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

The Ed Show for Thursday, March 7th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

March 7, 2013

Guests: James Carville, Bernie Sanders, John Nichols, Tara Dowdell, Chris Kofinis, Michael Kelly

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

Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky -- OK, he gets all kinds of
accolades for standing up. I think he`s grandstanding. And I think it`s
very dangerous.

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


SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: I rise today for the principle --

SCHULTZ (voice-over): It`s one thing to stand with Rand Paul for his
talking filibuster. But is anyone listening to his absurd fear-mongering?

PAUL: That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco is an

SCHULTZ: John McCain drops the boom on Rand Paul.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: He needs to do more than pull
political stunt that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their
college dorms.

SCHULTZ: And Lindsey Graham calls out his own party.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I don`t remember any of you
coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody
with a drone.

SCHULTZ: Tonight, James Carville on the Republican chaos on the
Senate floor.

And I`ll also tell you about an actual filibuster that matters. And
why Leader Harry Reid is to blame.

Paul Ryan visits the White House. And the president is getting ready
to serve up the big three.

Senator Bernie Sanders joins me to tell the president to hold the line
on earned benefits.

And Netflix strikes gold with the political drama "House of Cards."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When it comes to your life, Peter, and what I know
about it, you should assume there`s no such thing as a secret.

SCHULTZ: Tonight actor Michael Kelly is here with all the latest on
his hit series.


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

Now, last night on this program, we showed you this chart from the
Southern Poverty Law Center. The number of extreme militia groups in
America is at an all-time high. Record high.

Now, today everyone is lathered up and talking about how Senator Rand
Paul is so fantastic in his filibuster to delay the confirmation of CIA
chief John Brennan. But let`s not forget what Rand Paul actually said when
he took to the Senate floor to talk about the Obama administration`s drone
program and policy of targeted killings.

This is what has me fired up tonight.


PAUL: That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in
a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, is an
abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in
our country.


SCHULTZ: Tolerated? Anybody talking about doing that?

Rand Paul goes to the well of the Senate and fuels the very nut jobs
we heard about from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The senator from Kentucky, you know what he is doing? He is inflaming
the extremists by saying that the government might execute drone strikes on
any American who might take a side against the president of the United
States. This is totally crazy.

And to accuse the president of conspiring to kill Americans in this
country in cafes? And what`s he picking on San Francisco for? Well,
Houston was in there, too.

I mean, come on! This is a United States senator playing with fantasy
that you know what? These drones are pretty powerful things. I mean, we
could be using these things to take out Americans. As if there`s
absolutely a free-for-all going on, that there`s no oversight whatsoever?

Some members of Rand Paul`s own party had heard enough.


MCCAIN: We`ve done I think a disservice to a lot of Americans by
making them believe that somehow they`re in danger from their government.
They`re not.


SCHULTZ: Wow. He`s got all his marbles.

Senator McCain was outraged in the Senate chamber today because he
knows a thing or two about inflaming the fringe elements in the country.
You see, he once had a running mate that did it all the time.

McCain was joined by his tag team partner from South Carolina, Lindsey
Graham, calling out the junior senator from Kentucky.


GRAHAM: I find the question offensive. As much as I disagree with
President Obama, much as I support past presidents, I do not believe that
question deserves an answer.


SCHULTZ: Well, wait a second now. Attorney General Eric Holder
thinks that Rand Paul does deserve an answer. And he gave him one.

After 13 hours of filibustering, Holder sent a simple 43-word response
to Senator Paul.

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional
question: does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone
to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? And the answer
to that question is no."

Well, Rand Paul said that he was satisfied with that response and
there was no additional hold on John Brennan`s nomination. Brennan was
confirmed today by the Senate by a vote of 63-34.

But the great divide within the Republican Party remains. While
Senator Rand Paul was in the late hours of his filibuster last night,
Republicans, including John McCain, they were out to dinner with the

And today, McCain was one of the leading voices defending the Obama


MCCAIN: To somehow say that someone who disagrees with American
policy and even may demonstrate against it is somehow a member of an
organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply
false. It is simply false.


SCHULTZ: McCain`s anger was directed at other colleagues who said
that they should know better.

Drone supporter Marco Rubio jumped into Rand Paul`s spotlight to
question the use of drones. So did Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Lindsey Graham had to laugh at the hypocrisy of these opportunists.


GRAHAM: To my Republican colleagues, I don`t remember any of you
coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody
with a drone.


SCHULTZ: Graham`s point is at the heart of the disagreement with Rand
Paul. Rand Paul has a problem with the Republican definition of war.


PAUL: Their position is that the whole world is a battlefield
including America and that the laws of war apply to America. In war, you
don`t get due process. If you`re in Afghanistan, you`re American shooting
at our soldiers, they can shoot you, they don`t ask for a warrant.

But in our country, you do have due process. So our country isn`t a
battlefield with no laws.


SCHULTZ: This is an argument all Americans no doubt should consider.
But it is not what Rand Paul was doing in his filibuster. He was taking it
I think to a new level of extremism. His colleagues were right to call him
out on it.

Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question: was Senator Paul`s rhetoric during his filibuster dangerous?

Text A for yes, text B for no to 67622. You can always go to our blog
at We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

Joining me tonight, James Carville, Democratic strategist, political
consultant, and author of "It`s the Middle Class, Stupid."

James, good to have you back on THE ED SHOW.


SCHULTZ: I tell you what, that must have been a heck of a dinner last
night. President Obama must have really fed them good when you`ve got John
McCain and Lindsey Graham defending his policy on the Senate floor and
calling out their own party. What do you make of that?

CARVILLE: Well, they`ve gone back and forth. Let`s remember, this is
a party that vast numbers, vast numbers believe that the president was not
born in the United States. Vast numbers think that the earth is 5,000
years old, that dinosaurs and people occupied the earth at the same time.
Vast numbers deny climate change.

I mean, they`ve got people like preppers and birthers and God knows
whatnot over there. So, some of them are going to believe when Rand Paul
says that -- by the way, FreedomWorks, you remember this clown outfit, paid
Dick Armey an $8 million severance and they had guns up in there trying to
get papers out and everything? They`re supporting Rand Paul to the nth

Don`t think for one minute that he doesn`t have deep support with all
these cockamamie conspiracy theories he`s got going and blowing people up
in restaurants in Houston and bedrooms in Bowling Green.

SCHULTZ: It is so over the top it`s outrageous. I`ve never heard a
senator theorize like that on the floor before.

CARVILLE: But Ed, you`ve got 10 House members that are on birther
bills. You had half the Republican presidential field in 2008 denying

I mean, the idea that this is somehow -- some -- this isn`t just some
kind of nutty thing -- this is a party -- I`m not saying all of them, maybe
not most. But vast numbers believe in some of the weirdest stuff that you
can imagine.

SCHULTZ: Yes. Well, he`s definitely playing with his imagination to
think -- what`s he think, that the military`s going to call up the state
police there in Kentucky and all of a sudden a couple of his buddies are
going to be a target? I mean, it`s just nuts.

CARVILLE: But I mean look -- there`s a big -- he has a lot of -- like
I said, the Tea Party, the, quote, "organic" Tea Party, FreedomWorks and
them, they`re supporting this. I think Paul probably has some support out
here among these Republicans. It doesn`t make sense to me, but a lot of
stuff that they say makes no sense to me.

SCHULTZ: And Rand Paul, of course, is pounding his chest, talking
about all the support he`s getting for the filibuster.


PAUL: A lot of Americans send us letters and e-mails and Twitter.
People were excited that we were standing up for something that`s important
to a lot of people.


SCHULTZ: All right. Now, is this all about 2016 for this joker?
What do you think?

CARVILLE: Well, it`s a combination. I think it is about 2016 for
him. I think it`s also about the campaign.

I think he believes some of this stuff. I don`t have a question to --
Rand Paul I think has been out there and been out there for a long, long

But understand, he`s not way out of the mainstream of a good part of
the Republican Party. These are the same people that were buying gold
bullion from Glenn Beck or whatever he was doing over there. These people
will bite on almost any kind of conspiracy you put out there for them.

And he`s getting those ducks lined up. For all I know he may be a
formidable candidate in 2016.

SCHULTZ: All right. What about the Senate filibuster? I mean, do
you think what he did, this stunt, is going to help the Senate reconsider
the rules on filibuster? Of course, it`s up to Harry Reid. I`ll have
commentary on that later.

But, I mean, this is a moment -- you got some Democratic senators over
there who were pushing Harry Reid to change the rules -- and lo and behold,
here comes Rand Paul doing the talking filibusters, what they were talking
about all along.

CARVILLE: Yes, I think -- I`m not a parliamentary expert. But I
think this filibuster when you stand up and you`ve got to do the Jimmy
Stewart thing and stand up and talk forever, that that can last only so

But now I think the rule is they just don`t get 60 votes and threaten
to filibuster, the bill goes down. I think there`s going to be some sort
of tweaking. And they`re holding up all kinds of judicial appointments and
appointments to the government. The record is just -- it`s horrendous.
It`s much more than anything we`ve ever experienced in the past and it has
a great deal of frustration.

I think Rand Paul`s thing was kind of a comic show to a lot of people.
But it was a 12 or 13-hour thing.

SCHULTZ: Well, about the drone program, where are the Democrats on
this debate? I mean, there`s been very few Democrats who are willing to
call the president out on this.

Is it because he`s just so popular, they`re protecting the president,
they think he`s got enough on his plate? They don`t want to cause more
problems for him? Or what?

CARVILLE: You know, this is a difficult question. They`ve got a lot
of -- a lot of bad people in the world. And the idea that you can kill
some of these people without endangering our own people is attractive to
some Democrats. There`s some attraction. This being -- this Democrat
being one of them.

Look, it`s a difficult thing. And, you know, there can be some
oversight, there`s some way we can deal with this. But, you know, we`ve
gotten a lot of bad people with this program. We shouldn`t forget that.

SCHULTZ: All right. Rand Paul talked about his problem with the
definition of war. Lindsey Graham had a response to that today. Here it


SCHULTZ: To my party, I`m a bit disappointed that you no longer
apparently think we`re at war. Not Senator Paul. He`s a man to himself.
He has a view that I don`t think is a Republican view. I think is a
legitimately held libertarian view.


SCHULTZ: Is this where the Republican Party is headed, a libertarian
camp and a traditional camp? I mean, the hypocrisy of, you know, a couple
of these senators getting up, standing with Rand Paul on this. Probably
just to keep the filibuster going. But it just seems that they have really
identified to the American people they`ve got an identity crisis. They
don`t even know where they stand on the use of military action if they`ve
got the wrong president in there.

CARVILLE: Right. Look, certainly you have the libertarian camp and
the national security camp for lack of a better word. Rand Paul versus
McCain you`re talking about. But look at now the immigration thing. Some
of them are coming out saying we need to change that. A lot of them are
saying no, under no conditions can you do that.

Now, you have some Republicans after the election saying maybe we
should consider being for gay marriage. Many of them, most of them are
saying there`s no way you can be for that. I mean, there`s a lot of
emerging strains of just coming together because this is a party and it`s a
movement that`s under considerable pressure. It`s been -- it`s been
rejected again by the voters in the presidential election, and it`s driving
them crazy. And you`re seeing a lot of stuff.

To me, I love watching this. This is almost as much fun as going to
Tiger Stadium, watching LSU playing SEC game.


SCHULTZ: That means --

CARVILLE: So, I`m enjoying it, to tell you the truth.

SCHULTZ: So, that means you liked watching Jeb Bush earlier this week
on immigration. There was a lost bouncing around on that.

CARVILLE: Right. Exactly. And he`s really talented. Governor Bush
is an adult (ph) and he`s all tied up in a knot, too. There`s a lot of
people tied up in a knot.

SCHULTZ: All right, James. You come back on THE ED SHOW. Good to
have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.

CARVILLE: Thank you so much.

SCHULTZ: You bet.

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

Liberals, they are worried about President Obama and what he served up
at dinner last night. Were afraid it might be the big three. Bernie
Sanders has a lot to say about it, next. And so do I.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Rand Paul`s filibuster, it should be a message to Democrats.
I have a very special message for Harry Reid later in the program.

And Michael Kelly of the red hot Netflix series "House of Cards", he
is here in the studio tonight. Stick around.

My radio show tomorrow, listen to it, XM Radio Channel 127, Monday
through Friday, noon to 3:00 p.m.

Share your thoughts with us on Facebook and Twitter using the #EdShow.
We`re coming right back.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight.

All right. Let`s just -- everybody get on the same page here, OK?
Let`s be brilliant on the basics.

Point one, the president is clearly hoping to strike a grand bargain
on the budget. But the deal shouldn`t be made on the backs of the middle-
class voters who kept him in office for the next four years. The president
met last night with nearly a dozen Republican senators, which is good, to
discuss the deficit and the potential savings of what? Chained CPI.

Here we go. Here comes the cave. The president is offering
Republicans a potential cut in Social Security benefits based on the
consumer price index?

The White House Web site estimates chained CPI could save $130
billion. Really? Hold it right there.

Why do people who have paid into a program their entire working life
all of a sudden have to serve up $130 billion because we went to war and
didn`t pay for it? Experts here on this show have said repeatedly chained
CPI is going to hurt seniors. Social Security should not even be on the
table. It is not the problem. It is not the issue that created the
problem that he with face financially in this country.

Many of the Republicans who want to gut Social Security are
responsible for the financial mess George W. Bush left this country. Close
your eyes and you`ll hit a devastating policy. It`s like a dart board. No
matter where you hit you`ve got a bull`s eye.

W. spent like no -- like there was absolutely no tomorrow. He refused
to regulate Wall Street. In fact, wanted to deregulate it, let them go
wild in the housing market, gave us big pharma, ineffective tax cuts that
did not increase the tax base and create a bunch of jobs like they said it
would. And, of course, put two wars on the American credit card for the
next generation.

And let`s just get it straight, folks. Since 9/11, we`ve spent almost
$1.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there`s a troubling
new report. Much of the money has been wasted.

Now, the special inspector general says the United States has wasted
$8 billion on failed reconstruction projects -- you know, nation building
over there. We`ve wasted more than 13 percent of the money that we`ve sent
over to Iraq. Now, we`re spending billions on roads and bridges overseas
while here in America, we can`t get the politicians to work together on an
infrastructure package when we`ve got bridges falling down, killing people?

When the Republicans say that they can`t afford infrastructure because
of the deficit, they should remember that spending on both wars makes up
half of what the country`s current deficit is. This is the president who
overspent, drove up the deficit, and forced us into the current crisis.
And let`s not forget, he tried to privatize Social Security. And that is
what the big golden goose is for them. They want to privatize everything,
from the post office to the big three -- you name it.

If President Obama -- that`s right -- if President Obama cuts any of
the big three, he is going to be turning his back on the middle class,
because Social Security was not on the negotiating table when the Obama
team was out there saying that they`re advocating for the middle class.
This will be his legacy if he caves to these Republicans, who for
generations have wanted to go after the big three.

Now, am I getting off the Obama bandwagon? Let`s see how all this

Joining me tonight, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Senator, good to have you with us.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Good to be here.

SCHULTZ: Is chained CPI a bad idea?

SANDERS: It is a horrendous idea. It is totally absurd because for a
start, Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit.
Social Security today has a $2.7 trillion surplus, can pay out every
benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years.

Just today, Congressman Pete DeFazio and I introduced legislation to
make Social Security strong for the next 50 years on taxable income
starting at $250,000. You do that, it hits the top 1 1/2 percent. Social
Security is strong for the next 50 years.

Second of all, this so-called chained CPI, let me tell you what it
would do, Ed. If you`re 65 today, by the time you are 75, you`re going to
be losing about $650 a year. Now, if you`re living on 15,000 bucks a year,
that is a lot of money.

But it`s not just seniors on Social Security. If you can believe it,
this chained CPI will make devastating cuts for disabled veterans. The men
and women who lost arms and legs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the widows of
people who were killed in Iraq -- it will mean significant cuts for them.

Do we really want to balance the budget on the backs of disabled vets
and seniors making $15,000, $20,000 a year --


SANDERS: -- on Social Security? I think not.

SCHULTZ: Senator, will Republicans compromise on the budget if
Democrats don`t offer cuts to the big three?

And this really is cutting to the chase here. They say that there`s
no revenue. Although some senators have said, well, maybe we can find some
revenue somewhere but we`ve got to have big cuts in the big three.

This is the ideological fight. Isn`t this what the election was all

SANDERS: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: So back to my question. I mean, can the Republicans
compromise on a budget if they can`t touch the big three?

SANDERS: Ed, our job and the president`s job, instead of caving in on
Social Security and veterans` programs and Medicare, our job is to do
exactly what the American people want us to do and make an offer that the
Republicans can`t refuse. And that is rally the American people who
overwhelmingly understand that number one, the wealthiest people are doing
phenomenally well in this country and their effective tax rates are very
low. That one out of four major profitable corporations in this country
pays nothing in taxes.

Bank of America a few years ago, which has 200 subsidiaries in the
Cayman Islands, paid zero in federal taxes. In fact, they got a rebate
from the IRS.

SCHULTZ: Republicans have no problems with that.

SANDERS: They have no problems with that. They don`t want to ask the
wealthy or large corporations to pay a nickel more in taxes.

We make that case to the American people, and I think the Republicans

SCHULTZ: Radio show today, guy asks me what`s fair? I said, try
paying something. When you`re paying nothing -- but this is how they

And I just believe the president has to hear from liberals and
progressives across this country. He needs to know that we are behind him.
We want him to stand strong on this.

And if we can`t get a deal, what do we do, Senator? Just go to the
mid-terms and run this thing all over again?

SANDERS: Look, you are dealing with a major ideological split in this
country. It takes us back to the 1932 presidential election, Hoover versus
Roosevelt. On this issue, Ed, we have the vast majority of the American
people behind us.


SANDERS: We control the White House. We control the Senate. It
would be criminal to cave on this issue.

SCHULTZ: Criminal to cave. I agree. And I think all Democrats need
to stand up and remind the president what this is all about. Having dinner
with these guys, you can`t trust them. And we`ll talk about that in the
next segment when it comes to filibuster.

Senator Bernie Sanders, great to have you with us tonight. Thank you.

SANDERS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Democrats have a chance to take a page from Rand Paul. And
I`m going to tell you all about next.

And John Boehner`s crying in his Merlot because the president`s having
lunch with Paul Ryan. Our big panel tackles that tonight.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for staying with us tonight.

Senator Rand Paul, I guess you could say he`s having his moment in the
spotlight. He can`t do enough interviews right now. Paul`s 13-hour
talking filibuster is earning him praise from Republicans and just has the
country talking.

Rand Paul, think about this, has been running his mouth. His buddies
in the Senate were quietly blocking confirmation of Kaitlin Halligan,
President Obama`s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. It was a silent filibuster. We`ve heard of them, haven`t we?

All Senate Republicans had to do was withhold votes to block
Halligan`s nomination for the second time in two years. We`ve been down
this road before.

Unlike Rand Paul, they never had to face the American people on the
floor and explain why they didn`t want this to happen. And know who`s to
blame for all of that? Harry Reid.

But time out. Here`s what Harry Reid said on the Senate floor today.


SEN. HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: We should all reflect on what
happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a lot of
judicial nominations. This can be a Senate where ideas are debated in full
public view, and obstruction happens in full public view as well. Or it
can be a Senate where a couple of senators obstruct from behind closed
doors without ever coming to the Senate floor.


SCHULTZ: Harry, we know this speech. We know the drill. If you`re
going to go swimming, you`ve got to jump in the lake. Just don`t put your
toe in there. You want some numbers, folks? It`s about power. It`s not
about people. We`re talking about clotures, right? One hundred thirty
seven times, that`s the number from the 111th Congress.

Got more numbers. The 112th Congress, 115 times they pulled stunts
like this. We`ve got more numbers. How`s the judiciary working out for
us? Oh, we`ve only got 87 vacancies. That makes the courts run really,
really nice. But of course they don`t like the philosophy of the judges
that President Obama wants to put in there.

Reid can still use the Constitutional option. He can still change the
rules. Here`s the bottom line. We are furious as liberals in this country
for this man not doing what the American people wanted him to do. Senator
Reid, you can`t worry about the next session of Congress. You need to
worry about getting things done in this session, to keep liberals motivated
to do what we have to do in 2014.

Because you`ve kind of titillated us with all this special language a
couple of times, but you haven`t just jumped in and gotten after it.
Senator Reid, how many more chances are you going to give the obstructers?

First, it was dinner with the senators. Then lunch with Paul Ryan.
And now John Boehner is getting crabby.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So no more big top-down deals? No more Obama-
Boehner top-down deals or --

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Those haven`t worked very well.


SCHULTZ: The super panel weighs in on the president`s new outreach to
Republicans. >

The push for a minimum wage hike gets a major boost from a big-time
name. That story ahead.

And later, Michael Kelly, the star of the Netflix political thriller
"House of Cards," on the future of his hit series.


MICHAEL KELLY, ACTOR: You seem far too relaxed. You shouldn`t be.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator, how`d the meeting go?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Just fine. Fine. Great. Wonderful.


SCHULTZ: Well, last night the president broke bread with a dozen
Republican senators over a two-hour dinner at the Jefferson Hotel in
Washington. The reviews, while lacking specifics, pretty positive.


SEN. BOB CORKER (R), TENNESSEE: It was very respectful. I think
people -- I think the president probably walked away saying that it was one
of the best meetings he had been involved in probably since he`s been here.
And I think people on our side, the 12 senators that were there, felt like
there was a lot of sincerity and straightforwardness.


SCHULTZ: All right. As NBC`s First Read Blog reports, the overall
suggestion from the dinner was that President Obama would have to give
cover for any cuts in Medicare while the Republicans would have to pony up
additional revenue to get it. But not all lawmakers were clued into what
the White House has already offered, according to First Read.

One senator told us that he learned for the first time the actual cuts
the president has put on the table. Leadership hadn`t shared that list
with them before? Huh? So where`s the Republican leadership? At this
point not in the picture.

And John Boehner and McConnell`s refusal to cut a deal with President
Obama on higher revenues, the president is going around them in hopes of
building a bipartisan consensus with others. The move did not go


BOEHNER: This week we`ve gone 180. Now he`s going to -- after being
in office now for four years, he`s actually going to sit down and talk to
members. I think it`s a sign, a hopeful sign. And I`m hopeful that
something will come out of it.

But if the president continues to insist on tax hikes, I don`t think
we`re going to get very far.


SCHULTZ: Earlier the president had lunch at the White House with
Congressman Paul Ryan, chair of the House Budget Committee, and its ranking
Democrat, Chris Van Hollen.


REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: We had a good lunch, a good
conversation, a good meal. And I think it was a good spirit. I think what
the president`s trying to do is engage as many people as possible in this


SCHULTZ: OK. I`m joined tonight by Democratic strategist Tara
Dowdell, and also Chris Kofinis with us tonight, and John Nichols,
Washington correspondent of "the Nation" magazine.

I think Americans, all they want to know, the liberals, the
progressives who voted for President Obama and went out there and did all
the foot soldier work to get him re-elected -- all they want to know is did
you serve up the big three? Chris Kofinis, how important of an issue is

CHRIS KOFINIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, it`s going to be a pretty
big issue. I guess there`s two ways to look at it. The president, in
order to get a big deal, is going to have to propose some type of
entitlement changes. The problem is as soon as he proposes entitlement
changes, there are people on the left and progressives like yourself and
others who are going to get very upset and angry about why are we doing
this, especially if the Republicans aren`t willing to put real revenues on
the table.

So I have a hard time believing at that dinner last night, unless the
wine was really, really good, that Republicans were really proposing any
type of serious revenues that would justify a credible discussion about
entitlement changes.

SCHULTZ: Tara, are you surprised by the GOP reaction?

TARA DOWDELL, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I`m surprised that it was
actually as positive as it was. But I do think, ultimately, this is the
right thing for the president to do. The bottom line here is whether we
like it or not, he needs GOP support in order to move his agenda forward.
And he has some big ticket items that he wants to move forward, such as
immigration reform.

Now, whether this will yield or bear fruit in the end, that remains to
be seen. But remember, D.C. is a town that`s built on relationships. And
these guys are used to being wined and dined. And many of them in the past
have sponsored and co-sponsored bills that have called for closing tax
loopholes. So he does need to focus and remind them of that and try to see
if he can use the old adage, no permanent friends, no permanent enemies,
only permanent interests.

SCHULTZ: Well, John Nichols, how does this dinner turn into action?
When you have ideologically two parties that are bent on keeping what they
fought for in the election. You`ve got the Republicans who say no more
revenue. You have the Democrats, progressives out there leaning on the
president, saying don`t touch the big three, because they`re not the
problem. Where does it end up?

JOHN NICHOLS, "THE NATION": Well, I don`t know where it ends up. And
I don`t think anyone does, including the president. But I think what the
president`s done here is very interesting. He`s harkened back to an older
kind of politics, and that is where strong presidents who have a mandate,
and this president does have an electoral mandate, reach around the
leadership of the opposition party into its ranks.

President Obama knows that 60 to 80 Republicans in the House have
broken with the majority to vote for issues, storm aid, things like that,
that Democrats favor. He also knows that in the Senate there are a number
of senators who are very uncomfortable with the sort of constant battle
that`s been going on. So I think he`s trying something here. But I think
it is very, very important that this president not play the big three cards
at this point.

If he does, he`ll get nothing.

SCHULTZ: Chris, what do you make of some of these senators didn`t
even know what the president had put on the table? Number one, it`s on the
website. So they`re not doing their homework. But that had not been
communicated by leadership of the Republican party to these senators that
had dinner, some of them that had dinner with the president.

KOFINIS: Yeah. To be honest, I find that really hard to believe. If
they didn`t get it themselves, I have a hard time understanding how they
didn`t get it from their staff. You know, putting that aside, I think what
ends up happening in these situations, even amongst senators, they get
awestruck sitting down with the president. And knowing a few of these
senators in my time, they do like to be stroked.

And in this case I think the president -- it was a smart strategy.
Sitting down with Republicans, members of Congress, is not a bad thing.
It`s a good thing. It`s part of the job. I think reaching out and trying
to find common ground is a smart strategy.

SCHULTZ: Tara, how could they not know what the cuts were on the
table? How could leadership not share it? Is it like they`re living in a
bubble and they just don`t want to do a deal, so don`t involve everybody?

DOWDELL: I think that there`s still a lot of obstructionists out
there. And John Boehner is one of the main ones. And it would not
surprise me one bit if he didn`t share it with his -- with his members.
But with the Senate, I find it a little suspect that they didn`t know. I
mean, the president is on television all the time talking about his agenda,
his ideas and his concepts.

So that part is a bit suspect to me. But I will say this: I do think
that the president needs to continue to kind of work around the leadership.
Because Mitch McConnell, remember, he`s the guy that said, look, my number
one goal is to make him a one-term president. So I wouldn`t put it past
him that he`s not necessarily communicating.

SCHULTZ: John Nichols, they also talked about gun legislation last
night. And I don`t think any of those Republicans are going to be warming
up to anything that the president has been talking about as of late. Are
you optimistic something`s going to get done on that front?

NICHOLS: I think on background checks, there`s a lot of movement.
And clearly there`s been a big effort in the last few days to communicate
that background checks are very, very popular in the states where some of
these senators are from. So, you know, clearly that`s a place where
something could happen.

But this becomes the complexity of Washington, Ed. These members of
Congress, senators and House members, have so many, many different ways
that they want to go at things, so many different issues in play. The
president may be able to cut a deal with them on something. But he has to
be very, very careful not to cut a deal, say, on guns that barters away
some of Medicare.

SCHULTZ: Tara Dowdell, Chris Kofinis, John Nichols, great to have you
on THE ED SHOW. Thanks so much.

A major CEO and Nancy Pelosi, you know what they want to do? They
want to raise the minimum wage to 10 dollars and 10 cents an hour.

And Netflix is changing the way people watch television. Michael
Kelly of "the House of Cards," he`s coming up on THE ED SHOW. Stay with


SCHULTZ: Of course here on THE ED SHOW, we love hearing from our fans
on Facebook and Twitter. And many of you are praising the president of the
United Stats for signing the Violent Against Women Act, which Republicans
had obstructed for a year.

On Facebook, Sonny Rodriguez writes, "damn it, it took the Congress
and House all this time to pass a bill that should have been a no-brainer.
And yet here it is."

Vickie Hageman says, "what a wonderful day for the women`s movement.
Thank you, Mr. President."

And Don Wuerl writes, "violence has no place in civilized society.
Those who voted against it should feel like morons."

Go to our Facebook page now and you can get in on the conversation.
Don`t forget to like THE ED SHOW when you`re there. And we are coming
right back.



REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), MINORITY LEADER: This week, George Miller and
Senator Harkin introduced an increase in the minimum wage. When we
increased it in 2007 in our first 100 hours, it was the first time it had
been increased in 11 years. It`s time for it to be increased again.


SCHULTZ: Hear hear. Nancy Pelosi supporting the Fair Minimum Wage
Act of 2013. This new bill would raise the federal minimum wage over 10
dollars an hour to 10.10. It would also provide adjustments on a cost of
living basis, which of course is a big deal. The bill also is really great
for business. Costco CEO Greg Jelinek, he came out in support of the bill
saying, quote, "we know paying employees good wages makes good sense for
business. We pay a starting hourly wage of 11 dollars and 50 cents an
hour. And we are still able to keep our overhead costs low. We know it`s
a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and
maximize employee productivity, commitment, and loyalty."

No doubt about it. Jelinek knows when people have more money in their
pockets it`s good for business. Currently full-time workers making minimum
wage, they`re earning just over 15 grand a year. This bill of course would
bring it to 21,000. That would be a 6,000 dollar raise. All good for
folks. It would go right back into the economy.

It`s estimated in 2009 the minimum wage increase resulted in 5.5
billion dollars in new consumer spending. The increase, as I said, it goes
right back into the economy. What`s wrong with that? Nothing.

Except sometimes owners get writer`s cramps. They just don`t want to
sign the check if it`s minimum wage going up. It`s no surprise Costco
pulled in a record 1.7 billion dollars in profit last year. They have a
reputation of taking care of their employees and their customers.

Meanwhile, this bill is long overdue. You know, over the last 40
years, minimum wage has only increased from two dollars an hour to 7.25 an
hour. Over 40 years? Any American worker who works over 40 hours a week
deserves at least 10.10 an hour. But of course the Republicans, they don`t
see it that way.


SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I don`t think the minimum wage law
works. I want people to make a lot more than nine dollars. Nine dollars
is not enough. The problem is that if you can`t do that by mandating it in
the minimum wage laws. Minimum wage laws have never worked in terms of
helping the middle class attain more prosperity.


SCHULTZ: Tell that to Costco. Marco Rubio`s buddies on Wall Street,
they`re doing just fine right now. The Dow closed at another record high
today. It`s time for the folks who take a shower after work to get a
raise. Support that bill.

Tonight in our survey, I asked you was Senator Rand Paul`s rhetoric
during his filibuster dangerous? Ninety one percent of you say yes; nine
percent of you say no.

Coming up, Michael Kelly, star of the hit show "House of Cards," he is
here tonight. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: In the big finish tonight, politics is a dirty business. It
hit a new low. And they got a show out -- a new show out there that just
shows how dirty it can be. And it is a dandy. "House of Cards" is a 13-
part series about a ruthless Democratic whip, Congressman Frank Underwood,
played by Kevin Spacey. Now, Underwood will do anything to get what he
wants. And he understands how power works in Washington.


KEVIN SPACEY, ACTOR: Your absolute unquestioning loyalty.


SPACEY: Do not misunderstand what I mean by loyalty.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anything. Name it, Frank.

SPACEY: You seem far too relaxed.


SPACEY: You shouldn`t be.


SCHULTZ: This series is a Netflix original. And all 13 episodes of
season one were released at once. It`s a move that`s being called
revolutionary. Netflix is spending 100 million dollars on the project.
And production on season two, which will soon be under way.

Our guest is Doug Stamper. He`s the chief of staff of the powerful


KELLY: What`s that?

SPACEY: What`s what?

KELLY: Is that a hickey? Are you whoring around again?

SPACEY: No. I have a girlfriend.

KELLY: You mean your little office romance.

SPACEY: What do you know about that?

KELLY: When it comes to your life, Peter, and what I know about it,
you should assume that there`s no such thing as a secret.


SCHULTZ: That sounds about right. There`s no such thing as a secret,
especially in Washington. Let`s bring in actor Michael Kelly from "House
of Cards." Great to meet you.

KELLY: Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

SCHULTZ: This had to be exciting for you as a professional actor, to
be on the cutting edge of something that Netflix is doing, which is
adjusting to viewer habits and family ways now.

KELLY: Yeah. It`s really interesting in the way that people are
taking this show. And it`s great as an actor to be able to be on the
cutting edge and to be the first people who put it out there, who put
something out there.

SCHULTZ: What kind of response are you getting from it?

KELLY: Incredibly positive. It`s been -- I think the word that I
keep hearing is "addictive." It`s addictive. You know, it`s the most
addicting show I`ve ever watched. And they`re watching all of them very

SCHULTZ: Well, yeah. They get it on the weekend. They go from one
series to the next series. How big is this going to get, do you think?

SCHULTZ: I think it`s pretty big now. And I think it`s only going to
get bigger. Everyone keeps talking about the word of mouth on the show,
and everyone just keeps watching it and then telling someone else, and then
they`re watching it and they tell someone else. Because it`s immediately
available, it just makes it so much --

SCHULTZ: Revolutionary, do you think?

KELLY: I think so.

SCHULTZ: Now, the character that you play is pretty ruthless. Did
you -- how did this all come about? Did you research --

KELLY: No. You mean, a particular person? No. The character`s not
based on anyone. I did talk with a chief of staff to a very prominent
politician, but I don`t want her, for a second, to think that I based the
character on her in any way. The character was very much on the paper. Bo
Wiliman`s the writer, an incredible writer, an incredible writing staff.

But he was very much there to play.

SCHULTZ: The series is dark and engrossing. And it`s getting plenty
of buzz. Why do you think the story is resonating so strongly when there`s
so many people in this country that hate Washington?

KELLY: It certainly gives them more reasons to hate, I think -- hate
Washington. But it also I think shows a very interesting side of politics
in Washington, and shows you many things you that don`t know and some
things that obviously aren`t true.

SCHULTZ: But why do you think people are connecting with this?

KELLY: I think because it`s a great -- it`s such a great story. And
the characters are so interesting. And the characters are all so well
rounded in the way they interact with one another. There`s just so many
great things about this show, the writing and the cinematography and
Fincher and Spacey. You have all these amazing elements into a television
show that you can just watch when you want.

SCHULTZ: It`s pretty intense, isn`t it?

KELLY: Yes, it`s really intense..

SCHULTZ: Did you like that part of it?

KELLY: I did. I very much enjoyed it.

SCHULTZ: Do you think it`s real? Do you think it really parallels
life in Washington?

KELLY: You know, I think to a certain extent, some things do, the way
they`re portrayed on the show. And I think that in any business, in my
business, in your business, you know, and politics, people will do a favor
for someone and those favors are quite often reciprocated. Not that they
absolutely have to be. But I think that favors are done. And it kind of
does show a lot of that, which is pretty interesting.

SCHULTZ: What did you want to accomplish on camera? On screen? What
did you want to do?

KELLY: I wanted to do what Bo, the writer, had said to me in the
beginning. He said, I want everyone to, at the end of season one, say who
is this guy? What is this guy about question, he said. So that`s what I
really wanted to sort of achieve. And obviously do the best job I --

SCHULTZ: Looking forward to season two?

KELLY: I cannot wait to start.

SCHULTZ: Is there a script? You`ve already visited with the writers?

KELLY: No, I visited the writer`s room. Bo said -- I said I want to
come by. He said, yeah, just you can`t look at the white boards, which are
all over the whole room. I said OK, I promise. And I got there, and they
were all covered with black felt. And I said -- you didn`t trust me?

SCHULTZ: This is a heck of a commitment, 100 million dollars by

KELLY: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: It`s pretty amazing. Well, congratulations. It`s got to be
-- career-wise, to be on something new and different and be so big, it`s
got to be pretty cool.

KELLY: It sure is.

SCHULTZ: Michael Kelly, nice to meet you. Good to have you on THE ED
SHOW. Thanks so much.

And that is THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW"
starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC ANCHOR: I know that that is the actor who plays
Stamper and not Doug Stamper himself, but just seeing him there, a cold
chill down my spine. He`s such a scary character and such a good show.


MADDOW: That was awesome. Thanks, Ed. Appreciate it, man.


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.>