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

The Ed Show for Monday, March 3, 2014

Read the transcript to the Monday show

March 3, 2014

Guest: Jack Jacobs, Bernard Sanders, James Dobson, Dylan Scott, Zerlina
Maxwell, Ben Gotschall


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A force under pressure is hunting on President

costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama yesterday offered mediation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody is shocked by the weakness of Obama`s

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That our leadership is perceived as weak.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America`s weakness is really becoming pervasive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: American weakness and withdrawals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So weak. It`s all matter in weakness.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want a president that`s going to look at
diploma strengths (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We want a peaceful resolution.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not to get us into or write a check that are --
you know what doesn`t want.

OBAMA: The Ukrainian people deserve the opportunity to determine
their own future.


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight folks.
Thanks for watching. Well, we`re back at it. It`s war talk again. Now,
we`re going to see the Republican Party get all invigorated about the
upcoming election because President Obama`s weak.

Republicans never miss an opportunity every time there is a major
foreign policy issue that evolves a possible situation where force might be
used quickly. Republicans, light them up. They trash the president.

After rushing troops entered Crimea, Republicans wasting no time
calling President Obama weak. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, he`s
one of the best at this. He ran to the cameras to slam the president.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Every time the president
goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin,
everybody`s eyes roll including mine. We have a weak and indecisive
president that invites ingression (ph). President Obama needs to do


SCHULTZ: Yeah. I wonder if Bin Laden is rolling his eyes. I think
his eyes are at the bottom of the sea somewhere. And not Gadhafi, he`s an
eye roller too, huh?

You know, it`s just not Lindsey Graham from South Carolina where they
hate the president anyway. His partner in crime John "I`m still pissed of,
I`m not president" McCain is also out criticizing President Obama. McCain
said the world, you know what, no longer believes in American strength.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: The people of Ukraine by the hundreds
of thousands went to a square in sub-freezing weather, saying that they did
not want to be part of Putin`s Russia, and that`s what it was all about.
And now that the Olympics are over immediately afterwards we now see the
occupation of Crimea. Why do we care? Because this is the ultimate result
of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America`s strength


SCHULTZ: More of the Bush doctrine being pushed by McCain and
company. It`s good Mr. Bam Bam Bam Maria (ph) never became president.
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. Well, he`s also out there jabbing the


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you think President Obama has been handling
relations with Russia versus how Vladimir Putin has been handling relations
with the United States?

REP. MIKE ROGERS, (R) MICHIGAN: Where I think Putin is playing the
chess and I think we`re playing marbles. And I don`t think it`s even


SCHULTZ: Chess and marbles? Congressman, you ever been in a war
room? You know exactly what goes on to the war room? You know, the
Republicans are even going to give President Obama the opportunity to even
navigate through this "crisis."

Now, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, it would seem to me
that Rogers would know a little bit better than going on national
television in calling the United States of America weak. Doesn`t that kind
of embolden the enemy?

War loving icon, John Bolton. That`s right. He`s always attacking
the president over the crisis in the Ukraine.


JOHN BOLTON, LAWYER: What we`ve got in Putin is a man with a
strategic vision and an autocratic mentality. In Obama, we`ve got a weak,
feckless, inattentive president who doesn`t -- not only doesn`t know what
America`s interests are, I don`t think particularly cares about American
national security. He`s devoted to transforming America domestically.

We can see this all over the world. American influence slipping,
slipping away in Ukraine, in Venezuela, in the Middle East and we will pay
the price of this for a long time unless people speak up.


SCHULTZ: Now folks, these are four examples right here, four examples
of Republicans where they never pass up the opportunity to trash the
president of the United States. Now, in the midst of all o this, here
comes President Obama just calling for some national unity to navigate
through all of this.


OBAMA: At this stage, there should be unanimity among Democrats and
Republicans that when it comes to preserving the principle that no country
has the right to send in troops to another country unprovoked, we should be
able to come up with a unified position that stands outside of partisan


SCHULTZ: Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry isn`t meant (ph) in
his words, he gave Putin a stern message on Sunday.


JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: The reason for this, David, is
because you just don`t invade another country on phony pretext in order to
assert your interests.


SCHULTZ: Interesting. I seem to remember this president invading a
country on completely cramped up pretext. Conservative policies, you know
what they`ve done, they have made us weaker, if we are weaker, when it
comes to foreign policy because right now we`ve got limited options.

Back in 2001, I believe it was President Bush who said he found Putin
to be very trustworthy.


man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.

We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a
man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.


SCHULTZ: Yes. Soul brother, where is it now? One meeting and Bush
must solve (ph) that Putin is a great guy. So it`s all President Obama`s

To say President Obama has been weak on foreign policy is flat out
wrong and it`s lying into the American people. President Obama has taken
out Osama bin Laden as he said he was going to do in Pakistan. Gadhafi in
Libya, he ain`t looking at anybody right now. And he`s working on a very
dangerous situation in Syria. But of course, the four that we showed you
earlier, they can`t wait to get into Syria.

He`s taking us out of Iraq which is what we voted for winding down the
war in Afghanistan which we have wanted for a long time. This is what the
American people voted for. Let`s not lose sight to that. American`s are
sick of war and of course we don`t know how to pay for it.

There is a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans when it
comes to confrontation. You see, Democrats are deliberate. They want to
talk about it before we do it, and oh by the way, can we pay for it? And
of course, Republicans still have the shoot from the hip mentality. In
fact, they refuse to mop up from the last confrontation.

Just look at what happened in the Senate last Thursday. Republicans
killed the largest veteran spending bill in decades. It failed via vote to
56 to 41, only two Republicans voted for the bill. Senator Bernie Sanders
wrote the bill. Here`s what have done.

It would have expanded healthcare. It would have expanded education.
It would have restored the cost of living increase. The bill would have
paid for reproductive services for over 2300 wounded troops and expanded
compensation for care givers. You know, care givers. You see those
commercials on TV about wounded warriors and can you pay 19 bucks a month?
God bless those people for what they`re doing, but the reason why that is
gaining strength in this country is because we`re not taking care of our
veterans legislatively the way we should.

This legislation was supported by nearly every veterans group.
Republicans voted against the bill because of what, money. It`s always
about the money, but it`s never about stuff in going to war, isn`t it?

The bill would cost over $21 billion in 10 years and I think it`s a
small price to pay for our veterans, don`t you? Republicans voted to send
troops to war. They should at least do the right thing and vote to take
care of them when they come home, but they just can`t feel it in their
belly, the way they can feel the hate for the president because we`re not
doing international intervention on the other side of the world right now.

We should also point out that Senator Lindsey Graham who is out
heckling right now about how the president is weak, he voted against the
bill for the veterans.

Now, here`s the trap. The trap is for these neocons that if we were
to do anything militarily, we`d instantly have to get involved in the
discussion in Congress about offsets and then of course we have to go back
to the social safety net of America which we`re trying to gut and of course
we can`t get a jobs but we can take care of anything home, it`s all about
Ukraine right now.

In this idea that President Obama has internationally harness the
United States because if we have done something in Syria, we`ve be in a
much better position right now. In fact, Putin might not even been doing
what he`s doing militarily in Crimea.

That is so wrong handed. It is highly speculative and it`s flat out
baseless. We voted for a diplomat. We voted for someone who put
coalitions together instead of shooting from the hip. But today, because
of what is unfolding with Putin, we`re reminded how reckless this country
has been and how reckless this country could be.

Yes, if we don`t stand up. The president of the United States
deserves the benefit of the doubt from all Americans right now to be on the
same page and to have an opportunity to navigate through what these people
are calling a crisis.

Putin may be somewhat justified in this move. There are 65 percent of
the people in Crimea who think that it`s not a bad deal. If we`re going to
have this idea that we have to support democracy in every corner of the
world, well, OK, but you rich folks, you better start paying up real soon.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think tonight`s
question. Do conservatives have any business calling President Obama weak
on foreign policy? 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
this show.

For more on this, let`s bring in Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Senator, good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) VERMONT: Good to be with you Ed.

SCHULTZ: You bet. I appreciate what you did for the veterans and
we`ll get to that in just a moment. But, I want your reaction to some
Republicans who are calling the president weak and saying that the United
States is not in the position to do anything when it comes to the situation
on the other side of the world.

SANDERS: Well, Ed, as you indicated, these are exactly the same guys
who told us to -- was absolutely necessary for us to go on to Iraq, to stay
in Afghanistan year after year, to run up a bill of somewhere around $5
trillion for those wars, a bill that was not to pay for, just put on the
credit card.

So, I have a real hard time as chairman, by the way, of the Veterans
Committee from hearing guys who are ready to rush up to war, rush up to war
in Syria, really concerned about Ukraine, but when it comes to the folks
back home, the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our
country who often came back wounded in body or wounded in spirit, somehow,
this very same guys who are prepared to spend any sum of money going to
war, well, they just don`t have the funds available to take care of folks
who are dealing with PTSD or dealing with traumatic brain injury or can`t
get the education that they will promise who are unable to get help in
terms of having the family and all other types of veterans needs that we`re
not providing right now.

So I got a real problem with that.

SCHULTZ: If we were to do anything militarily in the Ukraine, we know
where this would lead to, don`t we? I mean, it would be more conversations
about offsets. It would be more conversations about going after the social
safety net of America because we know damn well the Republicans aren`t
going to fore cut any extra cash for this.

SANDERS: Well, this is what we learned under the Bush administration. We
spend trillions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at the same time, Bush
gave huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country, ran up a
huge deficit. And then under Obama, the Republicans come back and they
say, "We have a terrible deficit. We`re going to have to cut social
security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, environmental protection, the
needs of the kids, nutrition programs because of this deficit."

So, if you`re asking me, do I think that same set of policies will
play out more money for defense and then rising deficits and then cut tax
on programs that middle class and working family`s needs, absolutely that
is what will happen.

SCHULTZ: What is going to happen to these veterans now senator if
they`re not going to get this kind of funding. There are a lot of veterans
in this country that are being under cut that are not being -- are
obligation were not living up to our obligations because of war and because
of budget cuts. And so, what does that say to the next generation that`s
thinking about a career in the military?

SANDERS: That`s a very important point. I mean, it says that if we
cannot keep faith with those people who are really hurting as a result of
their service to this country, I think you got to have a lot of young
people out there saying do I really want to make a career in the military.

I will tell you this Ed, and I didn`t really know this until I became
chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee. The cost of war is enormous.


SANDERS: I mean, you`re talking about people whose lives have been
shuttered. Their family`s lives have been shuttered. Their kid`s lives
have been shuttered. And if there`s any priority that the government of
the United States should have is you take care of those people first.

SCHULTZ: Senator, your thoughts on how the president is handling
this. And is it a crisis? I mean, the Russians, you can see while they`re
making this move, at least I can because they want to keep that base that
has been their. It`s their only military base to the open-water on the
world. They`re concerned about security as well. A lot of the people in
that country want them to be there. You have a country of divided
loyalties here. It`s a security call on Putin or is it an invasion?

SANDERS: I think what you have Ed, is as often the case with foreign
policy a very, very complicated issue. And usually, what the Republicans
do in complicated issue says, the only thing these people understand these
flaws, we`ve got to gear up, we`ve got to be tough. Yeah, that`s what goes
into Iraq, at huge cost of military lives and money. It kept us in
Afghanistan for 11 years. So, I would prefer to deal with the complicated
issue in a measured way serious international discussions about how we
proceed. But force, force should be the last option that we use.

SCHULTZ: So, you`re OK with the way the president is handling this
right now?


SCHULTZ: Senator Bernie Sanders, good to have you with us tonight
sir. Thanks so much.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the
screen. And share your thoughts with us on Twitter @Ed Show and on
Facebook. We want to know what you think.

Coming up, a license to discriminate. The Rapid Response Panel will
talk about who`s pulling the strings on the Right Wing recent anti-gay
legislation. And still ahead, hundreds of people were arrested at a
Keystone XL Pipeline protest outside the White House on Sunday. A member
of will join me to talk about why he doesn`t think their
message is being heard. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And it`s time now for the Trenders. Social media action is
out there. We appreciate the support. You can find us at,, at On the radio,
we`re there Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00, Sirius XM channel 127 and
liberal talk stations across the country and you can get my podcast at

The Ed Show social media nation has decided. We are reporting. Here
are today`s top Trenders voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When did you take a picture in the last

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, selfie destruction.

ELLEN DEGENERES, HOST: So, I thought we would try to break another
record right now with the most retweets of a photo. Bradley, we start it
out when you`re ready. Angie, Lupita.

Hey, that`s it. Look it out.

SCHULTZ: Ellen`s selfie wins best picture and crashes Twitter.

DEGENERES: We crash and broke Twitter. We have made history.

SCHULTZ: It`s broken.

DEGENERES: We are all winners tonight, that`s what it mean.

SQUIDWARD: Yeah. I`m a winner.

DEGENERES: Hashtag, Oscars. Hashtag, last (ph).

SCHULTZ: Hey, wait a minute. My next selfie could do the same thing
with team Ed Show`s help.

The number two trender, buzz kill.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 40 years ago, we`re talking about legalizing
marijuana. Good idea or a bad idea for California?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There would be no problem at all man.

GOV. JERRY BROWN, (D) CALIFORNIA: Ascertain that is OK, but there is
a (inaudible) go to extremes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) smoke is all enjoying, man.

SCHULTZ: California Governor Jerry Brown is off the pot.

BROWN: How many people can get stolen (ph) and still have a great
state or a great nation?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re king of a buzz kill.

BROWN: I think we need to stay alert. If not 24 hours a day, more
than -- some of the pot heads might be able to put together.

SCHULTZ: And today`s top trender, cutting remarks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the first budget in the 12 years that`s
not a budget based on war shooting (ph). You reset your whole enterprise
based on the new realities.

SCHULTZ: Conservatives put up a fight over defense cuts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What we`re trying to do is solve our financial
problems on the backs of our military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It isn`t me cutting the budget. It`s the
Congress`s decision on sequestration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This will invite. This will tempt. This will
encourage our adversaries to take actions against our interest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think in this very dangerous world we live in is
a serious mistake.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what we`re talking about is gradually reducing
our active duty strength by about 10 percent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s not enough (ph) money to keep world

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It cost money to give the worst police (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree with it.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight, Colonel Jack Jacobs, Medal of Honor
Recipient and MSNBC Military Analyst. Colonel, good to have with us


SCHULTZ: A lot of talk about the budget. Are these severe cuts and
will it have an impact?

JACOBS: Yeah, they are. I think they`re too severe and they will
have an impact. It`s interesting that we`re saving the most money of
course by cutting people. It`s the fastest way to save money, I mean,
money and business. So, I`ll be able to tell you that if you want to save
money today, cut people because you can cut overhead cost immediately. If
you want to cut programs, you`re not going to save money today. You might
save it down the road.

The bad news, of course, is that we are cutting it far below what we
need an order to man a force that can respond to crisis even small crisis.
And I think it`s interesting to note that the decision maker`s growth in
the Congress and out of the Congress who have decided that the budget will
be what it is are really the intellectual step children of none other than
Donald Rumsfeld who thought that you could replace people with machines and
you`d be able to make sure to control everything. And I think they`re both

SCHULTZ: So, we don`t fight the next war the way we fought the last
one. There is obviously evolutional changes that take place in defense and
also in offense. But does this put us in a position take for instance
right now that we would not be able to respond to something in the Ukraine?

JACOBS: I don`t think we`re going to respond.

SCHULTZ: I know we`re not going to. It doesn`t like with this
president, diplomatic and economic. But I`m talking about do we have the
hardware to put an option on the table that would be a ground force of some

JACOBS: Well, we wouldn`t use a ground force in any case. Whether we
have it or not, we would be -- we might be part of a ground force that
included NATO but we would not need massive numbers of people in order to
enforce anything in Ukraine if that`s what we opted to do along with our
allies. Whatever we wanted to do within reason, we could do without
people. But in actual fact, we`re not going to do any of that stuff
because it doesn`t make any strategic sense.

SCHULTZ: So, why is Putin testing us?

JACOBS: Well, I think he`s testing us less than he`s actually going
after something that he thinks is vitally important to his national

SCHULTZ: Of ports?

JACOBS: The port is -- you said it earlier in the previous segment,
it is his only year-round ice free port -- naval ports, the only route that
the navy has of getting through the Black Sea, through the Mediterranean,
and to the Atlantic in the winter.

SCHULTZ: And that`s critical?

JACOBS: It`s been critical forever. And as a matter of fact, even
after Ukraine became independent, the Russians maintain the port down
there. In the end, by the way, to jump ahead, I think that any solution to
the problem is going to be -- I bet you. A guarantee by everybody involved
including the west that Russia can keep its port there unmolested and
that`s what Putin was very much concerned about. Now, I`m not patting
Putin on the back.

SCHULTZ: Well, there`s a strategic move that he`s making.

JACOBS: Well, that why he`s done it. And all the rest of the
nonsense that you hear about Putin is not withstanding. The principle
reason for all of this was that he was terribly concerned about Ukraine
turning to the west and he`s losing his access to that particular port.
And to that extent, I think the EU has a lot to answer for here trying to
lure Ukraine and split it apart in order to -- and anger Putin. And that`s
why we (inaudible).

SCHULTZ: Do you think we can put economic sanctions on them that
would have an impact? For instance, delimitating him or expelling him for
a certain time from the G8. The rubble has dropped dramatically. They are
going to have some financial issues here in a big, big way after spending
all that money on the Olympics.

So, this is someone of a gamble by Putin as well, isn`t it?

JACOBS: Oh, yes. But he thinks that any restrictions will be short
lived and I think that they will be. And that further more, because of the
very close economic relationship between Russia on the one hand and all of
its allies. And Europe on the other, particularly Germany, that there
won`t be significant sanctions against them because the EU is vitally
interested in the continuous flow of fossil fuels particularly natural gas
from the east. There are close economic ties between Russia and Western

You know, it`s far away to us, but when you talk to Merkel for example
and say "Isn`t he a bad guy." "Yeah, he`s a bad guy on a different planet,
so we ought to knock him out of G8."


JACOBS: We don`t want to do that. And she is right about that. From
their standpoint, they don`t want to do that.

SCHULTZ: Russia is a customer to all of those European countries.

JACOBS: There is.

SCHULTZ: It`s a real economic balance here that has -- it`s a fight

JACOBS: They are inextricably intertwined and they are not going to
be the kind of strictures on Russia that will make like difficult for
Western Europe. I don`t think that`s going to happen.

SCHULTZ: All right. Colonel Jack Jacobs, thanks for joining us
tonight. I appreciate it.

JACOBS: Thank you Ed.

SCHULTZ: Coming up, discriminatory religious freedom bills have been
popping out all over the country. The Rapid Response Panel weighs in on
the dark money forces behind the anti-gay legislation.

And late, those living on the route of the Keystone XL Pipeline fear
lawmakers aren`t listening as public comment period ends this weekend.
I`ll talk to a Nebraska rancher Ben Gotschall who says his elective
representative refuse to meet with Keystone protesters.

But next, I`m taking your questions on Ask Ed Live just ahead here on
the Ed Show on MSNBC. We are right back


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Love hearing from our viewers,
Ask Ed, our segment tonight.

First question comes from user Svasil, OK. "What can be done to bring
rural, voting wage-earners to the right side?"

If you look at the election results at rural America, it`s getting
closer every year and gauge, guns and God of course has been the rural
issues of the Republicans that had been able to be successful with but it`s
getting closer every year. Stick with workers, stick with the family
issues and I guarantee you that they will come to the Democrats, the
Progressive side.

Our next question is from Philip. He wants to know, "How did you like
the Oscars? Did you pick any of the winners?"

I didn`t pick any of the winners but I thought Ellen was tripping. I
wish she`d do it every year. And surprisingly enough to maybe of some you,
I thought the song played by Pink, sung by Pink "Somewhere over the
Rainbow" from the Wizard of Oz I thought was pretty cool. I don`t know
why. I just thought that was really, really be can she sing or what?

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel coming up.

SUE HERERA, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Sue Herera with your CNBC Market

Stocks sink on worries about Russia`s intervention into Ukraine. The
DOW falls 153 points that`s off of the low, the S and P off 13, the NASDAQ
shed three.

Factory activity rose more than expected last month thanks for a
rebound in new orders. Meanwhile, demand for services help lose consumer
spending in January. The gain was stronger than forecast.

And sales at GM and Ford slump last month but the declines weren`t as
steep as expected. Priceler sales jumped 11 percent.

And that`s it from CNBC, we are first in business worldwide and we`re
back in a moment.



OBAMA: The ability to make your own choices rather than have powerful
interests make them for you is too important to our future to be undone by
politicians who are stuck in the past. In some states, they`re so far in
the past they`re even pushing laws to legalize segregation based on sexual

As Democrats, we`ve let the other side define the word freedom for too
long. Freedom is the ability to go into a store or a restaurant without
the fear that you`d be refused service because of who you are or who you


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Anti-Gay Conservatives are trying to hide behind the word freedom.
The president knows it, Democrats know it, we saw it last week when Arizona
Senate Bill 1062 made national news. Proponents tried to paint it as a
religious freedom bill.

Let`s call it what it really was, a license to discriminate. Senate
Bill 1062 would have allowed businesses to use religion as an excuse to
legally refuse service to gay and lesbian Americans and people of other
faith or how they looked.

Folks, President Obama got it right. This is modern day segregation.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may have vetoed the bill, but the fight is far
from over. In the past couple of years, discriminatory religious bills,
religious freedom bills have been popping up all over the country.
Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, a bunch of them in
South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Tennessee, Utah and Oklahoma have
all seen it and most of those bills have failed and many -- last week, just
with the public outcry that took place with the bill in Arizona.

The recent wave of religious freedom laws is no coincidence. The
American Religious Freedom Project along with the Alliance Defending
Freedom had been rallying forces behind these bills. These are the
proponents. The push has been coming from James Dobson. Dobson is best
known as the founder of Focus on the Family, Dobson is also the co-founder
of Alliance Defending Freedom which consulted on anti-gay legislation in
both Arizona and Ohio. James Dobson has been fighting against civil rights
under the banner of religious freedom for some time.

Listen to what Dobson said about marriage equality almost 10 years

JAMES DOBSON: How about group marriage, or marriage between daddies
and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?
Anything allegedly linked to civil rights will be doable, and the legal
underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Now, that`s more less
a prophecy, not a divine prophecy, but a prediction.

SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight on our Rapid Response Panel Zerlina
Maxwell of and Dylan Scott, Reporter for Talking Points Memo.

Dylan, we`ll start with you first tonight. You wrote up a good piece
on this on Talking Points Memo. How closely are these religious freedom
groups working with state legislators just -- lack of a better term,
quarterback these old things through?

DYLAN SCOTT, TALKING POINTS MEMO: Well, I think the bill speak for
themselves, Ed. A lot of them share similar language, and as we reported
this year the alliance for defending freedom group that you mentioned was
on the ground in Ohio and Arizona which were two of the first bills that
were introduced this cycle.

And so you have that kind of foundation laid where these groups were
kind of in on the ground floor and then you have sort of organic grassroots
process where a lawmaker in Missouri seize the bill in Arizona and says, "I
can more or less copy that word for word and bring it over to my state."

SCHULTZ: Zerlina, doesn`t this since united just opened up the
floodgates for this type of legislation?

ZERLINA MAXWELL, THEGRIO.COM: Absolutely. And I think that if we did
an overlay of all of the maps, right, so (inaudible) bonds of legislation
on standard ground or gun rights and also the infringements on some women`s
rights. Many of these things are going to line up because you`ll see in
many of these states my legislation is being given to legislators and
they`ve introduced it and propose these bills without making any changes or
even reading the legislation.

And so the bottom line here is that this group is promoting religious
freedom for a very, very small portion of Christians based on the promise
that if you`re Christian then you must be opposed to gay marriage and
that`s not actually true. A lot has changed since 2005 and that quote that
you just played.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, I wonder if we`re going to see a turning point
here that now business is going to be the driver of freedom. I mean, I
would like to think that Arizona would have done the right thing with or
without the Super Bowl. But the pushback, Dylan, was so strong from the
business community there was going to be an economic impact and that`s the
last thing any governor wants to have in his or her state. Was this a game
changer? This veto and what`s the future of it?

SCOTT: I think so. I think you saw the way that the business
community rallied against the bill in Arizona and for Republican governors,
Conservative, Moderate whatever they fall, the business community is
somebody that they have to pay heed to and when you have them united in the
way that they were, you see what the result was in Arizona and already I
spoke with the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce there`s a bill as you`ve said
there and they`re already speaking out against the bill. You`ve seen it in
Mississippi as well with the bill that`s currently under consideration in
that state.

So as long as the business community is alive with the gay rights
community it`s hard to see these bills moving forward.

SCHULTZ: What do you think of that Zerlina? Is this a turning point
on legislation like this? I mean there is a pushback and even some of
these Republicans that said that they really did want to vote for it, they
thought it was good for their caucus .


SCHULTZ: . obviously they`re looking for some media cover on that one
that they`re really not that bad. I mean, they did it the wrong way if
they want to get it done. Let`s put it that way. But does this change the
game on how these are going to be presented and debated in the future?

MAXWELL: I definitely think so. I think this is all about the money
and I think that the fact that Delta Airlines came out and put a statement
opposing the laws in a number of different states including Georgia because
as you know their base is in Atlanta and so I think that, you know, just
like the civil rights movement. The justification, the basis for the end
of segregation was interstate commerce, it wasn`t out of the good faith of
the hearts and minds of Americans, it was because of the money and the
business interest back in the 60s.

And so I think that we`re seeing that again here. And I think that,
you know, anyone who wants to support those bills that infringes rights on
some Americans in the name of the rights of a very small minority of
Christians, because again just being Christian does mean you`re opposed to
marriage equality. And so I think that they`re on the wrong side of this
issue and like Dylan said, as long as the businesses or interest and equal
rights are on the same side they will continue to lose.

SCHULTZ: And, Dylan, it`s discrimination no matter how you look at it
to tell someone that they can`t be served in a public place, to render
judgment on someone based on even how they look. How do the Conservatives
going to walk away from this? How are they going to be able to generate
popular thinking with society just turning so much against what they have

SCOTT: Well, that`s a question that I don`t think they have a good
answer for now and they`re continuing to search for. I think they were
surprised by the backlash to the Arizona bill and so in a way they`re
starting to regroup. To their credit, I think they`ve been transparent
that this is a reaction to the court rulings and the popular movements that
have advanced marriage equality across the country and now they`re trying
to figure out how they respond to that and .


SCOTT: . how they sell it to people.

SCHULTZ: Well, I`ll tell you how they`re going to respond to it.
They`re going to fund up big and they`re going to sell more fear. That`s
how it`s going to work.

Great to have you with us tonight Zerlina Maxwell and Dylan Scott,
thank you so much.

Coming up, from misinformation to avoidance, Benjamin Gotschall of will join me to talk about how lawmakers are dodging
opponents to the proposed XL Keystone Pipeline. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight, the outrageous Alex Jones and
Tucker Carlson.

Carlson and Jones say they`ve blown the hood off. The Democrats KKK
movement part-time news host in 9/11 Truth have joined forces to bemoan the
white man`s persecution.


ALEX JONES, RADIO HOST: We all had been conditioned as Republicans or
as Libertarians or as white people to be, "Oh my gosh, we`re loving, you
know, we`re not racist, yes please, you know, do whatever. I`m sorry I`m
white." beat ourselves with whips on the head. And then, meanwhile, the
Democrats have just recreated the Ku Klux Klan movement, but they`ve done
it with minorities.

TUCKER CALRSON, RADIO HOST: Yeah, there`s a lot of truth in that. I
wish there weren`t. The federal government take sides and hands out spoils
based on your skin color.


SCHULTZ: Really? Their contention is divided between racism and
baseless comments. Americans have all colors receive government

Jones and Carlson would love to erase, fade away the data. If these
two talkers believe the KKK caper is the winning strategy, they can keep on


SCHULTZ: Welcome to the Ed Show.

This is the story for the folks who take a shower after work.
Opposition against the Keystone XL pipeline is heating up down the stretch.
More than 300 anti-Keystone protesters were arrested Sunday afternoon
outside the White House. It`s the latest push by environmentalist to
convince the Obama Administration, actually the President himself, to
reject the Canadian oil pipeline.

Members of, a group of people organizing and an
effort to stop the propose pipeline from being built in their state, told
me the lobbying effort and misinformation campaign are two of the biggest
concerns they have.

One example they talked about was an e-mail from Congressman Lee
Terry`s Campaign Manager.


his supporters saying that their electricity bills will go up unless the
Keystone XL Pipeline is approved. That is outrageous.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is outrageous.

SCHULTZ: So the fear tactic is out there as well.

KLEEB: Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah.

SCHULTZ: You were told that your electricity rates are going to go up
unless the pipeline is built?

KLEEB: Yes, outrageous. If that`s the type of tactics that not only
representative Terry uses but (inaudible) and Americans for prosperity all
of those groups on the far right who don`t care actually about protecting
framers and ranches. They`ll put them in their political ad. But -- when
it comes time when the rubber the hits the road where are they? Have a
single Republican leader stood with us throughout this time? No.


SCHULTZ: The e-mail from Kevin Conroy, Terry`s Campaign Manager,
alleges energy prices have risen over the last few years, they claim prices
will continue to rise if the Keystone XL Pipeline isn`t approved by the
President. It says, "I`m proud of the work Lee Terry is doing to lower
energy cost at home by passing Keystone XL." But it doesn`t stop there,
the group also express how they feel their elected officials aren`t taking
them seriously even when they`ve made trips to Washington to see the
lawmakers who represent them.


JIM TARNICK, KEYSTONE XL OPPONENT: I used to think that whoever you
elected into office, you know, they were working for you.

SCHULTZ: For you.

TARNICK: For the guy that got him in there.

SCHULTZ: That`s not the way it`s happening?

TARNICK: Yeah, I was the guy. I was that na‹ve, I was that na‹ve.
To tell you him -- we went to Washington, (inaudible) he said we went
Senator Johanns` first comment to us was, "I don`t care about you and the


SCHULTZ: On September 19th Executive Director Jane
Kleeb was bullied by Republican lawmakers at a House hearing on Keystone


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What qualifies you? We`ve got three experts. Do
you own a graduate level degree in any relevant field?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you hold a graduate degree in any relevant

KLEEB: I have a degree in .

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let her answer the question.

KLEEB: The International Training and Education.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never take a chemistry course?

KLEEB: No, sir I didn`t not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never take a physics course?

KLEEB: Have you ever worked on a farm?


SCHULTZ: The public comment period following the State Department
study on the pipeline ends on Friday.

Ben Gotschall joins us tonight, Bold Nebraska`s Energy Director. Ben,
good to have with us.

I`d like you to, if you could, for our audience describe the kind of
representation you think you`ve had when you have shown your concerns about
the Keystone XL Pipeline.

range from inconsistent to down right combative.

Early on in the fight when it look like the pipeline was a done deal
and the president would approve it. We had Senator Johanns on our side
standing up for the sand hills and the aquifer. And even our own Governor
wrote a letter in opposition to the pipeline.

But then once it look like we were gaining momentum it just was kind
of a pile on for the other side, you know, the efforts were lead by Lee
Terry in a lot of cases proposing amendments and bills to rubber stamp
approval of the pipeline. So it`s been kind of a roller coaster ride for
us with our leaders in Washington.

SCHULTZ: And why do you think the governor and Senator Johanns were
against it before they were for it?

GOTSCHALL: I think that they were against it because they thought
that it was going to be approved and that they didn`t -- definitely they
don`t want to be on the same side as Obama on that. And once he delayed it
and denied it in 2012 they completely flip flopped and you saw the governor
and the senator then wholeheartedly embracing the project even though the
major concerns that the majority of Nebraskan`s had were still not

SCHULTZ: So, at this point, after the environmental impact studies
have come out. There`s still 75 miles as I understand that it has to be
hooked up that land owners have said, "No, we don`t want this."

What kind of representation are you getting now? Do you think that
there are more after, here are your points of contention at this point or
if they all decided they don`t want anything to do with you?

GOTSCHALL: Well, it seems like they`re doubling down on their same
bad position. We feel the lawsuit that was awarded to Nebraska citizens a
couple of weeks ago that ruled the citing law on Constitutional, our
Attorney General and our Governor have appealed that and Lee Terry is out,
you know, saying that was a bad decision, other candidates for some of
those federal offices are saying that it was a bad decision and that
they`re going to continue to fight for approval on the pipeline. So, it
still -- if not anything it`s getting worst.

SCHULTZ: Will this public comment period have a impact on the issue
as you see it?

GOTSCHALL: I believe so. Yes, I think the public comment period is
very important and it gives folks a chance to weigh in on the issue from
all across the country. And I think that from what I`ve seen folks from
all across the country all have their different reasons to be concerned
about this issue and I`ve been encouraged by a lot of the support that
we`ve had for our efforts here in Nebraska from people all across the
country and all across the world.

SCHULTZ: What it would mean to you and your ranch, Ben, if the
Keystone XL Pipeline was approved and it`s going to be on your land?

GOTSCHALL: Well, the pipeline wouldn`t actually cross my land, but I
would be downstream and very near to the pipeline route and we all mostly
drink from the Ogallala aquifer here in Nebraska and so affecting that
drinking water is going to be a big deal and all I need to make a living is
sunlight and water and grass to feed my cows. And if that water is damaged
or poisoned and if that land is damaged my family, my neighbors, other
folks in Nebraska can`t make a living.

SCHULTZ: What would you say to the president of the United States if
you had a moment with him on this issue?

GOTSCHALL: Well, I would encourage him to step up if this is his
decision to make and I think Nebraskans and Americans have given him enough
reason to make this decision and this is actually one of the ways the only
areas that I agree with Lee Terry. I think the President should make a
decision and I think he should deny the pipeline. He doesn`t need
Congressional approval on this, he can be the people`s president that so
many people voted for him to be and it`s all on his court now and I think
he is the man for the job and that he should do it.

SCHULTZ: All right, from the Heartland in Nebraska, rancher from
Nebraska Ben Gotschall with us tonight here on the Ed Show. I appreciate
your time. Thank you so much for joining us.

That is the Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now. Good
evening, Rev.


Copyright 2014 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 Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>