The Ed Show for Thursday, January 29th, 2015

Show: THE ED SHOW
Date: January 29, 2015
Guest: Adam Green, Bruce Bartlett, Joe Cirincione, Corey Hebert, Nancy
Snyderman


ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC HOST: Good evening Americans and welcome to the Ed Show
live from Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.

We`re at work tonight and I`m steaming my head. But I got a smile on my
face because that`s what I`m supposed to do.

Just moments ago, the United State Senate voted 62 to 36. This was the
scene in the United State Senate, only 36 Democrats voted no on the
Keystone XL Pipeline.

So Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, they got what they wanted in the
Senate. They got a yes vote, but what a sad moment for Democrats if
they`re concerned about climate change.

To me, there`s no amendment that is worthy of a Democratic vote. There`s
no amendment out there that could be placed on the table, if the Democrats
are serious about climate change.

So I interpret this vote as number one, the Democrats can be bought.
Number two, the Democrats seriously or not serious about climate change.
They`re only lukewarm.

Lukewarm. So in other words, they`re not jumping in the lake, they only
got their toe in there. This is not good.

Now, when you look at Keystone, what amendment out there is worthy of
bringing the dirtiest oil on the face of the earth to market that will not
enhance your pocketbook at all? But it will enhance the pocketbooks of the
Koch brothers, the very people who are funding Citizens United and working
behind that law to make sure that they takedown the progressive movement in
this country.

So we have 36 Democrats who can`t be bought and we have some Democrats who
say, "Well, you know, the pipeline is going to get built anyway."

No it`s not, not so fast. You can`t rationalize absolutes.

We are facing. We are on the tip of the iceberg of some serious things
happening in our climate. This could have been game changer but now the
United States Senate is sending a message to progressive across this
country that, you know, maybe we`re really not that serious about climate
change. In fact, there are conditions that can be set where we can be
bought and we`ll just kick it to the next generation.

Where`s the victory here? There is no victory. And there`s no victory for
consumers either.

So what`s going to happen now is that, this is going to go back to
committee. It`s going to end up on a President`s desk, and the President
is going to have to veto it. We think.

Now, it`s time for the White House to really draw the line in its stand on
Keystone.

But as I reported on this program, the last several nights, I went down in
Nebraska this past weekend and enterprise the story on, "OK, who`s in the
middle of this?" It`s the land owners. The landowners who can`t be
bought, the landowners on tape who told me over the weekend, they can`t be
bought the way the United States Senate was bought today.

Amendment after amendment after amendment, finally they get a yes vote on
Keystone. It`s that worth it.

So they rationalize their way to this. The landowners taking it to the
court and putting it on the level of eminent domain and property rights,
that`s what`s going to stop this project.

So it`s not a slam dunk yet, but it is a sad day for the Democrats. It`s a
sad day for the progressive movement in this country. So now, I guess, we
can all say, "Well, its cocktail hour in the City of Brotherly Love."
We`ll we got that out of the way. We don`t have to worry about the
liberals anymore, shouting at us about Keystone.

House Democrats on the other side or in Philadelphia right now for their
second day of their annual retreat. They`re planning their agenda for this
new Congress. Good for them.

President Obama is going to be speaking at the House Democrats later
tonight. He`s going to talk a lot about the economy and what he`s got to
have. The President will reportedly urge Democrats to kill the sequester
in this year`s budget.

It`s a good move. It`s a right thing to do. But I`m sure the president
will also be pushing the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Now the theme of this year`s retreat for the Democrats of Philadelphia is,
"Grow America`s economy, grow American paychecks." Hey, I`m all about it.
We`re all about it, pretty generic and pretty vanilla.

I ask the Democrats tonight, are you willing to standup to this
conservative agenda that is trying to destroy everything that you built-up
in recent decades?

Congressman Steny Hoyer came out the first day of this retreat. For his
benefit, he didn`t holdback.

(BEGIN OF VIDEO CLIP)

REP. STENY HOYER, (D) MARYLAND: We spent now a month in the Congress of
the United States and we have fiddled why Rome has burned for the middle
class. And that`s why they`re upset. Because they hear the talk about the
middle class but they don`t see the walk.

These weeks have not been good for the majority in the House of
Representatives or I would say the United States Senate. A divisive vote,
the first week, indicating again the deep divisions within the Republican
Party reflected in the vote for Speaker. Then they brought a bill on the
floor where we talked about the "American Dream". So what they do on a
second week? They wanted to expel the DREAMers. Then on the third week,
they wanted to undermine women`s rights to their own choices in health care
protection.

So they wanted to kick out the DREAMers and undermine women`s choices for
health. Their freedom, we hear a lot about freedom, but they want to
undermine. And this past week of course, they had to pull a bill that
would have undermined our environment and our economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Congressman Hoyer is right, but why did the Democrats want to be
in the arena with this kind of people? Hold the line. Democrats can`t
cave.

They need to fight even harder for the middle class. That includes
opposing bogus trade deals like the TPP. Now Roll Call is reporting that
Progressive Democrats believed refusing to support trade deals as bullet
point to add to the Democratic platform.

Forget all of that, there`s absolutes here. Moderate Democrats will they
disagree with that. They`re concerned that they`re going to be losing
Democratic Party swing votes in 2016. There`s always a political
calculation on the job, isn`t there?

You show me a moderate Democrat that had his job shift overseas and I`ll
show you pissed off American. Now, are you going to support that person or
not?

The TPP is a worthless agreement, it undermines American workers, its
emerging markets that will depress wages in this country and it also
challenges the sovereignty of this country. If the Democrats want to
support the middle class, they need to say no to TPP.

Now, the other issue of course is Keystone which the vote on the Senate
took place. They voted and there weren`t enough Democrats to stop this.
Just moments ago, the vote was 63 to 36. And we`ll bring you a little bit
more on this later in the show.

Now, environmental groups, they`re planning a protest in Philadelphia
tonight. They`re going to protest the pipeline during the President`s
speech at 6:00 P.M. to the Democratic retreat. They`re not going to give
up.

Now this is an issue, Democrats can`t cave on, there`s still more work to
do on this. Democrats need to unite against the TPP and they need to hold
the line on Keystone, stop at any method you can.

Now, let me tell you what I think should be said at this retreat tonight in
Philadelphia and tomorrow.

Don`t come up with a slogan saying you really want the paycheck to be
better or whatever the heck the Democrats want to say to the people. They
need to convince Americans that they are going to fight for them. And the
Democrats need to protect the American institutions like Medicare and
Medicaid and Social Security, call them untouchable.

They need to tell the American people that the social safety net will not
be cut and they`re not going to have any problem whatsoever drawing a line
in the sand. There are things that are totally non-negotiable. That`ll be
a good start.

Democrats have to tell Republicans that this is not going to be the era of
capitulation. You may have the legislative power but you don`t have it
all. They got to stop this radical Republican effort that wants to destroy
everything President Obama and the progressive movement has accomplished
over the past six years and over the past five decades.

That Democrats need to understand the definition of power, and they need to
be showing the guts to use it. Some Democrats these days are saying,
"Well, you know? Let`s just cut a deal, maybe we can use Keystone as a
bargaining chip, maybe we can look at Chained CPI. Maybe we can message
Obamacare to the point where we`re not really covering as many people."

Those are all nonstarters, and to compromise would be a mistake. Everyone
knows there`s no such thing as compromise or common ground with Boehner and
McConnell. And it`s either they`re away or the highway.

How do I know? Well I watched "60 Minutes" on Sunday. And Republican
leadership told the American people that they will oppose President Obama
on everything.

The Democrats need to use the filibuster just like the Republicans did.
Don`t tell Americans that you have a spine and you`re going to stick out
for him. Show us.

It`s very simple, take a page out of their playbook. People are
politically exhausted on the left right now and they`re all scattering and
they`re not really sure what to think because nobody is saying it.

This is human nature. If you`re not willing to fight for me, how in the
hell do you expect me to lineup and fight with you? The Democrats if you
want minimum wage, if you really believe that minimum wage is a starter to
move this country forward, then you need to send the message out of this
conference in Philadelphia that nothing is going to happen. You have to
play hard, play smart, play together.

That means, you got to get on the same page with the Senate and you all got
to be there and say, we`re stopping everything just like you did in the
last session of the Congress. We don`t care if people are mad at us or
not, we`re going to get minimum wage forward, and you need to show American
workers that you`re going to do exactly what you want to do with the
limited power that you have right now.

This is why the filibuster was put in place, so minority voices would have
a vote, so minority voices would not be run over. Hell the Republicans
showed us what a filibuster can do.

If you really want minimum wage, stop everything until you get it. Force
the Republicans. You want corporate taxes to be lowered? Fine, lower and
come to the table on minimum wage and raise minimum wage, do not $10.10 in
a few years, now.

You want to know why the left is exhausted, it`s because we feel like,
"Well, we got our ass kicked in the election. There`s really -- I guess,
we got to go negotiate with them", no you don`t. You need to stick up for
the very people who put Barack Obama in office twice. You need to get some
heart and get some desire and redefine that soul of yours in the City of
Brotherly Love and come out united saying, "We will stop everything unless
we get what we want because we`re on the side of the American people." And
if you can`t do that then you don`t earn the vote.

If you can`t do that, it`s human nature. If you`re not going to fight for
me, tell me why I should fight for you. That`s where Liberals are in this
country right now.

Now, we`ve just saw a very bad example today in the United States Senate.
We found out that Democrats can run all over the talking heads and talk
about climate change and we got to do something and we got severe storms.
But wait a minute, we can be bought.

End the purchasing, draw the line. We`re the ones that put together 58
months of private sector job growth. We`re the ones that fought for the
stimulus package and came back with 11 million jobs. We`re the ones who
didn`t tip the automobile industry under the table and the ripple effect in
our economy.

Republicans had nothing to do with any of that. And Republicans aren`t
going to have anything to do with immigration reform, minimum wage,
community college, health care.

The next promo that I do on MSNBC is going to be about health care. And
I`m going to holdup a bill that I got from Sloan (ph) Memorial that`s over
$16,000.

And I`m going to talk about how my wife and our family has insurance but
what are the people do who don`t have insurance? Do you know that there`s
a political party in Washington that has voted to take that away for
millions of Americans? And they think that they are the moral campus of
this country.

You know, we`re told that we have to make sure that Liberals have the right
tone in America, that we can`t be angry, that they won the election and
it`s all over. So we`re going to go and listen to the Democrats in the
City of Brotherly Love and they`re going to comeback and cut more deals.
No.

You come back and you draw the line and you tell the very people that put
Barack Obama in office, "This is where we are in Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid. Its nonstarters and we`re going to give you a dose of your own
medicine. We`ll show you how to filibuster. We don`t care if everything
stops."

By the way, come to the table with minimum wage, do something for the
economy, stop the TPP, do something for workers` rights in this country.
Stop telling me that tide is coming in below the boats are sinking.

This is what Liberals want. I don`t need a poll. I`m out in the middle of
the country, I know exactly what they`re saying, and I know exactly how
they fell. But if we`re going to sit here and get run over time and time
and time again, and cut deals and be bought, we`re no better than the
Republicans.

The Republicans have voted over 50 times in the House to take insurance
away from poor Americans. And they have no plan to replace it, and that
just doesn`t piss our side off. Just -- I find it utterly amazing.

But wait a minute we`re concern about climate change. You know, we all
fight in different ways and we`re all passionate about different issues.
But if you care about the country and if you have an ideologue who`s
willing to obstruct the only way you stop that avalanche is to give it
right back to them. Wake them up.

Get your cellphones out I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question,
"Do you think Democrats should use obstruction as a tool? Text A for yes,
text B for no to 67622, you can always go to out blog at ed.msnbc.com.

We`ll bring you the results later on the end of the show.

Adam Green is with me tonight. He is the cofounder of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee. And I want to point out that this gentleman`s
organization has been doing a lot of polling as of late. He is -- I
believe that the PCCC and some other organizations are the pulse of the
left, OK? And they got the numbers to back it up.

Adam, what do Progressive`s want to hear from the Democrats at this
retreat? What`s the message, what should be the message that would
invigorate the left to know that there`s still a pulse and there`s still
some frightening words out there. What do we do?

ADAM GREEN, COFOUNDER, PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: Well, first
of all Ed, I love when you get fired up because you are speaking for
millions of people who feel the same way.

And what -- not just the left but really the vast center of this country
wants to hear from Democrats, is a fighting spirit. A real statement of
principle that we stand for big ideas, big ideas that would tangibly
improve people`s lives not go the other direction like Keystone, like the
TPP.

So yes, they need to use every tool at their disposal to say no to
Republican bad ideas. But frankly, when the Republican say, "We want
Keystone." we need to say no and then say, "We want a green new deal", you
know, we want a millions of clean energy jobs across this country. When
they say, "We want the TPP" which will export jobs, we need to say no. We
want fair trade that will protect American jobs that increase American
wages, right?

When they say, "We want to cut Social Security", the American people want
Democrats to say no. We will expand Social Security benefits to actually
keep up with the cost of seniors. So the bottom line is Americans want big
ideas Ed. And you`re actually right, the President needs to set that tone
and Democrats in the House need to really be willing to go there.

SCHULTZ: Well, the President has nothing to lose and he said that in the
State of Union Address in so many words. And the Democrats are going to
get run over in the House, we all know that. But the Democrats in the
House can set a mindset in this country, we`re mad as hell and were not
going to take it anymore.

And if you`re not willing to do that, how do you expect people to get
excited about the next campaign for 2016. Or if you`re not going to force
them to listen to you, how do they`re going to know what you stand for?

Should a line be drawn in the sand if the Democrats really want minimum
wage? How would they achieve, Adam?

GREEN: Yeah. They need to fight for minimum wage and be clear about that.
But honestly I think that we need to go further. I mean, just this week,
Bernie Sanders introduced $1trillion infrastructure bill which should
create millions of jobs and that would increase wages for a millions of
Americans in addition to just employing them, right?

It would affect the entire market, and Democrats need to show Americans a
vision like that. You know, I think when we look at the fight in December
over the CRomnibus bill, when Elizabeth Warren and the Senate and the
progressive caucus in the House, really stood on principle like you`re
describing and drew a line in the sand.

It, you know, we lost that vote but it had a huge impact. You know there
were quotes from Wall Street just the very next week, saying "Wow, you
know, given the fight the Democrats just did, we`ll be lucky if there`s not
more Wall Street regulation next Congress, this Congress that we are in
now." right?

So we -- essentially...

SCHULTZ: Yes.

GREEN: ... they went from playing defense to playing offense and having
Wall Street running scared. That`s the kind of fighting spirit we need and
Americans need to see that fight from Democrats.

SCHULTZ: And quickly, the polling that your organization has done proves
that Americans want an increase on Social Security and they don`t want to
privatize it. And I asked that question for verification on your poll
numbers because the Republicans are now talking about back to private
accounts, back to privatization, they`re going down that road. But your
polling shows that this is a total loser for the Republicans, correct?

GREEN: Absolutely. The Progressive Change Institute just did a big
national poll. It`s at thinkbig.us on issue after issue. The American
people are with us. The only question is will Democrats fight?

And if we fight, we can win. It`s just a matter of having the courage or
our convictions and being willing to fight for truly big ideas that will
tangibly impact people`s lives, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Adam Green, PCCC, keep up the great work. I appreciate your time
tonight. Thank you.

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

Coming up, Sarah Palin`s Iowa speech cost her credibility in the
conservative media. But one big name Republican still has her back.
Details next.

And later, we will list the names of nine Democrats who voted for Keystone
today. Stay with us. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.

The conservative circus is gearing up for 2016 but many are looking for a
new ring leader especially after this.

(BEGIN OF VIDEO CLIP)

FRM. GOV. SARAH PALIN, (R) ALASKA: What will they do to stop causing our
pain and start feeling it again? It is they who point a finger -- not
really -- but they have tripled that amount of fingers pointing right back
at them. We respect our troops and we let them -- our troops as our gate
keepers -- we let them tell jihadist, "Uh-uh, this is our house, get the
hell out."

You know, the man can only ride you when your back is bent. So strengthen
it. Then the man can`t ride the American won`t be taking for a ride.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: Sometimes folks you just can`t edit the tape.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner described it as a "Long, rambling,
and at times barely coherent speech."

National Review`s John Fund said, "Her meandering and often bizarre speech
was showed she wasn`t serious about a 2016 run."

In the conservative media, Palin`s star -- well, it`s fading fast but not
all righties are counting the half-term governor out. The man who put
Palin the spotlight thinks that Sarah still has a shot at the White House.

Arizona Center to John McCain told the Washington Post, "She`s very
interesting and I`m sure she`d do great."

Joining me tonight Bruce Bartlett, former Policy Adviser to Presidents
Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Mr. Bartlett, great to have you with us
tonight.

You have written about this in your book, how Republicans repeatedly
embrace people that don`t seem to have the wherewithal to finish the race.
What`s your reaction first of all to John McCain`s endorsement of Palin?

BRUCE BARTLETT, FMR. REAGAN & H. W. BUSH POLICY ADVISER: Well, I think
there`s a slight possibility that Mr. McCain was being sarcastic as in
saying, "Yeah, she`d be a great candidate", you know, that sort of thing.

But on the other hand, he brought her -- he foisted her unto the American
public and he`s name should live in infamy for -- having done that.

But I think the most interesting thing about Mrs. Palin`s speech rambling,
incoherent speech is how rapidly the conservative media have just
defenestrated her. They`ve simply given up on her completely. They are
trying to push her off the stage and I think it`s very interesting. I`d
really be curious to know who gave the order that her time is up.

SCHULTZ: Are Republicans finally catching on that Palin just isn`t a
serious candidate and then it`s nothing but a road show?

BARTLETT: I think they`ve always known that but they stood behind her
because they feel that she was martyred, so to speak, by the way she was
treated by the media during the 2008 campaign.

But I think the main thing that has caused them to give up on her is that
there are simply a lot more competitors for the GOP attention span. And
one of them I think is Joni Ernst, the new U.S. Senator from Iowa who`s
every bit as crazy as Palin is but a lot smarter. And she is at least the
U.S. Senator whereas Mrs. Palin has not been held public office for what?
Six years or so.

And so, I think that sort of people like her and Ben Carson who`s also
crazy but at least he`s a medical doctor. And so I think there -- she`s
been pushed off to stage by people who are appealed more to the Republicans
base at this particular moment.

SCHULTZ: So what is it in the new Republican DNA that they`re drawn to
people that you just described?

BARTLETT: That`s a really excellent question. I think part of it is this
martyr status that they think that by supporting people who are criticized
in the mainstream media even if they`re absolutely legitimately criticized
for saying stupid things, wrong things, untruthful things, that somehow or
other this makes -- this is because the liberal media are afraid of these
people. That that`s the reason they`re being criticized, it`s not because
they`re wrong but because they`re threatened.

I honestly think that this is what they believe, of course its utter
nonsense. But you have to remember that no conservative watches the
mainstream media or reads a legitimate newspapers like the Washington Post
and The New York Times. They get 100 percent of their information from
their own approved right-wings sources that massage all those data, so that
they actually believe things that are utterly and completely nonsensical.

SCHULTZ: OK. And what do you think of Mike Huckabee?

BARTLETT: Well, you know, in the past he`s sounded enough like a
legitimate person that I -- I think there was some reason to think that he
might have a chance. But he seems have gone full religious cook (ph) this
time around feeling that he really needs the most extreme elements of the
most extreme religious element in this country to get the nomination.

But the promise of course, he is fighting buys like Rick Santorum who are
doing exactly the same thing. And I think it`s just absolutely amazing how
many people claimed to be running for President. It`s just absolutely
astonishing because normally in the Republican Party, they like to anoint a
successor and then rally around that person where it`s now of course it`s
the Democrats who are doing that.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Bruce Bartlett always a pleasure, great to have you with us
tonight. Thank you so much for joining us.

Still to come, new research clears the air on the health risks of vaping.
Our Rapid Response Panel weighs on this.

And later, the NFL could find running back Marshwan Lynch for crimes of
fashion. We`re going into the beast mode in the two-minute drill.

But next, your tax dollars not at work. We`ll update you on the latest of
the Keystone news out of the Capitol.

Stay with us. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show.

We started the Ed Show tonight with the news that Senate Republicans won
their first meaningless fights since winning control of the United State
Senate.

The Senate voted 62 to 36 to approve the pipeline. Here are the names of
the Democrats who voted yes to the Keystone XL bill. Senator Michael
Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey from Pennsylvania,
Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of
West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark
Warner of Virginia.

Are they climate deniers? Well, let`s just say that there`s just not
enough science out there that would make them believe that climate change
is an issue and bringing the dirtiest oil on the face of earth to market
really outweighs any kind of science that`s been put in front of American
people as of yet.

What a sad day? Its unfortunate those Senators amended their way to a yes
vote. Apparently they could be bought.

Stick around, Rapid Response Panel is next.

COURTNEY REAGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Courtney Reagan with your CNBC
Market Wrap.

Stocks surged after two days of stiff losses. The Dow jumps 225 points.
The S&P add 19. The NASDAQ up 45.

Well shares of Amazon are sharply higher after hours up more than 11
percent. The company`s earnings trounced estimates but revenue was light
and fist quarter sales projections are below expectations.

And Google shares were down about 2 percent after hours but it bounce back.
The tech giant`s revenue and earnings missed targets.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. Thanks for watching tonight.

If you`re a smoker I`m sure there`s been times when you want to kick the
habit or at least investigate the next best thing.

Well, when electronic cigarettes first hit the market, they were often
advertised as a healthier alternative to smoking. California health
officials, they`re not buying it.

On Wednesday, the State`s Department of Public Health officially declared
e-cigarettes a health risk. They want e-cigarettes to be strictly
regulated just like tobacco products. They also want more research done on
the immediate and long-term effects when it comes to using this device.

A report published last week found the vapor produced by e-cigarettes can
contain "a surprisingly high concentration of formaldehyde. Using certain
devices at high temperature settings may actually release more formaldehyde
than smoking traditional cigarettes."

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, sometimes use in embalming process.

This is particularly bad news for the growing number of e-cigarette
consumers who used the product in an effort to quit smoking.

Bottom line, there`s still a whole lot we do not know about e-cigarettes.

Joining me tonight in our Rapid Response Panel Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC`s
Chief Medical Editor and also Dr. Corey Hebert, Professor at LSU Health
Sciences Center.

Great to have both of you with us tonight.

DR. NANCY SNYDERMAN, CHIEF MEDICAL EDITOR, NBC NEWS: Thanks, Ed.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Nancy, you first.

DR. COREY HEBERT, LSU HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER: Good to be here.

SCHULTZ: What health risks are here? What do you think brought California
to this conclusion?

SNYDERMAN: What brought California to this point is the big, "We don`t
know" factor.

The assumption has always been that if you can get away from the
carcinogens that are in tobacco you`re better off even if you`re addicted
to nicotine. Because nicotine is not what`s kills you, it`s all the
carcinogens that come along with it.

But now questions are being raised and they have been raised about what
happens with the vapor. Is it innocuous or does it in fact have other
substances which could -- put people in harms way.

There has been an increasing call to regulate e-cigarettes under FDA
guidance, as you know Tobacco Company are even looking in investing in
this. It`s a multibillion dollar industry. And there are people on both
sides of the fence, people who have stopped smoking because of them and
people who don`t like them at all in their presence. But the reality is we
just don`t have great science to really be able to spell out the long-term
risks.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Hebert, what would your advice be to someone who comes into
your office and gets a physical and says, "You know, I really want to quit
smoking, what about these e-cigarettes?"

HEBERT: Yeah. Well, we do know now that the formaldehyde that exists in
these e-cigarettes is very high and we don`t have a lot of studies to talk
about e-cigarette. But now I believe we do have a lot studies that were
done in funeral homes and have -- the patients have been exposed to
formaldehyde a long periods of time. And so leukemias, nasal cancers, all
of those things are very -- a lot higher when you`ve been exposed to
formaldehyde.

I know that right now, if you decide and you`re watching right now to
ingest or inhale an unregulated vapor or smoke, you are increasing your
risk for cancer and other types of respiratory diseases. Hands down, no
way that you can get around it and that`s something that we have to take on
as a decision between, you know, if you`re an adult but there reality that
I tell my patients, there is no easy way out. You need to quit smoking and
you need to quit smoke -- and vaping as well.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Snyderman...

SNYDERMAN: One thing is also come up and, you know, there`s been a lot of
marketing...

SCHULTZ: Yeah.

SNYDERMAN: ... the young kids because we know that, if -- for adults who
are ready to quit smoking and this is the gateway away from cigarettes.
It`s really hard to argue using this as a transition product. But
increasingly, there are a lot of flavored choices and there`s been a pretty
avert marketing towards young people.

And California has been really compulsive about monitoring how many
children have been exposed in this concentrated nicotine in home situations
and calls to the Poison Control Centers in California have shut up.

So we have to be really careful about nicotine as a poison, nicotine as an
addictive agent and then what comes out of the, you know, the fumes at the
end.

There are really a lot of different parts of this whole thing to really --
now I`ve studied but to continue to discuss as we move forward.

SCHULTZ: So Nancy, is it better than smoking? I mean...

SNYDERMAN: But nothing is worst than smoking. Smoking the only product
that when used correctly will kill you.

So if I know that someone wants to use this as in gateway to stop using
cigarettes and nicotine completely, you know, I`d rather have, as head and
neck cancer surgeon I`d rather have patients off cigarettes. But if you
asked me, are e-cigarettes safe? I cannot tell you that the answer is yes.
I think the formaldehyde situation is a real one.

SCHULTZ: What about that Dr. Hebert? I mean what kind of studies and how
long would they take to get a real read on what the dangers are of
vaporing?

HEBERT: Well, I think we do have some studies underway now. But I think
we`re going to have to look at the short-term and long-term. But this
sound so familiar because we know in the `50s, you know, and `60s we were
told that cigarettes weren`t very harmful so...

SNYDERMAN: Yeah.

HEBERT: ... so many people have died with the same type of -- the same
types of antics. I`m very proud of my city of New Orleans. We just passed
a law for our city where you cannot vape or smoke traditional cigarettes in
any facility. And I think that`s very important. We have to take
responsibility.

You know, being able to smoke is not a right. OK? I mean, it`s something
especially when it infringes upon my right to be a healthy human being.

SNYDERMAN: And I would tell you that as a former Californian, if it`s
happen in California, every state should get ready because you`re going to
see an increased...

HEBERT: Exactly.

SNYDERMAN: ... call for this kind of legislation across the country.

SCHULTZ: All right, interesting discussion. I know people who are using
it and they claimed its working and there somewhat shocked by this story.
And this is really the first time that I think it`s been out there on a
state level where they have made, you know...

SNYDERMAN: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... a determination and talked about the risks...

SNYDERMAN: And the FDA is going to have to jump in.

SCHULTZ: So it`s going to be interesting.

SNYDERMAN: I mean, this is really is going to have to go beyond the state
I think to the federal level too.

HEBERT: Yes. It will. It will.

SCHULTZ: Well, that was -- that`s really the next thing. The Federal Drug
Administration, I mean, how aggressive Nancy, do you think that they would
be now that this out in California as you said, if you live in California
you`re going to expect other action.

SNYDERMAN: Well I think you have a couple of interesting things happening.
Tobacco companies are looking in investing in e-cigarette products and
buying small companies. The FDA regulates cigarettes so the FDA regulating
e-cigarettes, I think is bound to happen.

But, you know, we have to know...

SCHULTZ: OK.

SNYDERMAN: ... about safety and regulation and we have to know about
transparency to everybody and that you just talk the truth.

SCHULTZ: Dr. Nancy Snyderman and Dr. Corey Hebert, great to have both of
you with us tonight. Thank you so much.

SNYDERMAN: You bet Ed.

SCHULTZ: I`m glad I don`t smoke.

Still to come, the U.S. works towards a nuclear deal with Iran with John
Boehner`s invite to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu could blow it up.

Stay tune. You`re watching the Ed Show on MSNBC. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: And tonight`s two minute drill, Beast Mode breaks his silence.

Seattle Seahawks Running Back Marshawn Lynch hates talking to the media so
much. He has been fined $100,000 for his failure to meet the NFL`s media
obligations.

Lynch did show up in Tuesday`s Super Bowl Media Day. He answered every
single question with the line, "I am here so I won`t get fined."

Now, the running back of Seattle could face a significant fine for wearing
a Beast Mode branded hat without proposal, without approval.

Now, the guy catch a break either way can he?

Now, there is one thing Marshawn Lynch loves as much as he hates talking to
the media, skittles.

So it only makes sense, Lynch broke his silence in an exclusive skittles
press conference. Take a listen.

(BEGIN OF VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you could live on any planet after you retire from
football, which planet would it be?

MARSHAWN LYNCH, SEAHAWKS RUNNING BACK: I`ll stay right here on earth, I
kind of like it here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marshawn, do you prefer watching cat videos or dog
videos online?

LYNCH: Do I prefer watching cat videos or dog videos online? I`ll watch
the cat.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marshawn, do you think it would be easier or harder to
play football on the moon?

LYNCH: I think it would be easier. Do I ever wish a field where twice as
long so I could get a 200-yard rushing touchdown? Not at all. I`ll stick
with the 100-yard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marshawn, what it feels like keeping in beast mode?

LYNCH: You don`t feel a Beast Mode. It feels you.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SCHULTZ: You see the Skittles give you something to do while you`re
thinking about your answer. Clever. Glad to see he`s having fun, to be at
the NFL can have fun. They don`t have a cat on it so they`re not happy
about it.

There`s a lot more coming up on the Ed Show. Stay with us. We`ll be right
back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCHULTZ: Welcome back to the Ed Show. And finally tonight, we`re back to
trust but verified.

President Obama is giving a run plenty of time to flash out a nuclear deal.

Today, the Senate Banking Committee voted 18 to 4 to tighten sanctions if
international negotiators failed to reach an agreement on Iran`s nuclear
program by the end of June.

That`s not good enough for Speaker John Boehner.

The Speaker is throwing a wrench into the works by inviting Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session with the Congress.

House Democrats are circulating a letter formally asking Boehner to delay
the invitation. What is it all mean?

Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund joins us tonight here on
the Ed Show. Joe, good to have you with us.

Does Netanyahu speaking to Congress really hurt the possibility of a deal
with the Iranians? I mean, how damaging upside, downside of this? How do
you see it?

JOE CIRINCIONE, PRESIDENT, PLOUGHSHARES FUND: Well, it might have if it
was handled properly but Boehner has bungled this badly. It`s produced a
huge backlash in Israel where Netanyahu was currently behind in the polls
for the March elections. It is greatly worried American Jewish leaders who
see Israel suddenly being scenically thrown into the middle of a partisan
Republican attack on the Democratic President.

And it is actually helped President Obama that banking vote you spoke of
off today was actually a victory for Obama. The plan was to put the
sanctions in place now but Obama forced the senators to back off and hold
their fire until at least the end of March.

So this is something that might have been seemed like a clever political
ploy when Boehner announced it to the surprise of the President last week
but it`s badly backfired.

SCHULTZ: Would Boehner know if we`re close to the deal with the Iranians?

CIRINCIONE: Well, everybody knows we`re close to the deal with the
Iranians. The negotiations have been dragging on. There have been two
extensions now. We`re just a few centrifuges apart, a few terms apart but
the top bargaining as you know, Ed, in this negotiations always goes down
to the wire. What are the financial concessions that will be made? That
probably won`t happen until the end of March.

This was Boehner`s effort to try to kill the negotiations. He wanted a
sanctions vote now that`s been defeated, that`s backed off and it`s
actually increased Democratic Senator`s support for the President`s
position.

President Obama has been very forceful on this issue. Right now he is
winning the debate.

SCHULTZ: OK. We`re back to trust but verify with the Iranians. There`s
no question about that. And how big a gamble is this? If you listen to
the Republicans Lindsey Graham, do you think this is a worst thing since
sliced bread? That no one can be trusted in these talks?

Yet, the President has repeatedly said he is willing to go down this road
because nobody else has before. And it seems like he wants to exhaust
absolutely every effort to get some kind of a deal with Iran.

So who`s right and who`s wrong?

CIRINCIONE: We are very close to an agreement that would block Iran`s path
to bomb the uranium path, the plutonium path, block them from being able to
get away with secret covered facilities.

If we can get such a deal that is far better than the alternative. If
these negotiations were to collapse, if Boehner was to have to his way,
then the alternative would be just to standby and watch Iran proceed to
increase its capabilities which have been frozen during the current
negotiations or to actually go to war.

And this impart is what Bibi Netanyahu wanted to do with his speech. I
think he is lost considerably his credibility and his legitimacy here as a
fair arbiter of national security interest. And the real damage here is
being done to the U.S.-Israeli alliance.

Israel is a closed trusted ally by taking this partisan role, by siding so
clearly with one political party against another, Netanyahu is in uncharted
territory. I have never seen anything like it in the U.S.-Israeli alliance
is suffering because of it.

SCHULTZ: So we can speculate that Netanyahu would come to Congress and
basically fear monger?

CIRINCIONE: He`s been exaggerating the Iranian threat for many years
impart to deflect attention from the other issues. There`s Blow back
building in Congress...

SCHULTZ: Yes.

CIRINCIONE: ... you may see him pressured into canceling his speech after
all.

SCHULTZ: All right, Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund,
great to have with us tonight. I appreciate your conversation. Thank you
so much.

That`s the Ed Show, I`m Ed Schultz.

PoliticsNation with Reverend Al Sharpton starts right now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

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.>