a chance.

SCHULTZ: All right. Tanya Reiman, great to have you with us.

REIMAN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Thank you so much for joining us here on THE ED SHOW. That
is THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right
now. Good evening, Rachel.


Copyright 2013 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.>