The Ed Show for Monday, January 5th 2015

Date: January 5, 2015
Guest: Ben Cardin, Bart Chilton, Tiernan Sittenfeld, Gregory Meeks,
Charles Rangel, Annette Taddeo, Larry Cohen, John Fugelsang, Holland Cooke

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from New York. Let`s get to work.


Senator majority leader?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president is going to see the Keystone XL pipeline
on his desk.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R) KENTUCKY: It won`t surprise you.

Send the president the Keystone XL pipeline bill.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: Democrats are dubious of this.

BARACK OBAMA, U.S. PRESIDENT: It`s not American oil.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, (D) MINNESOTA: I believe that this project has merit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will it introduce an amendment?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It could create jobs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Make it more of a jobs bill?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve put a lot of people to work on this immediately.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you`re getting very frustrated with it.


SCHULTZ: Where are the dissenting voices on Keystone? Good to have you
with us tonight folks, thanks for watching.

Now, we`re coming down to the wire on the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and
the misinformation continues to roll out there. The 114th Congress starts
work tomorrow. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it
clear that the Keystone XL pipeline will be his top priority to get this
started in the New Year. A House vote on Keystone is expected on Friday
and a Senate vote will come as early as next week.

Here`s what McConnell said yesterday.


MCCONNELL: Jobs in the economy are clearly what the voters are concerned
about. They`re tired of inaction. They want us to act. And what is
acting mean? Just to give you some examples, it won`t surprise you, things
like approving the Keystone pipeline, which would put a lot of people to
work almost immediately.


SCHULTZ: Jobs in the economy, that`s what Mitch McConnell is going to
focus on. OK, I`m all about it. They think that 42,000 jobs being created
on the Keystone XL pipeline, which are temporarily construction jobs,
that`s a great number, yet we don`t hear any of the Republicans yesterday
on the talking heads talking about, "You know what? Last month, we had a
pretty good month. We headed over 200,000 jobs on our economy. In fact,
we`ve done it for 57 straight months to the 210 million jobs." But all of
a sudden, this 42 for Keystone, it`s a lynchpin to the economy.

Republicans won`t give up on these bogus talking points on this project.
After the pipeline is constructed, here`s the number folks, 35 full-time
jobs for years to come, got to have folks checking the pipeline. The
construction jobs are temporary. Why do the Republicans have such a hard
time saying that? It`s hardly a jobs bill. The Democrats are trying to
make it one. Republicans haven`t been shy about their support for Keystone
and dirty oil that could flow through the pipeline. In fact, it will be
dirty oil, that`s an absolute. They were out in full force over the


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s the first bill that`s coming out of president`s
desk from this Republican Congress?

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, (R) WYOMING: If the president`s going to see the
Keystone XL pipeline on his desk and it is going to be a bellwether
decision by the president, whether to go with jobs in the economy, his own
state department said there`s 42,000 new jobs, this is a good
infrastructure, a project supported widely across the United States. He`s
going to have to decide between jobs and the extreme supporters of not
having the pipeline.

SEN. JOHN THUNE, (R) SOUTH DAKOTA: So right out of the gate, we`re going
to act in the senate on the Keystone pipeline. We think the president
ought to sign that into law. His own administration has now done five
environmental impact statements, all of which have said that it would have
a minimal impact on the environment and his own state department said it
would support 42,000 jobs. So it`s good for jobs in the economy. We`re
going to find out very early on, I think, whether or not the president
wants to play ball.

pipeline, you have the teamsters, the Tea Party and the chamber. All
support the Keystone pipeline. That`s a pretty unique coalition. In
getting that path, I certainly hope the president will sign it, because it
creates jobs.

WICKER: We`re going to send the president Keystone XL pipeline bill. It
will be supported by quite a number of Democrats.


SCHULTZ: Well, how about that? If you`re an extreme supporter of doing
something about climate change and you`re against the pipeline, you`re an
extreme supporter, that`s what you are. Most Democrats are against the
pipeline and they ought to be. But somehow, broken ranks, Senate Democrats
are becoming more vocal in supporting the Keystone and I don`t know why.
Are they buying the sell job?

Here`s Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.


KLOBUCHAR: I believe that this project has merit but I still don`t think
that Congress should be in the business of deciding where a pipeline is
located. I think the president needs to make a decision. A lot of us are
frustrated that it has taken this long. But I think the bigger issue...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you going to vote on this?

KLOBUCHAR: I have always voted to allow the process to continue and.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Allow the process to continue means in favor.

KLOBUCHAR: . to allow the president to make a decision. But I`m getting
very frustrated with this.


KLOBUCHAR: I don`t think you`re going to see a lot of votes switching on
the Democratic side from just a month ago.


SCHULTZ: Tell me Senator, are you frustrated that the Republicans won`t
come to the table with a jobs bill? Are you frustrated with the record
number of filibusters that the Republican Senate has done in the last
session and we probably we have more of that on the way, it`s going to be
their way on the highway.

Senator Klobuchar is from Minnesota, she knows when it`s 15 below zero it`s
damn cold out. There are absolutes to this project. What has merit?
Explain to me where the merit is in all of this. Is there merit to land
the Koch Brother`s pocket some more? Is it merit to bring the dirtiest oil
on to the market? Is it merit that it`s not going to affect any Americans
paying at the pump? Is it merit that all of a sudden that Keystone isn`t
going to do anything to climate change? Where`s the merit here?

Klobuchar is playing both sides of the issue because she doesn`t want to
become a target to the oil interest or special interest. Punting Keystone
over to the president is an easy solution for any senator who might be in a
tough spot and be concerned about whether they`re going to be politically
targeted or not. There are absolutes. You either want to do something
about climate change or you don`t. And the Keystone XL project is the
worst decision that Democrats or any representative could make when it
comes to building something that`s going to bring this kind of oil to
market that is unnecessary. Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, I bought gas over
the weekend for a $1.99 a gallon. Senator, that`s your state.

Klobuchar says Congress should have no business deciding where the pipeline
is located. Really, we should just let any foreign country do whatever
they want across American soil. Remember, this is Canadian oil being
pumped through the middle of the country to the Gulf, where it`s going to
be sold overseas on the open market. It will not affect you with the gas
pump. The oil would flow right over the aquifer, putting the drinking
water and crops in danger. We take all the risk. Why? Because there`s a
few senators who are frustrated? This is why our elected officials should
be the ones only making a decision on Keystone. They should stand up and
say, "We shouldn`t do this because we`re concerned about climate change."
or maybe they`re not.

A private foreign company like TransCanada should have no say in approving
their own project on American soil, but of course, they`ve cash whipped a
lot of people along the way. New York Senator Chuck Schumer says Democrats
may offer amendments on the Keystone XL pipeline.


SCHUMER: Our Republican colleagues say that this is a job`s bill, but
that`s really not true at all. And so Democrats are dubious of this. But
we`re going to introduce amendments to make it more of a job`s bill. We`re
going to introduce an amendment to say that the steel used in the pipeline
should be made in America, creating American jobs. We`re going to
introduce an amendment that says that the oil that`s used in the pipeline
should be used in America.

Imagine, building a pipeline that ships Canadian oil across America to be
exported to other countries from Texas that makes no sense at all in terms
of American working people`s interests. So we`re going to say that the oil
should stay here.

And finally, we`re going to introduce an amendment to add clean energy
jobs. If you do things for wind and solar energy, you create tens of
thousands of more jobs using clean energy.


SCHULTZ: Kind of good but not good enough. No Democrats as I see it
should fall for these amendments. Green energy investment should not be
held hostage by the Keystone XL pipeline. Whatever advance it made in
green energy would be wiped out by this project.

A study from Nature Climate Change says, "Keystone would create four times
more greenhouse gases in the state department estimated." And the state
department, well the consultants who did that, go ask them where they use
to work.

Even with the amendments, Schumer admitted he`s urging the president to
vote no on Keystone.


SCHUMER: In conclusion, we will have enough votes to sustain a
presidential veto.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So even if these amendments pass, you would still urge
the president to veto this legislation?

SCHUMER: Well, yes, I don`t think these amendments will make it better but
certainly not good enough at this point in time. And I think there will be
enough Democratic votes to sustain the president`s veto.


SCHULTZ: President Obama hasn`t officially said how he`s going to go on
Keystone whether he`s going to veto if it comes to his desk. Although the
president has given indications, he`s not a big fan.


OBAMA: It`s very good for Canadian Oil companies, and it`s good for the
Canadian Oil industry but it`s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S.
consumers, it`s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.

Now, the construction of the pipeline itself will create probably a couple
of thousand jobs. Those are temporary jobs until the construction actually
happens. There`s probably some additional jobs that can be created in the
refining process down in the Gulf.

But I`ve just tried to give this perspective, because I think that there`s
been this tendency to really hype this thing as some magic formula and to
what ails the U.S. economy, and it`s hard to see on paper where exactly
they`re getting that information from.


SCHULTZ: And they were hyping it big time on the talking heads yesterday.
Once again, Republicans are likely wasting time by sending keystone to the
president. Senate Democrats need to stand strong on this.

Look, if you want to do something about climate change, you should start
with keystone. Don`t cave to Republicans and Big Oil. Don`t let green
jobs be held hostage by a project that is going to create minimal jobs.
Support the planet and the president of the United States by voting no on
the Keystone XL pipeline. There are absolutes here. If that project goes
through and there is a disaster over the aquifer, remember folks. It`s
irreversible damage. They cannot clean it up, they won`t be able to do it.
They don`t have the technology for that. It is an unnecessary risk that
this country does not have to take. I asked the question, "Where are the
dissenting voices?"

Get your cellphones out, I want to know what you think tonight`s question.
"Do you think the keystone XL pipeline has any merit?" Text A for yes,
text B for no to 67622, leave a comment on our blog We`ll
bring you the results later on in the show.

Let me bring in Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland. Senator, good to have you
with us tonight.

SEN. BEN CARDIN, (D) MARYLAND: Ed, it`s always good to be on your show.
Thank you.

SCHULTZ: You bet. Where do you stand on this? How is this all going to
unfold as you see it?

CARDIN: Well, I`m opposed to the pipeline. As you point out, this is oil
that`s Canadian oil, the dirtiest and the way that it`s bought -- extracted
causes incredible damage to the environment and it`s for the international

The interesting point is that Canada doesn`t want to transport it through
Canada. They want to transport it through the United States, which
obviously makes no sense. The jobs are all temporary jobs. This is
something we shouldn`t be doing.

SCHULTZ: Can you amendment this bill to your satisfaction and to the
satisfaction of Democrats?

CARDIN: Look, we`re going to offer amendments just to make points, and
hopefully we can point out this is the first major bill the Republicans are
bringing up under their control of the Senate and this is supposedly a jobs
bill, it`s not a jobs bill and I think our amendments will make that point
pretty clear.

What we are disappointed is that the Republicans aren`t bringing up a true
jobs bill where we could have bipartisan support, let`s bring out a long-
term transportation reauthorization bill that creates jobs, Democrats and
Republicans could work together and get that done. Instead, they picked
this issue that will not create permanent jobs and threatens our
environment and little value to the United States.

SCHULTZ: Senator, how can the Republicans be so excited about 42,000
temporary jobs yet they hardly say anything about the addition of 57 months
of private sector job growth? I find that rather interesting and last
month was pretty good, over 200,000 jobs but we can`t get a word out of

CARDIN: Well, the jobs as President Obama pointed out are basically
construction jobs that construct the pipeline. Once it`s constructed
there`s very few permanent jobs that are created by this pipeline. The oil
does not go to the United States, it`s basically Canadian oil, the dirtiest
oil, going into the international marketplace. We have record low gasoline
prices today so it`s certainly not needed from the point of view of our
economic issues. So this bill makes very, very.


CARDIN: . little sense.

SCHULTZ: I don`t know how you can have an amendment that would dictate the
Canadian oil would stay to the benefit of American consumers and it
couldn`t go anywhere else. I mean that -- to me that`s just a ridiculous

CARDIN: I think what we`re trying to point out by the amendment process is
to -- is refute to Republicans charges. They`re saying that it creates
jobs that`s good for our energy policies, that`s it`s.


CARDIN: . all these things that it`s not. So I think the amendment
process will point out the real weakness of this legislation.

SCHULTZ: Senator Ben Cardin, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so

CARDIN: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: Let me bring in Bart Chilton who is the Former Commissioner of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, also Tiernan Sittenfeld of the
League of Conservation Voters great to have both of you with us.

Bart, will this project lower gas prices in America? Will consumers on our
soil see effect to this?

BART CHILTON, FMR. CFTC COMMISSIONER: No. I don`t think so, Ed. I mean
this is just a drop in the bucket.

If global oil demand is -- and supply is what impacts prices and the price
discovery process and this is just such a small in to testable (ph) amount
that I don`t think it`ll impact prices at all. And, you know, look, we`ve
got -- we`ve had all these great news as you say in Detroit Lakes less than
$2, it`s less than $3, gasoline less than $3 in the entire continental
United States. So it`s hard to make a snapshot decision right now and say
that, really, that Keystone is the thing to go forward with based upon
current prices."

Now, of course, they make those decisions based on longer term estimates
but if you look at it right now, you have to say.


CHILTON: . why would it be economical?

SCHULTZ: Tiernan, Senator Klobuchar says the project has merit. Where`s
the merit?

question, Ed. We think that the Keystone Pipeline has absolutely no merit.
It is really bad for climate change. It`s terrible for our water. It`s
truly a bad deal for the American people. The only thing that it might
have done is by the profits of a foreign oil company and with oil prices
dropping, even that`s in question. So clearly this is a very bad idea.

The good news is as you pointed out, President Obama has been expressing
increasing skepticism about this project and that`s why we`re more
confident than ever that as many times as the Congress chooses to vote on
this we believe that at the end of the day the president, he will veto a
bill and he will reject the pipeline.

SCHULTZ: Bart, what kind of effect will this have on the economy? I mean
they`re pushing this as a big jobs bill. They`re pushing this that this is
going to be.


SCHULTZ: . the catch all and our economy is just going to unleash
unbelievable growth if we do keystone.

CHILTON: Watch out for those 42,000 jobs that turned into 35 like magic.

You know, the bottom line is that we had a stimulus proposal by this
administration back in 2009 that was severely reduced because of support
that wasn`t there in the Congress. Those guys are -- that oppose the
stimulus back then haven`t supported a long-term transportation bill as
Senator Cardin was speaking about a little time ago. I think if you ask
most of your viewers whether or not they`d rather have a pipeline or
improvements to the roads and bridges that the case would be closed.


CHILTON: But that doesn`t mean that pipelines are all bad. You know, they
serve a purpose in our diversified energy transportation scheme, they have
a purpose. But you need to show the benefits and I think that`s the
process that has been somewhat lacking I mean if not severely lacking.


CHILTON: . on the part of the proponents.

And one more thing, Ed, I mean it seems to me and -- you know I love you
but I may disagree just a little bit and that is that if they`re going to
work together, if the Congress -- the Republican Congress and this
administration are going to work together they have to figure -- go into it
in good faith. And so I think the amendments that Democrats may offer, and
as a former steelworker, I support the amendment that would ensure that
this is U.S. steel that`s being used for the pipeline.


CHILTON: But I`d like to go into it thinking that maybe there is
ultimately some compromise, maybe it is combined with a larger jobs bill.
So I don`t really support the idea of we`re going to offer these
amendments, they`re not very -- they`re not going to do enough and we`re
always going to vote against it. If we`re going to get something done in
this country we`ve got to figure out the long-term view.

SCHULTZ: Well, there`s a lot of deniers on the other side when it comes to
climate change, so that`s what you`re dealing with. You`re dealing with a
mindset over on the right that they don`t know anything about climate
change. They don`t know anything about it. That`s just a big farce. It
doesn`t matter that we have the warmest record.

CHILTON: Well, that.

SCHULTZ: . year on record. I mean you`re dealing with a mindset here.
They say it`s a jobs bill. That`s what they`re pushing.

CHILTON: You know, yeah. I don`t disagree with you at all. There`s a lot

SCHULTZ: And the fact that -- and Bart, the fact that they`re not using
American steel underscores how bad the project is. Why do we have to beg
Congress to use American steel? That`s another issue.


CHILTON: I`m with you. You know, one of the things I spoke at a climate
summit not too long ago, and one of the things that amaze people was the
first cap and trade, what the Republicans called the cap and tax, the first
cap and trade to deal with environmental problems was offered by the savior
Ronald Reagan.


CHILTON: . and then it was supported by Bush 41.


CHILTON: . and supported then by Bush 43. It wasn`t until the.

SCHULTZ: All right.

CHILTON: . 2008 election that some of those would support cap and trade
decided to oppose it.

SCHULTZ: They`re all for the matter.

CHILTON: So there is a long road here.

SCHULTZ: They`re all.

CHILTON: Yeah, you`re right.

SCHULTZ: No doubt. All right, now Tiernan, listen quickly the politics of


SCHULTZ: If the amendments pass, and the president vetoes it, and they
don`t have the votes to override the veto this clearly kicks it to 2016 and
this is going to be the best way for the liberals in this country and I say
the liberals in this country to get climate change address in the
presidential election, correct?

SITTENFELD: Well, first, on the question of the amendments. With all due
respect, you can put lipstick on a pig but it`s still a pig. This bill is
a terrible bill that needs to be vetoed regardless of what happens with the

In terms of 2016, we are optimistic that 2015 is the year that this
pipeline gets rejected once and for all. But certainly.


SITTENFELD: . clean energy is really going to be an issue going forward in
this election and really going to show what can it stand. Do you stand
with polluters or do you stand with women and children? I believe we have
an obligation to fight the climate crisis.

SCHULTZ: All right, Bart Chilton, Tiernan Sittenfeld great to have both of
you with us tonight on the Ed Show. Thank you.

The defiant NYPD turns on New York`s Mayor Bill de Blasio again.
Congressman Charles Rangel and Gregory Meeks join us with the reaction.

And later, the New Year marks a new push to strip worker`s protections.
Rapid Response Panel is here to tackle that, this huge labor issue when
we`re back. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

The NYPD begins the New Year by reinforcing a deep rift with Mayor Bill de

This weekend, murdered Detective Liu was laid to rest. Thousands of police
officers came from around the country to pay their respects. Many NYPD
officers also took the opportunity to show respect and disrespect to Mayor
Bill de Blasio. Once they turned -- they once -- again, turned their backs
while the mayor spoke at the funeral.

Police Commissioner William Bratton had tried to dissuade a repeat of last
week`s funeral protest. In an internal memo, Bratton wrote, "A hero`s
funeral is about grieving, not grievance."

PBA President Patrick Lynch, an outspoken credit of de Blasio, said that it
was an organic gesture that should be respected. Mayor de Blasio addressed
the critics at a press conference earlier today.


MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, (D) NEW YORK CITY: Rather than get lost in the daily
back and forth by the loudest and most disrespectful voices, those had been
so loud in this debate in recent weeks, let`s talk about where we need to
go as a city. At a time when I think the people of the city felt
tremendous respect for the NYPD, some individuals -- some individual
officers showed disrespect to the families and to the people of the city.


SCHULTZ: With Officer Liu and his partner Rafael Ramos laid to rest, the
city now turns the difficult task of peeling the relationship between its
police force and the mayor of the city.

I`m joined tonight by Congressman Gregory Meeks and also Congressman
Charles Rangel, both of New York. This is their city. Gentlemen, great to
have you with us tonight.

REP. GREGORY MEEKS, (D) NEW YORK: Good to be with you, Ed.

SCHULTZ: We`re looking for solutions. Congressman Rangel, you first, what
is the solution here? This rhetoric continues on. This disrespect
continues on.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL, (D) NEW YORK: Well, the major thing was giving
respect to those heroes and those police officers that had to be reminded
how much the city needs them, loves them and that has been done. We can`t
get away from the issues that brought us to this. And now is the time, not
at funerals, now is the time to sit down.

Now I don`t know what the Chaplins are doing there with the New York City
Police Department, I don`t know what our spiritual leaders are doing, I
don`t even know what the African-Americans members of the police department
are doing. All I can say is that there`s a lot of layers as to what`s
going on and little has to do with the assassination of these two brave men
that the nation mourns their death. And I think that Pat Lynch has one
hell of an opportunity to bring us together and to recognize that his anger
is misdirected.

SCHULTZ: Well, he is angry and he has been very pointed in this. And he
has been very much against the mayor and his actions using the mayor as a
target. I mean, is this the way you patch stuff up in New York?

RANGEL: No, no, but let`s think about it. What is he angry about? You
know, is he angry about the contracts? Is he angry about the competition
in the police department? I don`t know. What is he -- is he angry because
the president talks about his son being black and maybe possibly
mistreated? Is he angry because the mayor`s kid he`s got two black kids
and he like most fathers have to give (inaudible)? What is he really angry


RANGEL: It`s a word that we don`t like talking about, but the funeral is
over and two of these people of color.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Meeks? Solution?

MEEKS: You know, a lot of weight now falls on Mr. Lynch because you got to
meet halfway. The mayor has called folks in and that every word that he
said, he`s talked about bringing the city together. He`s talked about, you
know, and he`s been truthful because we still got to deal with now that the
funeral is over, you know, what we talked about in the city with reference
to justice for everybody and every life matters, so that`s got to be dealt
that with.

Mr. Lynch has to be able to sit down and listen to people willing to talk
about that, to talk about the feelings of the community because in the
African-American and other communities where they do feel overly, you know,
where you have stopped and frisk and attack a police that went on before --
even before the assassination of the police officers, we still have to deal
with that. And Mr. Lynch has to be willing to come to the table to say
we`ve got to deal with that as well as to make sure that the message is not
with anti-police. Nobody has said that they were anti-police.

SCHULTZ: Congressman, where is the public on this?

MEEKS: I think the public is clear. If you look at the crowds, they were
out there even the demonstrations after the gone of incident. There were
not just black people out there. There were black, there were white, there
were Asian, there were, you know, Hispanic, it was everybody. Even former
President George W. Bush said, looking at the tape, you know, and then
looking at the decision with reference of the Grand Jury that it was
troubling, he was confused.

SCHULTZ: Wasn`t Mayor de Blasio elected in this town to bring change? I
mean, isn`t that what the people wanted? They wanted changes within police
procedures in this town.

RANGEL: Well, he dealt with the question of color and I submit that when
we start looking through all of the layers that brought us to where we are,
the assassinations is being used as a cover not to deal with the problems
that we have.

SCHULTZ: There is no doubt. I mean, this country has a hard time
understanding many mental illness to start with and what to do with it and
they`ve taken this situation and injected.

RANGEL: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: . that. Unfortunately, a disturbed person taking the life of two
police officers and a whole Pandora`s Box of other problems and, I think,
targeting the mayor.

MEEKS: Right, because this incident is no different to me when I looked at
it as the crazy killer who went and tried to assassinate my -- our former
colleague Gabby Giffords. It was a crazy man who went out there and
committed a horrendous act.

SCHULTZ: Isn`t it important, though, to point out that not all the police
officers turned their back?

MEEKS: Absolutely.

SCHULTZ: I mean, there`s a few in the ranks that are saying, you know, by
respecting these officers saying, "OK, we got to move on," but there are
some that are saying they don`t want to move on. Your thoughts, Charles.

RANGEL: And it`s awkward because no one wants to be in the position that
should -- not with your colleagues right or wrong. But -- When the moral
issue raises that, beyond not just being white and that you show that you
have so much love and respect for the job that you have assumed that you`re
not going to allow a handful of people who are blinded by hate just for the
reputation. That`s a hell of a lot that has to do with -- I was in combat,
I`m telling you I saw more dead people, but I never was moved until I saw
dead people that looked like me in my uniform and it does make a

And so, yes, the blue wall of silence has kept communities and minority
community support for so long so that even minority policemen don`t want to
break that silence, that has to be done.

MEEKS: It is important to note, though, and both Charlie, and I was at the
funeral of Officer Liu yesterday, that the majority of police officers did
not turn in.


MEEKS: And that should be pointed out that it was -- the few that turned
their back, and that`s the problem, that -- what the community has talked
about. There`s a few that are disrespectful to the community in which they
put patrol also.

And so those individuals, we don`t want -- if you disrespect the mayor then
that shows the potential of disrespecting the community with your police
and so there should be that kind of understanding. But the majority of
police officers did not disrespect the mayor and the majority do patrol
properly but we hadn`t focused on those few that disrespect the mayor and
that disrespects the community and what they patrol.

RANGEL: And they took advantage of the timing at a funeral where no one
could pull them out and really give them the knuckle slapping that they
deserve. They took the most sensitive time where people are crying and
mourning for their comrades and instead of crying, mourning with the rest
of the city, they felt more selfishly about their personal problems and
that was wrong.

SCHULTZ: Congressman Rangel and Congressman Meeks, good to have you with
us tonight on the Ed Show. I appreciate it very much.

Coming up, workers` rights are about to be under attack like never before.
Keep it here. We`ll be right back on the Ed Show.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to The Ed Show. I appreciate all the questions.
Tonight, we only have time for one in our Ask Ed Live segment. It comes
from James. He says, "Should President Obama be bipartisan or aggressive
with the Republicans in his state of the union speech?"

I think he could do both. I think he can, you know, first of all state the
facts of what has happened on his watch. The next thing the president can
do is layout an agenda and try to find some common ground. But then ask
the Republicans if they could come up with a jobs package that might be
more than 42,000 jobs and come up with a project that wouldn`t hurt the

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

COURTNEY REAGAN, CNBC REPORTER: I`m Courtney Reagan with your CNBC Market

Well, stocks lit across the board in Monday`s session. The Dow plummet 331
points, the S and P down 37 and the NASDAQ ends down by 74 points.

While it still decline in crude oil. One of the reasons for today`s
selloff, oil prices falling below $50 a barrel in today before settling
down 5 percent or $50.04 a barrel. Prices were down 46 percent in 2014.
And lower fuel prices helping boost auto sales. GM says December was a
blockbuster with sales soaring more than 19 percent.

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


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

Upcoming inaugurations mean the GOP has more control in state houses than
ever before. Before Election Day, Republicans control 59 legislative
chambers across the country. Now they hold 68. Their plan is to launch a
fresh assault on progressive goals. They`ll attack education, oppress
abortion regulations and cut personal and corporate income taxes. One of
the largest attacks is on workers. Republicans and at least nine states
want to pass right to work legislation. Bills targeting public sector
employee unions spark protest in Wisconsin back in 2011. And also in Ohio,
24 states already have lost on the books.

Democrats in union, officials say that Republicans are going too far. Join
to me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Larry Cohen, Communications
Worker -- president of the Communication Workers of America and also with
this tonight, Annette Taddeo, Vice Chair of the Florida Democratic Party,
great to have both of you with us.

Annette, you first, looking at right to work, this seems to be really an
issue that the Republicans are quiet about but on the state level is where
they`re really push -- making the push here. How successful do you think
that they can be?

successful. Unfortunately, they`ve gotten a majority that is, you know,
veto approved and it`s really difficult for these minorities at the state
houses and state senates to overrule. So, it takes the rest of us. It
takes people like us to talk and let people know and let those Republicans
know that we don`t want those right to our states. I live in one.

SCHULTZ: This is a real avalanche coming, Mr. Cohen, and big business
wants right to work all across this country. Number one, what does it mean
to the workers? And number two, what`s the best way to fight it?

working people whether they have a union or not is raising wages or
eliminating bargaining power. And for those of us who have unions, we have
to constantly link up our own goals of keeping up with our own productivity
rather than the falling wages we`ve seen with these attacks. If right to
work just means union do`s, it`s a losing issue for working people. If it
means raising wages and having right to own the job, it`s so -- and linking
it to broader issues, it`s a winning issue.

SCHULTZ: How does it affect Florida workers right now, Annette?

TADDEO: Well, you know, corporations have the right to fire you for any
reason and they don`t have to tell you why. I mean, it just really gives
all the rights to the employer. I`m an employer myself and I think it`s
wrong. I think it`s wrong that, you know, that we have so many rights as
employers and the workers have no rights. And it`s really hard to form a
union in Florida because of all those ways that they try to curtail the
forming of unions. And I think they`re going to spread it all throughout
the United States.

SCHULTZ: So, Mr. Cohen, if it`s hard to form unions in states that are
legislative attacking workers, what`s -- where`s the recourse here as you
see it? What`s the future?

COHEN: The recourse is more offense, more initiatives on our part, more
work on minimum wage referenda, more work on the rights of workers to swap
schedules if they`re in retail or banking for example, paid sick leave. We
need to be on offense talking about economic issues that all working
Americans care about and that`s where we`ll be and when attacks come,
whether they put us all in defense, we link it up with the issues that all
workers care about.

SCHULTZ: Well, Mr. Cohen, how hard is it going to be to get minimum wage
moving in the next two years with the Republicans in control?

COHEN: State minimum wage, municipal minimum wage. That`s what we`re
going to see. More efforts on our part at the municipal level to talk
about justice on the job, to talk about economic issues, to talk about
voting rights, municipal voting rights, to talk about public financing like
the New York City Council has with a six to one match. We need to stay on
offense where we can make a difference not just defense. The federal level
will get next to nothing done.

SCHULTZ: So, Annette, what really concerns you the most about this
Republican agenda? It`s very clear what they have done since 2010 that
they have targeted state houses, state control to chip away workers`
rights. This -- You being on the National Democratic Council have been
involved in national politics with the progressive movement, what
challenges is spurring to the progressive movement?

TADDEO: Well, I think our challenge is to really give away the message, I
mean, to talk about the importance of workers. I mean, as a business
you`re nothing. You`re nothing if you don`t have your workers and having
happy workers that`s actually what makes your business successful.

So, they very much say that their pro-business and so are we. We are pro-
business but we`re also about making our employees happy and making sure
everybody has the rights that they deserve as workers. So, it`s a fight
really for the understanding that we don`t want to kill businesses. We
actually want businesses to be successful but by making employees also
happy and successful.

SCHULTZ: And to parallel the state efforts of right to work, Mr. Cohen,
you`ve got a battle with the National Labor Relations Board. How long will
it take for the Republicans to get to that?

COHEN: Well, I think they`ll go right after that. You`ll see Lamar
Alexander lead that in attacking and in trying to paste on, you know, what
they`ll call omnibus measures into spending bills so that they can go after
the board right away from day one. But, again, our message has to be
economic justice whether you have a union or not and how do we carry that
message across the county to millions of American workers.

SCHULTZ: All right, Larry Cohen, Annette Taddeo good to have you on
tonight. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Coming up, the right-wing made another player on the field in the run for
president. Mike Huckabee checks out of his TV radio gigs.

The Punch Out, next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Coming up, on the right, the field for 2016 got a lot more

Mike Huckabee wants to know if there`s a broadcast booth in the White
House. Keep it here. We`ll be right back.



MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, I`m going to do more than just say
goodnight. I`m going to say goodbye. This is the last edition of Huckabee
on the Fox News Channel.


SCHULTZ: Wait a minute, Mike. You should be saying, "Hello", not
"Goodbye", right? Mike Huckabee has just stepped into the ring of

The Former Governor of Arkansas ended his Fox News Show on Saturday.


HUCKABEE: I`m not going to make a decision about running until late in the
spring of 2015. But the continued chatter has put Fox News into a position
that just isn`t fair to them.


SCHULTZ: Well, the announcement comes on the heels of a new book.
Huckabee won`t confirm he is running but he is showing all the right signs.

Huckabee campaigned for the White House back in 2008 and won the Iowa
Republican Caucuses if you remember. He got enough nationwide recognition
for a Fox News gig. Good for him.

Huckabee has been a spout of conservative rhetoric since on the radio.


HUCKABEE: I respectfully believe that I am on the right side of history,
because the history is pretty long on marriage between a man and a woman,
not so much for another versions.

I`m beginning to think that there`s more freedom in North Korea sometimes
than there is in the United States.

We ask why there`s violence in our schools but we`ve systematically removed
God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become
a place of carnage?

But if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them
believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing
for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot
control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the
government, then so be it.


SCHULTZ: Mike, would you put that in the State of the Union Address if you
got elected? We`re keeping an eye on how far the right wing crusade will

Joining me tonight, John Fugelsang, Political Commentator and radio host,
and also with us tonight, Holland Cooke, Talk Radio consultant, great to
have both of you with us tonight.

Holland, let`s start with you, just a little refresher course. How did
Mike Huckabee do in the media world?

two problems. Number one, it never really got a fair shot because he was
on head-to-head against Rush Limbaugh, who has all the big stations. So in
a lot of cities, he was tape delayed until evening, you couldn`t make a
live call, he was on a marginal signal station.

And the other problem he had is that on the radio, he was a friendly,
engaging, reasonable guy, and that is hardly the success formula for a
right-wing talk radio.

SCHULTZ: Well, I think the guy is a great communicator. I think that he
has the media savvy where he could melt a campaign that would be much more
effective than 2008. But it seems to me, John, that he`s gotten a lot more
right wing than 2008.

JOHN FUGELSANG, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, yeah, and I don`t want to go
up against Holland. Happy New Year, Mr. Cooke, but he did -- did you
forget that Rush Limbaugh was driving sponsors away like Lindsay Lohan and
Betty Ford and Mike Huckabee picked up a lot of those sponsors. This is a
clear sign that he`s definitely running for president.

I enjoy Mike Huckabee. I kind of feel like he`s worked for Fox News long
enough. Why not run for the GOP nomination and make Fox News work for him?

Full disclosure, Governor Huckabee did sit down with me for an interview
for a movie that I was working on last year. He`s a very nice guy,
charming guy.

COOKE: Yeah.

FUGELSANG: By the time we were done, I knew this Pharisee, who speaks for
Jesus, was going to be running for president.

SCHULTZ: What about him now being on the record on so many issues? Three
hours of radio a day plus a TV show once a week, which is now ending, but
he`s commented on everything.

Here`s Huckabee, he called Michael Brown a "thug," listen to this.


HUCKABEE: It`s a tragedy that the young man got shot, but this is a young
man who just rocked up a store owner, just robbed the store, and now, he`s
going after a cop`s gun, and it`s a horrible thing that he was killed, but
he could have avoided that if he had behave like something other than a


SCHULTZ: Holland, how does that play on a national campaign? That`s who
he is.

COOKE: Well, the camera never blinks as Mitt Romney found out with a 47
percent thing. And don`t think that team Romney is in having meetings
right now because of this. And I think the reason this is happening now is
because Jeb Bush has moved the timeline. Governor Bush is to the
Republicans what Hillary Clinton is to the Democrats. In casino Parklands
(ph) here in Las Vegas, they call him "The Cooler," because they freeze the
dough, all the big money, which is the mother`s milk of presidential
politics is on hold right now, waiting for these two folks to announce. So
if you`re Mike Huckabee, you got to get out there now. And I bet they`re
having a meeting at team Romney.

SCHULTZ: Well, what about that, John? I mean there`s no question that
Mike Huckabee is not Jeb Bush. They`re different when it comes to social
conservative issues.

FUGELSANG: Yeah, and I don`t think Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton on the
same level. I think George Clinton could be Jeb Bush for the presidency.
I do think, however, that Governor Huckabee has shot himself in the foot so
many times he could run for deputy of Mayberry, but the fact is this man is
the best public speaker in the entire Republican Party and Democratics.


FUGELSANG: . underestimate him at their own peril. He began his career.

COOKE: Correct.

FUGELSANG: . as a TV evangelist, which means he`s very good at lying to
people on camera and making them feel good about it. And I guarantee you,
he`s got -- he`ll have Wall Street donations, he`ll have -- he`ll exhume
Chuck Norris for some more ghastly ads together, those were very effective.
And I think Huckabee was the only Republican who could have beaten Senator
Obama back in 2008. I look forward as a comedienne to a hilarious two
years of.

COOKE: A lot of material there. A lot of material.

SCHULTZ: Speaking of Jeb Bush, he`s in the neighborhood just across the
river in Connecticut raising money this week. What do you make of that? I
mean it is a raise to the dollar isn`t it, Holland?

COOKE: It sure is. And as I say, time flies. Once that money starts
moving around, you don`t hear much from Vice President Biden, who would
logically be plan B.


COOKE: . if no Hillary, because she`s got that money on hold.

SCHULTZ: No doubt. John Fugelsang, Holland Cooke, great to have you with
us tonight, gentlemen, thank you.

That`s The Ed Show. I`m Ed Schultz. Politics Nation with Reverend Al
Sharpton starts right now. Good evening, Rev., Happy New Year.


Copyright 2015 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.>