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

The Ed Show for Monday, September 29th, 2014

Read the transcript to the Monday show

September 29, 2014

Guest: John Garamendi, Michael O`Hanlon, Heather Hurlburt, Dean
Obeidallah, Jon Ralston, Larry Cohen, Daryl Parks



mission -- destroy ISIL.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R-OH), HOUSE SPEAKER: At some point, somebody`s boots
have to be on the ground.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL, (R) LOUISIANA: This is a President who simply waited
while ISIS gathered strength.

BOEHNER: Maybe, we can get it enough of these forces trained and get them
on the battlefield. But somebody`s boots have to be there.

OBAMA: When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don`t call
Beijing, they don`t call Moscow. They call us.

BOEHNER: If I were the President, I probably wouldn`t have talked about
what I wouldn`t do.

SEN. RAND PAUL, (R) KENTUCKY: In the face of war, the President is just as


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good to have you with us tonight, folks. Thanks
for watching. We`re 35 days away from the midterm election. That means,
there could be a serious shift in power in Washington and yet we`re all
confused about what the American people really have their polls on. What
are we really concerned about?

Well, let`s start with war. You know, I think one of the qualities that
this country has developed is that we can consume a lot of things. Yet,
our attentions spend sometimes I think is about 25 seconds if we don`t like
the subject. So let`s put -- how long does it take you to read a Twitter
account? You read somebody`s Twitter account. Oh, it takes you about 20-
25 seconds.

Well, I`ve read Richard Angeles` Twitter account today and he wrote out
there that now the Kurds are upset with us, the people in Northern Iraq who
were a big linchpin to all of this defeating ISIS. Now, the Kurds are
upset with us in Northern Iraq because we`re not hitting ISIS hard enough.

So it`s militarily confusing. It`s budgetary confusing. It`s so
confusing. We can`t get a vote in Congress and know exactly what the hell
we`re going to do and we`re 35 days away from an election and who knows
what`s going to happen if the Neocons get control of the Senate.

It`s not the America that we want right now as I see it. What can fix all
of this is if Congress actually goes back and works for a living. That`s
what can start to fix all of this. If we can get everybody with skin in
the game including this guy, John Boehner. If he can get his caucus
together and find out exactly what they want to do.

Do they want to wipe out ISIS? Well, the best way to wipe them out is to
probably just nuke them, right?

We can`t do that. There might be a chain reaction. Well, he`s now talking
about boots on the ground. Well, why didn`t he talk about that before we
had a vote not too long ago? Everybody goes home.

And now, we`re not going to talk about it until next year and oh, by the
way, the Joint Chiefs of Staff says we`re going to have budgetary problems
here pretty soon on all of this. Do you feel real confident right now
about where we`re going? And you get to vote up on all of this in 35 days.

Let me start with some numbers tonight because I find these very, very
interesting. 72 percent, according to a brand new NBC News Wall Street
Journal poll, thinks that the United States will use ground troops against
ISIS. That`s right. That eventually, we`re going to get those boots to
the game. Three quarters of the country thinks that eventually we`re going
to be on the ground.

In a separate poll from CNN, the number 75 percent, that they think it`s
very likely or somewhat likely that the United States will end -- will send
ground troops in.

So does this mean that we`ve been solve at we`re going to get the right in
this thing is what we`re going to do. The CNN poll also shows that 60
percent of the American people opposed boots on the ground. The NBC News
poll shows that only 45 percent favor using troops in -- if military
commanders thinks that that`s the best way to defeat ISIS. 37 percent of
Americans opposed all of this.

Now, this is where the American people are right now and I think there`s a
tremendous amount of confusing numbers out there. These numbers haven`t
stopped Republicans from talking about boots on the ground. They`re all
home now. It`s interesting. They`re all home.

And now, they can blame Obama because this is setting up to be a political
rats nest just what it`s setting up to be the Democrats.

House Speaker John Boehner said Americans have no choice when it comes to
ground troops.


BOEHNER: The other day, now, I think it`s going to take more than
airstrikes to drive them out there. At some point, somebody`s boots have
to be on the ground. That`s the whole point. Listen, the President
doesn`t want to do that. If I were the President, I probably wouldn`t have
talked about what I wouldn`t do.

And maybe we can get enough of these force is trained and get them on the
battlefield. But somebody`s boots have to be there.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC HOST: And if no one else would step up, you
would recommend putting American boots on the ground?

BOEHNER: We have no choice. These are barbarians. They intend to kill
us. And if we don`t destroy them first, we`re going to pay the price.


SCHULTZ: Well, I`m curious to know who John Boehner`s military advice is
coming from. Who`s this expert in his ear that tells them that we can`t
get this done unless we have boots on the ground yet he wouldn`t even vote
on it. The guy who wants to put a vote off on ISIS until 2015 is calling
for boots on the ground since there`s no way we can do it without them?

Speaker Boehner needs to call Congress back if he feels that way and get
real American on the deal if that`s where he is. Boehner actually tried to
pin all the blame on President Obama for not calling back Congress.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Assuming you`re speaker next year, you want to have a vote
on a reservation, why not now?

BOEHNER: I`d be happy too.

OBAMA: Last night on my orders...

BOEHNER: The President, typically in a situation like this, would call for
an authorization vote and go sell that to the American people and send a
resolution to the Hill. The President hasn`t done that. He believes he
has the authority under existing resolutions to do when he can...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don`t agree?

BOEHNER: I think he does have the authority to do it but the point I`ve
been making is at this is a proposal that the Congress ought to consider.


SCHULTZ: Well, the point you`ve been making is that the President`s wrong
at no matter what he does. That`s the point you`ve been making, Speaker
Boehner. John Boehner, his job is to call Congress back into action in
weighing on this. It`s not President Obama`s job to call on the Congress.
The man who is in charge of the least productive Congress in American
history, it looks to me like he wants to give it that way.

There is one thing John Boehner did get right. ISIS does pose a threat to
Americans but we as a country have to decide how we`re going to deal with
it. If he thinks that airstrikes aren`t enough, he`s doing a little money
morning quarterback and then he`s act on from the stands.

On Sunday, President Obama admitted, U.S. intelligence underestimated ISIS.


STEVE KROFT, CBS HOST: How did they end up where they are in control of so
much territory? Was that a complete surprise to you?

OBAMA: Well, I think our head of the Intelligence Community James Clapper
has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking
place in Syria.

KROFT: He didn`t say that -- just say that we underestimated ISIL. He
said we overestimated the ability and the will of our allies, the Iraqi
army to fight.

OBAMA: That`s true. That`s absolutely true.


SCHULTZ: And that`s not good. And of course, what a great opportunity for
Senator John McCain to pontificate and jumped in. He couldn`t find the TV
camera fast enough and wait right after the President.


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: We`ve predicted this and watched it. It
was like watching a train wreck and warning every step of the way that this
was happening because a residual force would have stabilized the situation
and, of course, maybe had a break on Maliki. It is a direct result of our
failure to leave a residual force behind and when they say we couldn`t,
they are not telling the truth because I was over there with Lindsey Graham
and Joe Lieberman and we know it for a fact.

So -- And this here idea that somehow, we didn`t know that this was
happening, of course we knew it. We saw it happening.


SCHULTZ: It`s another great "I told you so" moment for the Republicans.
We knew a lot more than the President but we didn`t stepped in and say
anything. John McCain, he has remembered his intelligence vote on Iraq
back in 2003 was all bogus, wasn`t it? McCain voted for a war on faulty
intelligence that got us into this mess in the first place.

To McCain`s credit, he is calling for Congress to get in and vote on
military action in Syria and in Iraq. On Friday, the Chairman and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as I said was predicting that they`re going to have
budget problems here pretty soon. Isn`t that something we should talk
about? Not really because the Republicans, you see they love budget
problems when it comes to war because when they get to cut other stuff like
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Got to privatize everything, you

Boehner hasn`t addressed this budget problem and he`s waiting until 2015
and basically is playing politics with National Security, Monday morning
quarterback in every place he can go. It`s called the incompetence. And
as a country as I see it right now, we`re all over the map and the
President is trying to navigate through this as best he can and all hands
don`t seem to be on deck because you see, we have an election coming up and
the Republicans just can`t get enough of failure. Sad commentary, I know.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s
question, do you think bringing in ground troops will end the conflict
faster? 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.

For more, let me bring in Congressman John Garamendi who was with us here
in New York. He`s from California. He sits on the House Arm Services
Committee. Congressman, great to have you with us.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D) CALIFORNIA: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Your reaction to Boehner`s comment all of the sudden that we
can`t get his done without ground troops?

GARAMENDI: Well, first of all, he`s dancing. He`s dancing around his
responsibility. He`s the man that has the power to bring Congress back so
that we can debate this and get the facts about what`s happened, if we need
to know about whether we knew or didn`t know and what we should`ve known.
That`s how you do it through hearings.

But he didn`t. He didn`t call us back, hasn`t called us back and basically
said he is going to ignore taking this issue up in the lame-duck session
following the elections. That`s wrong.

SCHULTZ: What about the timing of that, John? What -- How troublesome is

GARAMENDI: Personally?


GARAMENDI: It`s very troublesome. This war goes on. December the 11th,
we run out of money. The continuing resolution that funds the government
only goes to December the 11th, at that point, yeah, our gates has a
problem. There`s no more money. So we have to take this issue up and in
taking up the money issue, we must take up the issue of this war.

SCHULTZ: So we could be invest of a major conflict, not knowing how to pay
for it. No -- by the way, there might be a shutdown, the government talk

GARAMENDI: Absolutely, it could happen.

SCHULTZ: OK. Do you think the President should step out and say,
"Congress, get back to work"? Should he do that?

GARAMENDI: It`s not his place to do that.

SCHULTZ: It`s not his place to do it but...

GARAMENDI: If he could, yes, he should ask us go back. "Come on, we need
to talk about this. We`re going to need talk about paying for this thing.
How much is this going to cost? How much of the deficit is going to

"We spend a trillion already in Iraq, here we go again."

SCHULTZ: What about the Kurds saying now -- and there`s -- they`re our
allies, OK. They are a big linchpin to all of this.

GARAMENDI: Absolutely.

SHCULTZ: . as far as ground troops and resources. Now, they`re upset
because we`re not hitting ISIS hard enough in Northern Iraq.

GARAMENDI: We should expect that. We should expect that from every side
because there`s not enough that we could do to save them, to advance their
military. If we bomb everyday, that still wouldn`t be enough. That`s just
the way this is going to work out.

SCHULTZ: What do you make of three quarters of the American people think
that eventually we`re going to have boots on the ground here?

GARAMENDI: I pray they`re wrong. I don`t want those boots on the ground.
We`ve been down this path, Ed.

We`ve seen lives lost. We`ve seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent to
what effect? To a continuation that`s something that`s going on for 1400

SCHULTZ: Congressman, stay with us. I want to bring in Michael O`Hanlon
with us tonight and also Heather Hurlburt, Program Director for the New
America. Great to have you with us.

Michael, what`s the danger in putting this up for a vote at this point? I
mean, we`re -- and clearly, if Boehner says he`s not going to address it
until 2015, hello? We`re out of money in the middle of December. Where
does that take us?

I worry about is that the vote could be No. And I don`t see any
alternatives but to address this threat and I think that`s the main worry.
I`m putting it very simply but it really boils down to that. I guess, you
know, Congress is already voting as the Congressman well knows on the
funding for the Syrian opposition. It`s already done so.

That amounts to a partial endorsement, a part of the strategy. And for
those of us who are nervous about the possibility of a No vote, one could
argue, that`s already adequate, a role for Congress at this juncture
especially since the 2001 and 2002 votes arguably apply. I think that`s
the counter argument. I admit to being torn on this subject but if you
want to put it out there, the danger is that Congress might vote No and
stop an operation and its tracks that is essential I think for our broader
security and first...

SCHULTZ: What about that, Congressman?

GARAMENDI: It could happen. It could happen.

SCHULTZ: And you think Boehner is afraid of that, possibly?

GARAMENDI: I`m not sure why he is afraid of but I know he has the
responsibility for us. The Constitution of the United States says that we
have the responsibility to declare war. This is a new war. Syria is new.
I mean you can get legal...


GARAMENDI: ... arguments here and that -- those legal arguments don`t come
to the reality that this is a profoundly important issue for the American

SCHULTZ: Heather, how can the Speaker of the House on one hand say we`re
not going to have a vote on until `15 yet. We don`t have the money for it
yet. We`re going to have to put boots on the ground. Eventually, going to
get involved here. What do you make of that?

doesn`t control his own party. He`s afraid of being embarrassed by his own
party and so he`s trying rhetorically to shift embarrassment and attention
to the President while avoiding the discussion that is both my colleagues
have said, we should be having and, you know, what`s not worthy is a number
of members of Congress mostly Democrats, a couple of Republicans have put
forward different proposals for how do -- how should Congress vote on this,
how can the American people understand what we`re doing, what should the
limits of what we`re doing be.

And, you know, that Boehner is afraid that one of our two parties in this
two part system, we have can`t show up responsibly to have that
conversation, you know, that`s a pretty terrible commentary on the state of
American democracy.

SCHULTZ: Well, Michael, was it wrong to the President to say, we as a
country underestimated the power, the ability of ISIS?

O`HANLON: No. I greatly appreciated that comment. You know, I think this
is a very difficult situation clearly and we`re all worried about it and
none of us can fully forecast Middle Eastern politics and what they will
spun (ph) even when we study that East politics for years. So I
appreciated the President`s honesty and I think it`s always good to look
forward at these debates and say, "What`s the right next step?"

That`s part of why I`m also glad there`s a little bit of murkiness around
the expression, "boots on the ground". You know, you`ve mentioned the
polls that you`ve been discussing. I don`t think there is any clear
definition of what it means to have boots on the ground or if there is,
we`ve already got them on the ground. We`ve already got 1500 Americans in
Iraq. So, you know, that`s an example of where I would like to see some
flexibility, not just to sneak in...

SCHULTZ: I guess my feeling on boots on the ground is that means we do
Iraq the way we did Iraq before, the first and the second time, an
overwhelming force. I mean that`s the intent of boots on the ground that I
think the American people understand.

O`HANLON: Well, I think the intermediate option now is five to 10,000
American Special Forces in combat advisory teams that are out in the field
with the Iraqi army, not to fight but to advice.

That`s a very difficult, to me, it`s an important middle option to consider
but I`m not sure where it fits in your framework and I think, the language
we used tends to overlook that middle ground scenario.

GARAMENDI: I think what we`re going to see here is if there`s a
resolution, authorization to use force, then it`s tightly following what
the President said in his four points that he made about a month ago and I
think that that will pass that if you`re looking at an open-ended option in
which you could have infantry, artillery and armor on the ground, I don`t
think it`ll pass nor should it pass.

We should have a very limited role in this. We cannot win this war. We`ve
already tried to win this once. We cannot do it. You need to have Iraq.

You need to have the neighboring countries to win this war. We can support
them. I don`t know about Special Forces and so but we can debate where
that numbers. And finally, there`s got to be an endpoint. You cannot go
back to the 2001 Afghanistan resolution and say it applies here.

SHCULTZ: Well, I mean, candidate Obama would have never said that the
President could do something like this. Heather, what about that? I mean,
we can pull out the old tape. Candidate Obama would have never said that
the President would be authorized to do something like this and he have to
get Congress on board with it.

HURLBURT: So, first point, Ed is the reason that we shouldn`t be
authorizing ground troops at this point is we don`t know ground troops for
what. You know, if we learned anything from the last 10 years is that
we`re much better at breaking things than we are at building things and
until there`s something on the ground that you could say, we are securing
this, we are helping this functioning government. There`s no role for U.S.
ground troops.

So that`s point one, point two, candidate Obama, I think candidate Obama in
his worst nightmares didn`t imagine a Congress that would be afraid to
debate an authorization for the use of military force.

SCHULTZ: He do right now.

HURLBURT: Congress, in his worst nightmare didn`t imagine a Congress where
you would have members come in and say, the whole world is the battlefield
who would introduce resolutions saying, the U.S. should be able to use any
kind of force, any place at any time. So in fairness to what`s changed, I
think a lot of that is what`s changed.

SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman John Garamendi, also Michael O`Hanlon and
Heather Hurlburt, great to have you with us tonight here on the Ed Show.
Appreciate your time.

Remember to answer tonight`s question there at the bottom of the screen.
Share your thoughts with us on Twitter@edshow and like us on Facebook, we
appreciate that.

Coming up, a call for Democrats nationwide. 35 days and things seem to be
slipping away in the Senate. Rapid Response Panel discusses that.
Midterms coming up.

But first, Michelle Bachmann declares war on an entire religion. There`s
the value for you, Trenders is next.


SCHULTZ: Time now for Trenders. We`ll get to that but guise me over the
weekend and we`re going to find you on Twitter. That`s it. Well, let me
tell you what, it would be on, and and I got a podcast everyday at,, and on iTunes.

We`re talking about the money today. Who`s going to pay for all of these?

Ed Show Social Media Nation has decided we are reporting. Here are today`s
top Trenders across the board voted on by you.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I bet you, he`s feeling a little sore.

SCHULTZ: The number three trender, take down.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anthony Schlegel is a strength coach and a former
Buckeye linebacker...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... watching him take down a man who went on unto the

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A disorderly fan gets slammed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He might get into the play but he still has the move.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anthony Paul Wunder is charged with trespassing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The number two trender, Whoa Baby.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got to save the baby. Honey, you`re going to save
the baby.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: September 26, 2049, mark the calendar that`s when
three-day-old Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky will officially be allowed to run
for President.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Clintons welcome a grandchild.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first grandchild to the former President and
Secretary of State.

COLIN JOST, NBC HOST: And new grandmother Hillary Clinton said she
couldn`t be any happier unless the baby was a Latina and Swing state.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will Hillary Clinton be contented with being a
grandmother? Well, she`ll be looking for another job as well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And today`s top trender, War, War.

REP. MICHELLE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTA: This is a spiritual warfare.

OBAMA: ISIL is not Islamic.

BACHMANN: We can`t forget the others who are persecuted around the world
just because of their religious beliefs.

OBAMA: The vast majority of ISIL`s victims have been Muslim.

BACHMANN: Our President has the wrong prescription.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bachmann declares war on Islam.

BACHMANN: Yes, Mr. President, it is about Islam.

OBAMA: No religion condones the killing of innocence.

BACHMANN: You declare war on it. You don`t damn surround it.


SCHULTZ: Joining me tonight from The Daily Beast, columnist Dean
Obeidallah. I find this more than interesting because Dean, Michelle
Bachmann -- we know what she`s going to say and how she`s going to say it.
But that is beyond the pale and outrageous and confrontational and
overreaction and on and on, but she can say things because she is leaving

Is there a connection? Is she don`t believed in all of these in the way
they really think?

DEAN OBEIDALLAH, THE DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: I think she would say that she
wasn`t leaving Congress. Don`t forget in 2012 she talked about the Muslim
Brotherhood had penetrated that the Halls of Justice in America and
infiltrated all different levels from Huma Abedin to cut the FBI.

So I don`t think it`s about that I think she`s getting red meat to her
audience. It`s a conservative base. They have qualms about Muslims and
she`s giving so much red meat, it means like a healthy warning at this

SCHULTZ: So when I heard that and I thought that she want Keith Ellison to
leave the Congress?

OBEIDALLAH: I think her.

SCHULTZ: I mean, this is -- it`s -- I know -- it`s so outrageous that it`s
not we`re an inclusive country.


SCHULTZ: Well, that`s freedom of religion. We`re not that anymore?

OBEIDALLAH: I hope we are. And what makes her rhetoric, honestly alarming
and reckless as elected official, ISIS will use that. What she is saying
is exactly the way ISIS wants us to be frank. I read the ISIS online
magazine. They framed this war as the United States versus Islam, a
Christian crusade versus Islam.

She`s a member of Congress saying that -- and the crowd cheers and I do not
doubt for a second that ISIS will use social media effectively. We`ll use
a couple like that to help recruit other Muslims and feel alienated, who
will say, and they raise money. That`s what they`re about. They are
raising money in recruits.

This works to their advantage.

SCHULTZ: But what`s to do in America? There`s a lot of Muslims in this...


SCHULTZ: ... country right now that see the Republican Party. This is
what they are connected to.

OBEIDALLAH: I agree with you and I think it`s short-sided -- I mean, I`m
Muslim-American, before President Bush, in 2000, came in to office. The
Republican -- There are so many Muslim Republicans but during that time,
they pushed them away.

Republicans are making mistake. There are a lot of a wealthy Republican
Muslims keep down conservative who would love to join the Republican Party
but they do not feel welcomed. And when you see this rhetoric, it says,
you know, you`re not wanted. It says Muslims need not apply. That`s
really what that sign says.

So it`s distrusting and also kind of stokes up the sense of anti-Muslim
bigotry. We`re on Muslim and I am that I`m not as American as other people
with other faiths.

And I`m really worried for Muslim children growing up in this country that
their classmates might not see them as Americans has been simply because of
their faith.

SCHULTZ: So as a Muslim, what do you say about ISIS?

OBEIDALLAH: ISIS is horrific and I think that to us it`s -- ISIS is not
Islamic but Islam plays a role. And not in what they`re doing but we`re
fighting it. Islam versus ISIS, that`s the classic civilization. I just
wrote about it at The Daily Beast yesterday. 120 Muslim clerics and living
ones from around the world -- the Muslim world in America.

For the first time, I wrote the 17-page letter in English and Arabic
identifying specific actions about ISIS and saying why in colonic terms, in
terms of Islam, why it`s wrong. To make sure other Muslims don`t get taken
in by their false promise.

SCHULTZ: But all -- But she is presenting the case that all Muslims such
as yourself are a problem to America and we should declare war against you.
This is Senator Rand Paul specifically came out in agreement with the
President on this point.


PAUL: I think there was one important point and it was making about them
not being Islamic or a form of true Islam. Ultimately, civilized Islam
will have to step up.


SCHULTZ: What do you make of that? I mean, that is a divide and they both
spoke of devout Islam.

OBEIDALLAH: Right. I think this is so much better than Rand Paul`s speech
last year at the (inaudible) which I spoke of, and what I wrote about,
there was so much about -- it`s a war in Christianity by Muslims like his
tone is changing. He`s tempered and it`s much more responsible. He is
being responsible where Michelle Bachmann was being reckless.

The idea that -- why don`t they realize ISIS is killing more Muslims per
day than any other faith. They`re slaughtering Muslims by the day.

And I want people to realize, it`s not "convert to Islam or die", it`s
"convert to ISIS or die". That`s what they want. And to me, they are a
clear pose of danger not just to America but to Muslims living here
everyday, they could be killed.

SCHULTZ: Dean Obeidallah, great to have you with us...


SCHULTZ: ... all the best of the day. Thanks much.

Coming up, the three states Democrats need to hold the line in the Senate
this November and there are only 35 days until the election. We`ll break
it down for you.

And we`ve got breaking news on the Ohio early voting Supreme Court decision

That`s ahead on the Ed Show. Stay with us, we`re right back.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We talked about voter suppression
quite a bit here on this program. We have some breaking news tonight by a
vote of five to four. The United States Supreme Court has voted to block
extra early voting days in the State of Ohio.

The court granted an emergency plea from state officials to block a lower
court`s order expanding statewide early voting days and times. The plea
was requested by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted.

A last minute of decision means early voting will be delayed in the State
of Ohio by one week. There was no opinion issued by the court, just a

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

JOSH LIPTON, MSNBC MARKET WRAP: I`m Josh Lipton with your CNBC Market
Wrap. Geopolitical worries sending stocks lower. The Dow pulls out of a
triple digit decline to finish up 41 points. The S&P falls 5, and the
NASDAQ shed 6.

Consumer spending rose more than expected last month, however, that gain
came at the expense of saving with the personal savings rate edging it

And meanwhile ATMPs on the rise, the average charge use an out of network
bank machine rose 5 percent over the past year. Over drop penalties are
also up.

That`s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.



KROFT: Do you think you can hold the Senate?

OBAMA: Yes. I do.

KROFT: And you think you can sell this?

OBAMA: You know what?

KROFT: What am I talking about? You think you can convince people that
they`re doing fine economically?

OBAMA: Hopefully, they get a chance to hear the argument, because all I`m
doing is presenting the facts.


SCHULTZ: Keeping the Senate in the hands of the Democrats could be enough
field battle as of late.

Huffington Post poll tracking manual predictions of 42 percent chance that
Democrats will hold the Senate. There`s a 58 percent chance on Republicans
will take power in the Senate. And there is a heated battle on the middle
of a country in the State of Iowa.

A new Des Moines Register poll released this weekend shows Tea Partyer Joni
Ernst grabbing a six point lead over Democratic Congressman Bruce Braley
who is an economic populist.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she is opposed to a federal minimum wage, she would
not vote to raise it, she would vote to repeal it and she would not raise
the state minimum wage. That means, if you`re working a full time job on
minimum wage in Iowa you`re going to be making $15,000 a year. I think
that`s wrong.

She is called the federal minimum wage ridiculous.


SCHULTZ: Joni Ernst is on record as being against raising the federal
minimum wage. She wants the states to make those decisions.

You may remember Ernst described herself as an Iowa farm girl in some of
her TV ads. She leads the eighth-term congressman in Iowa by percentage of
44 to 38.

In North Carolina, a new poll from CNN or CNN International shows
Democratic Senator Kay Hagan just three percentage points ahead of
Republican Thom Tillis. Polling shows a steep challenge for a long-time
Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. She needs to win more than 50 percent
of the vote on November 4th to avoid a runoff which is going to be hard.

And if you look at North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska
Republicans think if they can win three out of those four seats, they can
take the Senate. Question is can they do it?

Joining me tonight at Rapid Response Panel, Jon Ralston, host of the
Ralston Reports and also Larry Cohen with us, President of the
Communication Workers of America. Gentlemen, great to have you with us

John, what is the best path for the republicans to win the Senate and do
you believe the numbers?

JON RALSTON, RALSTON REPORTS HOST: Well Ed, first I let me say that
there`s just so many different paths that the Republicans have that`s why I
think the Democrats are worried. There`s all kinds of different methods
for them to get to a majority but these numbers that you`re citing -- the
58 percent we`ve seen this before especially during a midterm.

I don`t believe, I mean you`re focusing on the right races that Iowa races
a dead hit. You mentioned that poll but there was a debate that`s getting
a lot attention out there, they`re going to drive those masters (ph). You
talked about Kay Hagan. They`ve thrown like $30 million at her and she`s
still on that race.

And I have to tell you, Ed from the people I talked to I think they have
not given up on Landrieu yet. That`s the kind of race to look at and then
there`s the real wild cargo the Republicans never thought was going to be
in the mix and that`s Kansas where you suddenly have an independent who`s
considered to be in a dead hit with Pat Roberts.

So the Republican still clearly have the advantage but I think it grow
around those numbers 58 percent, 60 percent. It`s a midterm. Turnout is
going to be low, the democrats are very, very skillful especially Harry

Remember Harry Reid was given an 87 percent chance to lose by Nate Silver
right before the 2010 election. He won by six points. Harry Reid is the
most relentless guy in the world. He`s got his people running that super
pack to keep the Senate. I would not could Reid out yet.

SCHULTZ: OK. Larry, what do you make of all of that? Where do boots on
the ground have to show up?

ground will show up in North Carolina, they`ll show up in Iowa. I think
what Congressman Braley just said is key -- it`s the key people focus on
what government can do, protect their interest. If he doesn`t win that
race, we`re likely to see Lamar Alexander cheering the Labor Committee.

Lamar Alexander who last week said basically I got the LNRB and pushed all
this issues into federal court. That`s what we`re using to fire up
volunteers. This choice couldn`t be clear not just an Iowa, but the
difference between Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. Who`s going to lead the
Senate? In which side they want? And what are we prepared to do about it
in the next five weeks?

SCHULTZ: A year ago at this time, we were talking about healthcare and
jobs. In fact, ObamaCare is going to be one-year-old coming up this
Wednesday -- day after tomorrow. Jon Ralston, does the Middle East play
big into this midterm or at all as you see it?

RALSTON: Well, I think it does in the sense that the foreign policy in
general has really hurt the President`s numbers, Ed. And that`s going to
hurt the enthusiasm of democratic voters unless he do the kind of micro-
targeting that Larry just talked about with voters who can`t be activated.
I don`t think the average voter really a cares that much whether Harry Reid
or Mitch McConnell is the head of the Senate.

So you have to do something else. And I don`t think foreign policy drives
them. I think to get democratic voters to the poll, you have to do -- you
have to use minimum wage, you have to use bread-and-butter issues and
still, it`s going to be very, very top. I mean, the cliche is the about
the headwinds the Democrats are facing. They haven`t seen headwinds like
this in a long time. And as you mentioned earlier when you are talking
about those races, they had very little margin for error, the Republicans
essentially are within one seat of the majority, if you look at the races
that are considered done already. So, it`s a very, very top mark...


RALSTON: ... for the Democrats and you`re -- and I just don`t think
foreign policy is going to motivate voters to go on vote for the Democrats.
That hurts them this year I think.

SCHULTZ: So Mr. Cohen, is it rather -- I don`t know unusual that the party
of obstruction, the party with no ideas, the party that doesn`t ended --
done anything on jobs, the party that is voted multiple to what? 50 times
to get rid of Obama Care that has now insured millions of Americans and
brought competition to the market. The antis against progressive movement
to make life better for Americans, they`re leading in a lot of this polls.
Go figure.

COHEN: They`re good at dividing people up. We have to get better at
uniting people, bringing people together. Like talking about the economic
populism, talking about what our country can be. How do we restore the
American dream for ourselves, for our kids as supposed to the collapse of
economic opportunity that we would face if this 19th century capitalist
ideas became dominant. That`s what they`re talking about, lazy fare,
capitalism, no regulation, no floor, run poll, you`re on your own, buddy,
it`s just the market.

We need to make it clear. Government is about the economy. It`s about
workers` rights. It`s about minimum wage. It`s not about the things that
they`ll divide people up around.

We need unity. It`s the key for us.

SCHULTZ: Yet in the State of Iowa, you have a candidate who is running an
end saying, you know, she`s a big farmer or it`s a big farmer ad. I mean
going back to the raw sensibilities of the next-door neighbor and home
grown stuff. Jon Ralston, what about that?

RALSTON: Well, I think that stuff works and may add and it -- that depends
on the environment, right? But, I think, you know -- Ed, that she`s one of
us or he`s one of us. That`s used all of the time in politics. But I
think the air -- worse here as long as the Democrats can keep it even in
terms of money are relatively close in terms of money.

And by the way, the Democrats are outspending other Republicans overall and
that statistic is out there now. I think that they have a chance because
they know how to get their voters to the polls. That was Harry Reid did in
2010 to win that race. That`s what the people who were running that super
pack who used to work for him -- some till -- still do work for him by
extension, they how to do that. Harry Reid told me 20 years ago he doesn`t
believe in polls.

He was not being facetious. He believes only in what his internal say and
getting his voters to the polls, the people who work for him believe that
they are going to get rid of there. They`re not going to listen to the
static that`s out there and hope that in this key stage that we`re talking
about, that Kay Hagan going to hold on, that somehow a miracle down in the
Louisiana occurs, that somehow really can pull it out and that Pat Roberts
will lost since to one independent which nobody thought was possible.
That`s how they hold the Senate. That`s about the only way they hold the
Senate, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Two states that don`t get much attention at all nationally are
Montana and South Dakota. I talked to Rick Weiland today, he`s a
Democratic candidate. He is closing the gap on it. There`s two
Conservatives on the other side. One of them, Raunds, is embedded in
controversy as of late. What about that state, Mr. Cohen?

COHEN: I think South Dakota is definitely in play. Our members there are
excited. Again, they think Rick is a great candidate. So this is a
situation where it`s not just, you know, voting is about choices, in the
case of South Dakota, voting is about standing up for somebody and
volunteering and getting turn out. Turnout is going to be a key in all
this races. That`s the poll that`s going to matter. And that`s what we`re
focused on -- getting the volunteers who will help turn out voters and
convince people that these elections make a difference.

SCHULTZ: And Jon Ralston, why is Healthcare toxic? When you have the
numbers, where expenses have come down for families, there`s competition in
the market, we`re getting better outcomes because millions of Americans now
have it. Nobody is being tonight. Why is that such a hard cell?

RALSTON: Well, I think because the messaging got past to Democrats along
time ago. And the republicans sees that when a lot of the real negativity
was coming out, when the federal or exchanged rollout was botched in it,
and it just got -- and it just a -- it went from there, Ed. But listen,
there are a lot of success stories. I think in a targeted way, you can use
ObamaCare, but it`s nothing like what the Democrats, including Harry Reid,
said year ago was going to be.

Harry Reid says we`re going to run on ObamaCare. You don`t see many
Democrats running on ObamaCare. The question is, is it, to use your word
Ed, as toxic as it once was? It`s being use in targeted male...


RALSTON: ... who Republicans activate. Republicans -- I`m not sure it`s
as powerful an issue now as it was six months a year ago.

SCHULTZ: Gentleman, good to have you with us Jon Ralston and Larry Cohen,
I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much.

Seven weeks, since the shooting of Michael Brown. There`s new unrest on
the street of Ferguson, Missouri. Update on that.

Stay here. We`re right back on the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: And in Pretenders tonight. Fan of fiction, Bill O`Reilly. The
mayor of Cable News is making the media around. O`Reilly is promoting his
new book about World War II, U.S. Army General George Patton. Even in
Britain, Bill O`Reilly puts his own spin on the things.


BILL O`REILLY: I think Stalin killed him. His wife was in the hospital
room with him.


O`REILLY: Correct. And he`s having cognac and he`s laughing with the
nurses and he goes to sleep and he wakes up dead. Stalin had a factory
that produced trace that was poisonous back then. But now, with our
advanced technology, we could see if there was something in Patton`s


SCHULTZ: Stalin killed Patton. Wait, wait. Did I hear him say or infer
that he wants to dig up Patton to see if that really happen? OK. General
Patton`s death is widely believed to be from injury he sustained in a car
accident while on a hunting trip in Germany after the war. If Bill
O`Reilly thinks his version of history is one for the books, he can keep on


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. We have some major developments
over the weekend out of Ferguson, Missouri. It`s been over seven weeks
since Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot and killed unarmed 18-year-old
Michael Brown. This weekend brought renewed protest to Ferguson. Eight
protesters were arrested Sunday evening. All eight protesters were
arrested and booked on failure to disperse and resisting arrest charges.
Police say bottles and rackets were thrown at officers.

On Saturday night, a Ferguson police officer was shot in the arm while the
officer was performing a routine check at the Ferguson Community Center.
St. Louis County Police spokesman Sergeant Brian Schellman provided details
for reporters.


by himself at the time. We encountered two individuals -- two male
individuals that ran from him. The officer exited his car and he ran to
the west chasing these two individuals and as he came into very close
proximity with them, one of the individuals turn with firearm, the officer
was able to block it with this arm. And then was shot in the arm by one
the suspects.


SCHULTZ: The officer`s injuries were not life threatening and a search for
the two suspects is underway. Meanwhile, early Sunday morning, a St. Louis
Police Officer was also shot in an unrelated shooting. The St. Louis
Officer also did not sustain life threatening injuries. For more on this,
let me bring in Brown Family Attorney Daryl Parks. Parks, good to have you
with us tonight.

Is this -- your thoughts about the nature of the community right now, is
this all from a lack of justice or the wheels of justice just moving too
slowly, how do you say it?

DARYL PARKS: Well, first of all, thanks so much. It was just coincidental
this general crime that you have in that community. However, I think that
one of the main things we`re seeing in Ferguson has to do with the fact
that people are growing impatient as we await for the grand jury.

And we know it`s going to take sometime, but people want justice. So the
long we delay in -- that long we go without getting action in the
situation, I think people are going to continue to grow more reckless.
However, and let me reiterate, Ed this family continues the call for people
to be calm and let`s wait to let the process roll itself out, but we want

So they, you know, they -- we`re hoping that this grand jury will come back
with the right decision. We continue to ask that the government appoint a
special prosecutor. We think that giving the effect that we have seen the
prosecutor come out publicly and certainly give us some concern. For
example, when you see a definite testify before a grand jury that is not
normal in America. So, we`re concern about that.

SCHULTZ: OK. Well, police say that these shootings were not related to
Michael Brown`s death. I mean I find that hard to believe, I mean the
polls the community is seeing how this all is going to end and if justice
is going to be served. What are your thoughts?

PARKS: Well, I hope it`s not related to Michael Brown`s...

SCHULTZ: I mean they are out of the street because of this, aren`t they?

PARKS: ... Well...

SCHULTZ: I mean, you take away the shooting of Michael Brown, are we going
to see this protest in the street?

PARKS: Well, no, you won`t see the protest in the street but you`ll still
see basic crime that probably happens everyday throughout America. It
doesn`t mean that`s related to the situation involving Michael`s death. In
the situation of the one officer as I understand it, the officer was just
patrolling and he saw these two individuals who may have been doing some
type of burglary type...


PARKS: ... situation. And off to the side to follow them. There`s
nothing to call a death to what happened on Canfield in West Morrison in

SCHULTZ: I want to give you a chance to expand a little bit more on the
Brown family and what they`re asking the community to do at this point?

PARKS: Well, certainly the Brown family doesn`t want anyone committing any
type of crime or violence in the name of Michael Brown. I think that
anyone who conflicts that should think about what that does to Michael
Brown`s legacy. It does nothing to enhance or bring justice. It does
nothing to enhance the image in the memory of Michael Brown.

So no one should do anything that -- in any type of way and they use
anyone, any property, or cause any civil disobedience. We want to be --
and they are very civilized people. As you see, this family has continued
to carry themselves in a proud and upstanding way. And certainly, they`re
angry without question.


PARKS: But they`ve chosen to do it the right way.

SCHULTZ: Daryl Parks, attorney for the Brown Family, good to have you with
us tonight here on the Ed Show. I appreciate your time, Daryl.

PARKS: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Thank you.

That`s the Ed Show.

Politics Nation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

Good evening, Rev.


Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
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.