Guest: Ed Markey, Brent Coon, Sam Stein, Rep. Chaka Fattah, A.B. Stoddard, Jack Rice, Jonathan Turley, Paul Helmke
LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, HOST: Good evening, and welcome to THE ED SHOW.
I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell, in for Ed Schultz.
Here are the stories we‘ll be hitting tonight.
BP‘s CEO says his company could have had a better emergency plan. He
admits there were missteps in their response. Congressman Ed Markey tells
us what‘s been uncovered so far in the investigation.
I have a suggestion for liberals concerned about Elena Kagan. Trust
President Obama‘s judgment on this one.
And Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak are running neck and neck in the
Pennsylvania primary, but which one can beat Republican Pat Toomey in
November? A new poll could sway undecided Democrats.
But we start with the oil disaster in the gulf. BP CEO Tony Hayward
admits his company could have done better. He concedes there were
missteps.
Eleven people are dead. There are over four million gallons of oil
floating in the Gulf of Mexico. “Missteps” is not the word for that.
How about negligence? How about criminal negligence? Or maybe
manslaughter?
Just how reckless was BP and its subcontractors?
It now appears that BP and Transocean ignored many opportunities to
avoid this disaster. That was the focus of an explosive investigative
House hearing yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: This catastrophe appears to have
been caused by a calamitous series of equipment and operational failures.
If the largest oil and oil service companies in the world had been more
careful, 11 lives might have been saved and our coastlines protected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: What specific equipment and operational failures did
investigators find? There were four known problems with the blowout
preventer, which was supposed to be the fail-safe to cut off the flow of
oil and gas. Part of the prevention process is literally to cut the cord
with the drillpipe, but the shears were only strong enough to cut through
the pipe, not the joints that connect to the pieces of the pipe together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: The threaded joints between the
sections of drillpipe make up about 10 percent of the length of pipe. If
the shear rams cannot cut through the joints, that would mean the so-called
fail-safe device would succeed in cutting the drillpipe only 90 percent of
the time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: But even if the shears didn‘t work, there was a backup
plan, a fail-safe to the fail-safe, a so-called dead man‘s switch. The
dead man‘s switch also failed. Why? Because someone didn‘t change the
battery.
So, to recap, the growing list of problems with the Deepwater Horizon
oil rig owned by BP, dead battery, bad wiring, leak in the so-called
blowout preventer. But perhaps the most damning evidence to come out was
this—when Transocean bought that blowout preventer, which was supposed
to prevent the catastrophic spill that we‘ve seen, they were told, they
knew that there were 260 possible risks for failure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STUPAK: How can a device that has 260 failure modes be considered
fail-safe?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: That is the question of the day. If only someone at
Transocean had dared to ask that question in 2001, when they knowingly
bought faulty safety equipment.
Joining us now to tell us—no, we‘re going to do something else
before we get to our guests.
Tell me what you think in our telephone survey. The number to dial is
877-ED-MSNBC. The question tonight is: Do you believe BP knew disaster was
coming? Press “1” for yes. Press “2” for no. I‘ll bring you the results
later in the show.
And now joining us is Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey, chairman of
the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Congressman Markey, what have we learned so far in this investigation,
and what legal terms should we be applying to what we‘ve discovered?
REP. ED MARKEY (D), CHAIRMAN, SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING: Well, what we have learned is that BP certified,
promised that they had the capability to deal with any accident, although
they did believe that no accident would ever occur. In fact, last summer
they certified that they would be able to handle an accident in the Gulf of
Mexico that was 50 times larger. That is, 250,000 barrels a day, as
opposed to 5,000 barrels a day as an accident.
Well, it‘s very clear that, one, they weren‘t ready to deal with an
accident that‘s one-fiftieth the size of the one they certified that they
could. And two, that they had promised the federal government—and I
think in a way perhaps even deluded themselves by short-changing all of the
investment in the safety procedures that should have been put in place—
and by engaging in such boosterism, their boosterism led to complacency,
and the complacency led to a disaster. And that disaster is something that
right now is still out of control, without any real guarantee that BP has a
plan to be able to stop it.
O‘DONNELL: Now, we‘re showing pictures of the oil floating on the
Gulf. That‘s the coverage that we‘re seeing these days. We don‘t have the
11 bodies lined up that were lost when this thing exploded.
What do we have in this case, Congressman Markey? Is the negligence
that we‘re finding in this case something that rises to the level of
possible manslaughter charges? How far does this go?
MARKEY: I believe that we are going to be engaging in a CSI Gulf of
Mexico for months, identifying all of the evidence, finding out who knew
what when. Right now we have at the witness table finger-pointing coming
from each direction of each one of those four companies, all trying to shed
any type of responsibility for this catastrophe. But at the end of the
day, lives were lost, livelihoods have been destroyed. And there is going
to have to be a day of reckoning.
Your father was one of the great trial lawyers in Massachusetts
history. So, whether or not this is manslaughter or criminal negligence,
or some other charge, it will be, without question, something that is going
to call for the strongest possible penalties that are imposed, although at
this point the evidence still is not complete so that we can know who
exactly to blame for this catastrophe as the ultimate responsible party.
But it looks like many of these companies should have known or should
have had enough of a warning that they raised the red flag that everyone
stepped back and said this could be a disaster.
O‘DONNELL: Ed, as you know, I don‘t have my father to ask these legal
questions of anymore, so I apologize for making you the lawyer of the day
here. But going forward, as a legislator, where are we going on offshore
oil drilling? Where are we going on regulation, safety regulation? What
do we have to do from here?
MARKEY: I think that we are going to need to have the same kind of
panel like the Kemeney Commission that President Carter impaneled after
Three Mile Island to come forward with a series of recommendations that
have to be implemented as the precondition to any new leases being granted
off the coastlines of our country. And anyone that thinks that we‘re just
going to move forward with business as usual is just missing the historic
nature of what has just happened.
Obviously, there was not proper safety precautions put in place.
Obviously, the government and the private sector let down the American
people and especially those people in the Gulf of Mexico.
People expected the Apollo project. Instead, they‘re getting “Project
Runway” in terms of nylons and hair that is going to be used to clean up
that spill down there.
This is all unacceptable. We need a moratorium. Put the safety
precautions in place. Then begin to talk about leasing once again.
O‘DONNELL: Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey.
Thank you very much for joining us on this important subject tonight.
MARKEY: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Now, experts say the Justice Department is likely to file
criminal charges in this oil disaster that could result in financial
penalties way beyond the civil liability cap. One of the major factors in
deciding whether to file charges is past behavior.
According to a McClatchy report today, federal “Prosecutors also look
at the history of violations, which could also persuade them to file
charges. BP, for example, has already agreed to pay millions in criminal
penalties for several major incidents, including for a fatal explosion at a
Texas refinery in March 2005.”
Attorney Brent Coon successfully sued BP after that 2005 explosion in
Texas, and he is also involved in current lawsuits against the company.
Brent Coon, what do you see here legally? What are the right words
here? They‘re saying that they made some mistakes, that just a few little
screw-ups here and there.
Do we have criminal liability? Do we have civil negligence, criminal
negligence? What is this? Guide us through this.
BRENT COON, SUED BP IN 2005 AFTER EXPLOSION: Well, you know, we don‘t
know yet because we obviously don‘t have all the facts. But from what
we‘ve heard in the Senate and the House meetings today, and what we heard
in the press, what we know from our own investigations, we know that there
was certainly civil negligence.
In the Texas City case that we had previously, we also know that there
was criminal negligence. In fact, we‘ve worked directly with the
Department of Justice to help prosecute BP criminally in that case.
O‘DONNELL: Now, how long do you think it‘s going to take for this to
play out? For example, the word that we get today that there‘s a possible
criminal investigation going on, given the scope of evidence, the
difficulty of obtaining it, what kind of timetable do you see here for the
Justice Department?
COON: Well, the Department of Justice works relatively slow, frankly.
It took about two years and a lot of prodding from us as counsel in that
case to effectuate a criminal plea in the underlying case. And that also
involved BP and their history with the propane price fixing, and it also
involved criminal charges that were pled out as a package on the Alaskan
pipeline. So, BP has a long history of having to deal with the Department
of Justice in a criminal setting.
I think what you said earlier, and what the congressman said, which is
an important word, which is criminal negligence being manslaughter. What
we‘ve seen in these plea agreements to date has always been a fine.
These guys keep making horrible blunders. They cut costs, cut
budgets, and then we have these disasters on our hands over and over and
over again with BP. And every time they just have to pay a fine.
And at some point there needs to be corporate accountability where
people have to actually face—I say people—the executives that make
these decisions, that they have to face a jury on an indictment.
O‘DONNELL: Well, I raised that term “manslaughter,” because no matter
how much tape they run here of the oil floating over the surface of the
Gulf, there‘s 11 people who loved their lives instantaneously in this. And
that‘s where this story I think begins.
And those 11 cases need to be dealt with legally. And that‘s why I
raise the question of manslaughter.
Could you accumulate enough evidence of negligence that it rises to
what could be interpreted as a willfully reckless level that would get you
to a manslaughter case here?
MARKEY: Certainly from what we‘ve seen to date, it already invites
enough to take it to a grand jury. I think at this point a grand jury
should be convened, and then they can prepare the documents as they arise,
give those to the grand jury over time, let them make that decision.
But from what we‘ve seen, it at least calls for the grand jury at this
point to at least start looking at the information as it develops. And
from what I‘ve seen so far, I think it‘s already there.
Now, again, what we saw in the BP case, all of the same things BP did
in this case, they did many times over in the Texas City explosion, and
yet, even though we and the victims asked over and over to see some kind of
criminal indictment against individuals in executive positions that were
the ones that made these decisions that resulted in all these lost lives—
we lost 15 people in that refinery, just like we lost 11 rig workers. And
again, there just was no pressure on these individuals.
If you don‘t have pressure on these individuals, they‘re not going to
change their ways. If they can always buy their way out by just doing a
fine, that‘s what they‘ll do. It‘s like drunk drivers. If drunk drivers
keep driving drunk, and all they have to do is pay a fine, every time they
get caught it doesn‘t change their ways.
O‘DONNELL: Brent Coon, thanks for your legal insight on this case
today.
MARKEY: Yes, sir.
O‘DONNELL: Coming up, President Obama on the jobs offensive in
Buffalo today. He slams Republican naysayers for standing on the sidelines
and predicting failure.
More on that, next.
Plus, more Americans support Arizona‘s national immigration law.
And the birthers can stop bothering the people in Hawaii.
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Breaking our economic
free-fall was job number one when I took office. Despite all the naysayers
who were predicting failure a year ago, our economy‘s growing again.
I ran for president to keep the American dream alive in our time, for
our kids and our grandkids and the next generation. So we met our
responsibilities. We did what the moment required.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: President Obama was on offense in Buffalo this morning,
touting his administration‘s success on the job creation.
And he also took a shot at Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Frankly, I had one side of the aisle just sit on the sidelines
as the crisis unfolded. And if we had—if we had taken that position,
just thinking about what was good for my politics, millions more Americans
would have lost their jobs and their businesses and their homes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: But the president had his work cut out for him convincing
locals that the economy is actually turning around. A group of unemployed
Buffalo residents put up a billboard in advance of Obama‘s arrival. It
reads simply, “Dear Mr. President, I need a freakin job. Period.”
Obama addressed the concerns of those who are still feeling the
effects of the recession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: And if you‘re still looking for a job out there, it‘s still a
recession. If you can‘t pay your bills or your mortgage, it‘s still a
recession. No matter what the economists say, it‘s not a real recovery
until people feel it in their own lives, until Americans who want work can
find it, and until families can afford to pay their bills and send their
kids to college.
So that‘s what we‘re working for. That‘s our goal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: For more, let‘s bring in Sam Stein, political reporter for
“The Huffington Post.”
Sam, first of all, the question at the White House today has to be,
whose idea was Buffalo? I mean, tough crowd, Buffalo.
SAM STEIN, POLITICAL REPORTER, “THE HUFFINGTON POST”: You don‘t like
Buffalo?
O‘DONNELL: Very tough crowd. You know, they‘re going to put up signs
that are going to be very uncomfortable for the president.
STEIN: They‘re a sporty town. I think they went for the wings.
That‘s where the president got—did a stop, had some buffalo wings.
Probably, that was why they did it.
O‘DONNELL: But upstate New York is always tough on jobs issues
because it‘s not an easy place—
(CROSSTALK)
STEIN: And it‘s a place where unemployment is really high. And, you
know, this is probably the toughest task that the president has.
I remember being in a briefing with Stan Greenberg, the prominent
Democratic pollster, who talked about what Bill Clinton had to do in a
similar circumstance. And he said the toughest task for a president is
talking about an economy improving, because a lot of people don‘t think
it‘s improving, like Obama said, because they look at their wallets.
Just one stat for you. Forty percent of everyone unemployed right now
has been unemployed for longer than six months. That‘s 6.7 million people,
the largest amount ever in history.
That‘s a huge a people who‘ve just been out there waiting or looking
for work. And for the president to get up and say listen, the time is
coming, we‘re improving, it‘s tough to sell it to them because they‘ve been
out of work for so long. So it really is a tough task. He‘s trying to get
it through the needle, but we‘ll see.
O‘DONNELL: And we‘ve got an NBC News/”Wall Street Journal” poll on
the government‘s highest priority. And the poll comes up with 35 percent
saying that jobs and the economy are the highest priority, 20 percent
saying deficit spending is the highest priority. National
security/terrorism 12 percent.
So they do seem to be getting through on jobs and the economy being at
least a high priority.
STEIN: Well, that‘s the thing. And what‘s frustrating for
progressives is there‘s this huge sort of impetus to address the deficit in
government spending. That is the political cause celebre.
You see it actually in England, but you see it domestically as well.
And that sort of contrasts to the idea that you need to actually continue
to stimulate the economy, which of course requires spending money. And so
there‘s these two planks here.
The president has said he wants to cap discretionary spending starting
next year. A lot of people say why are you doing that when you‘re just
trying to get out of the recession, what you need to do now is actually
continue to spend money. And here you have the contrast between politics
and sound policy. And so we‘ll see how the White House can actually do
this.
O‘DONNELL: Now, where does the president go from here? They‘ve
pivoted clearly off of health care. They got the bill signed. And there
was that cloud over their effort to address the economy.
They do seem to have a clear shot at addressing the economy now. They
do seem to have pushed up their numbers a little bit in terms of the
public‘s belief that they‘re addressing it. But what moves do they have to
make—
STEIN: That‘s the thing.
O‘DONNELL: -- between now and October? What‘s left?
STEIN: See, that‘s the thing. When they were doing the stimulus
package, the big complaint was you‘re going to have one shot, you might as
well take it all, because you can‘t go back to Congress and say I want
another $100 billion. It‘s just not going to happen.
They do have a jobs bill that‘s coming out. It‘s going to be fairly
watered down. And we‘ll see if they can get it done before recess.
But the other thing is they need events to not conspire against them.
This president has wanted to talk about jobs forever, and then all of a
sudden someone tries to blow a car bomb up in Times Square, or an oil spill
off of the Gulf Coast happens, and suddenly he‘s being drawn into other
issues.
This White House desperately wants to just talk about jobs between now
and November, tout the successes of the stimulus, stick it to Republicans
for opposing it, and make that the narrative. The problem is, can they do
it in this crazy media environment where it seems like one disaster‘s
happening after the next?
O‘DONNELL: Well, even if they did have the clear field, though, what
is the Republican argument against the president? Because people pretend
that the president—
STEIN: Government spending.
O‘DONNELL: -- gets up there and talks without objection. When he
finishes his talking points on jobs, what‘s the Republican counter?
STEIN: Yes. Well, the thing is the Republican argument is getting
softer and softer, because what you saw in April was there‘s 444,000 new
jobs. It‘s tough to say where are the jobs when the data‘s there.
O‘DONNELL: All right. We‘re going to break it there.
Coming up, the liberals want to know, is Elena Kagan liberal enough?
The answer is it comes down to trusting the president.
That‘s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Welcome back.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan today continued to make the
traditional rounds of courtesy calls on senators who will decide her fate
while some liberals continue to worry that she might not be liberal enough
to replace John Paul Stevens, the liberal anchor of the court.
We don‘t know. We can‘t know how a Supreme Court nominee will vote
after she joins the court. Look at who Elena Kagan will be replacing.
Justice Stevens, a Republican, was appointed to the federal bench by
Richard Nixon. Republican President Gerald Ford put Stevens on the Supreme
Court in 1975. Stevens passed two rounds of vetting in the Nixon and Ford
administrations, vetting designed to reassure those presidents that he
would be a reliable conservative on the court. No one would have dreamed
in 1975 that Stevens would become the most liberal member of a court that
now includes justices chosen by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Here is what Stevens had to say in a 2007 interview about his
liberalism: “I don‘t think of myself as a liberal at all. I think as part
of my general politics, I‘m pretty darn conservative.”
Imagine if Elena Kagan had ever been caught saying those same words.
Liberals would be in a panic about her today.
Elena Kagan has obviously lived her entire professional life for this
moment. She has carefully avoided controversy, unlike the justice she
clerked for, Thurgood Marshall, who, as a lawyer, bravely threw himself
into the center of the most controversial cases of his era. Marshall
risked his life trying cases in southern towns where he was not allowed to
sleep in hotels and where he knew he was not safe.
Elena Kagan is no Thurgood Marshall. No one on the Supreme Court is.
The weight of the court now is to avoid controversy. So we don‘t know
a lot about Kagan, but we do know a lot about the man who appointed her.
Barack Obama is the wisest and most learned legal scholar ever to occupy
the White House. That‘s who Kagan would have had to fool if she really
were some sort of stealth conservative.
And Elena Kagan is very smart, but not that smart. I don‘t think she
fooled Barack Obama.
Coming up, Joe Sestak has surged past Arlen Specter just days before
the Pennsylvania primary. But the Pennsylvania Democratic machine is
trying to stop him in his tracks. That‘s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell, in
for Ed Schultz. We‘re less than a week away from the Democratic Senate
primary in Pennsylvania, and it is going down to the wire. The one-time
long shot, Congressman Joe Sestak, has surged in the polls recently against
incumbent Senator Arlen Specter. The two are now running neck and neck.
And Sestak is not letting up. Putting this new ad out today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The race between Sestak and Specter is a dead
heat. So compare the records. On supporting Pennsylvania seniors, Sestak
scores better. On standing up for civil rights, Sestak. Protecting the
environment, Sestak‘s record is twice as good as Specter‘s. Issues
important to women, Sestak‘s record is better.
The best Democrat for Pennsylvania‘s future, Joe Sestak.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: Meanwhile, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Sestak holding his
own in the general election as well. He trails Republican front-runner Pat
Toomey by only two points, 42 to 40 percent, while Toomey leads Senator
Specter by seven points, 47 to 40.
For more on what to expect on the Pennsylvania primary next Tuesday,
let‘s bring in the world‘s greatest expert on these subjects, Chuck Todd,
NBC‘s chief White House correspondent, and co-host of MSNBC‘s “The Daily
Rundown.” Chuck, what the Chuck is going on in Pennsylvania? How does the
White House feel about that Specter endorsement?
CHUCK TODD, NBC CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONENT: Well, what‘s
interesting about it is I think that you talked to them and you talk to
them behind the scenes and they say, well, what else were we supposed to
do? He gave us the 60th vote in the U.S. Senate at the time. Of course we
were going to endorse him. Of course we were going to help him.
But notice what they‘re doing this week. It‘s a hands-off policy.
Why? Because I think we‘re finding out, you know, sometimes things aren‘t
complicated. Democratic primary voters are very loyal Democrats. That‘s
why they show up and actually vote in primaries. We know not the whole—
the entire Democratic party doesn‘t show up and vote in primaries. The
ones who do are pretty loyal Democrats.
Well, in Pennsylvania, I bet you most of those folks have never pulled
the lever for Arlen Specter. Maybe casual Democrats have in general
elections, but not ones that actually show up in primaries. And I think
this is just a simple case of once Joe Sestak reminded Democratic primary
voters that Arlen Specter was a Republican for 30 years, that that‘s when
the numbers started to move.
And I think the reason you‘re seeing this angst among the Pennsylvania
Democratic sort of establishment is, you know, Sestak has not played ball
with them. He didn‘t play ball when he was running for Congress. And you
know, they‘re not going to have a seat at his table if he‘s the nominee.
And I think that concerns some of them a little bit.
O‘DONNELL: When you see that poll, Chuck, with Sestak running better
against the Republican than Specter does, is the White House secretly
rooting for Sestak here, if they really want to hold on to that seat in
November?
TODD: Can I tell you that I‘ve—basically, I‘ve unofficially
surveyed I think some of the smarter folks around here, and they‘re pretty
split. You know, some of them will make the case that Specter‘s the better
nominee. Some will make the case that they see oh, OK, maybe Sestak. You
talk to other Democratic operatives around here, and it is split, although
you‘re starting to see them come around on Sestak. They say, well, in this
year, in this anti-incumbent environment, having less of a track record in
the U.S. Senate might be a better thing.
I can tell you this: there are a lot of Republicans around town who
realize they‘ve got to run a different type of race. It was an easy
campaign that Toomey was going to run against Specter. Didn‘t mean he was
going to win, but he knew how he was going to run against Specter. It‘s a
different race if Sestak‘s the nominee.
O‘DONNELL: Chuck Todd, thanks very much for joining us on this one.
TODD: You got it, buddy.
O‘DONNELL: Now let‘s turn to Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah of
Pennsylvania. Congressman Fattah, you endorsed Arlen Specter in this race.
Having any second thoughts about that, as you watch Joe Sestak surge?
REP. CHAKA FATTAH (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, I know that in the poll
you that mentioned, the Quinnipiac poll, Specter‘s ahead actually, in terms
of the election next Tuesday. And I didn‘t want to leave that out of the
discussion. I know Chuck has already written the Specter obituary. The
White House—
O‘DONNELL: Well, Chuck hasn‘t written it, but some of us here are
starting to write it.
FATTAH: That‘s fine. But that‘s why we actually—that‘s why we
actually play the game. You know, the Flyers tied the series. And you
know, it‘s just like a hockey game or any other kind of game. You actually
have to play it. And it‘s going to be played on Tuesday, not today. And I
think that Specter‘s going to win this race. And much like “the New York
Times” said when he switched parties, no matter what party he‘s in, if you
look at what he‘s done on health care alone, he should be re-elected to the
U.S. Senate.
But that whole speech on the front end, the president talking about
this economic recovery, would not be possible without Senator Specter‘s
vote on the Stimulus. And I know that somebody wants to suggest that
somehow people are moving away or the White House is silent. There‘s an
Obama for Specter commercial running almost every second in the
Pennsylvania media market, where the president says that he loves the
Democratic party, he loves Arlen Specter.
And that 60th vote is important. And Governor Rendell‘s working hard.
We‘re all working hard. And anyone who is counting Senator Specter out has
no knowledge of his electoral history. He‘s always been in tough battles.
They‘ve always been close. And he‘s always won.
O‘DONNELL: Now, in an anti-incumbent year, might it have been better
for the governor and for you and for all these incumbent office-holders in
the Democratic party in Pennsylvania simply to hang back and not do an
endorsement in this race? Might it be that the weight of all those
endorsements from the incumbents in an anti-incumbent year is actually
hurting Specter up there?
FATTAH: Well, look, there‘s a lot of smart people in this world. I
can just tell you this: my judgment of what‘s going to happen with
incumbents is what always happens, most of them are going to get re-
elected. You can talk about it being an anti-incumbent year. Most
incumbents are going to get re-elected. There are going to be some tough
races with tough circumstances, but the reality is the governor of our
state, the mayor of Philadelphia, the major newspapers in our state, the
“Philadelphia Inquirer” and others, have looked at both of these candidates
and have said that Arlen Specter is the best person to represent our state.
And I think that‘s going to have meaning. And we‘re not running away
from the fact that these are people who actually have helped
Pennsylvanians, who focused on these issues, who know these candidates, and
they‘ve chosen Arlen Specter. I think that‘s a plus in his column. And
we‘ll see how the voters think on Tuesday.
O‘DONNELL: Congressman Fattah, thanks for joining us tonight. And
good luck dealing with Joe Sestak if he wins.
FATTAH: Look, I know him well and we want him to win that seat in
Congress, so we can hold on to our majority if he decides to run for the
Senate.
O‘DONNELL: Thanks, congressman.
FATTAH: Thank you.
O‘DONNELL: Now let‘s get some rapid-fire response from our panel on
these stories. President Obama is in Manhattan right now to thank local
authorities who responded to the bomb in Times Square. It comes as the
Homeland Security Department is under fire for cutting security funds for
New York City.
The NBC News poll shows Americans support Arizona‘s controversial
anti-immigration law.
And Hawaii has said it has had it with the Birthers. The state
adopted a law that allows them to legally ignore requests for the
president‘s birth certificate.
With us tonight, former CIA officer Jack Rice and “The Hill‘s” A.B.
Stoddard.
A.B., let‘s go backwards from Hawaii to the—they don‘t have to—
if you want a copy of the president‘s birth certificate, there‘s now a law
in Hawaii that you can be ignored. Is that a victory for reason or is the
government being a little too harsh on this one?
A.B. STODDARD, “THE HILL”: Well, I imagine it must be temporary,
right? When President Obama‘s no longer in the White House, they‘re going
to have to rescind this, I would think.
O‘DONNELL: Good question.
STODDARD: In terms of open government, we‘re not trying to close up
government, we‘re trying to open it. So it strikes me as something
temporary. Although you can imagine what drove them to this madness. I
mean, that they‘re literally so inundated with requests that they couldn‘t
function.
O‘DONNELL: Jack, reasonable choice for Hawaii?
JACK RICE, FMR. CIA OFFICER: I agree with A.B. actually on this.
Obviously, with transparency, you want to be able to get what it is that
you want. But I think their response was a reasonable one, in that what
they were getting was the same question over and over, sometimes from the
very same people. And so as a result, they need to do something
responsible. For the fiscally responsible party, you would imagine that
Republicans would say gosh, you know, what maybe we should stop asking the
same question a bunch of different times. Taxpayers are getting tired of
it.
O‘DONNELL: Yeah. Let‘s take a look at the NBC News/”Wall Street
Journal” poll on support for the Arizona immigration law; 64 percent
support, 34 percent opposed. Does that surprise you, A.B.?
STODDARD: I am surprised 49 percent of Democrats would like it to
pass in their own states. This is very popular. Even though, at the same
time, the most surprising figure is that 66 percent of those polled,
matching the number who support it, think it will lead to discrimination
against Latinos who are in this country legally.
I mean, this is—they know that it will lead to discrimination and
they still support it. We have a real immigration problem on our hands
here, and that is why people want some action.
O‘DONNELL: Jack, how do you read that poll? Sixty four percent
supporting the Arizona law.
RICE: It‘s disturbing, let‘s face it. Let‘s go back to the Civil
Rights Movement. If we actually go to majority vote, all that would go
down too. So my attitude is that it was wrong for people from a majority
of people to think what they thought then. It‘s still wrong across the
country now. It shows we have a long way to go.
O‘DONNELL: Jack, let‘s stay on your expertise. Homeland Security
Department cutting spending for security funds in New York City in the wake
of what‘s happened in Times Square. The timing‘s not so good on that one.
RICE: You know, the president is having problems right now with the
oil issue too, isn‘t he? All of a sudden, let‘s drill off the coast and
then you get what‘s happening in the Gulf. You‘re right. That‘s an issue.
At the same time, the White House is pushing back. If you take a look
at the Recovery and Reinvestment Act right now and add that money back in,
there‘s actually an increase in the amount of money being spent in New
York. It‘s about 24 percent more than what President Bush was spending.
But the bottom line really has to be not just what you spend but what
you spend it on. I think that is critical. We look at the latest case and
what happened with obviously the Times Square case, and even with
Abdulmutallab—if we look at what has happened in the past, we‘re doing a
lot of the right things. So I‘m encouraged by that, and I think we all
should be.
O‘DONNELL: New York delegation‘s up in arms about this. Not
surprisingly, but they make a case, especially in the wake of the Times
Square—
STODDARD: Yeah, there‘s bipartisan criticism from the New York
delegation. Look, as a native New Yorker, I‘ll tell you, we don‘t have
time to delve into the details that Jack just gave us, about how actually
the bottom line is there‘s still the same amount of money. When they look
at numbers, transit funding—they think the next attack is coming on the
subways. Transit funding from 150 million down to 111, protection for the
ports, 45 million down to 33. Those numbers scare them. It‘s not good
enough. And that‘s why you see Democrats joining Republicans saying—
O‘DONNELL: Go ahead.
RICE: One last point here, the bottom line is what this all proves is
that New York City is still the number one target in America for terrorist
attacks. And so I think people really do hold on to that. And they think
about that. And frankly they should.
O‘DONNELL: A.B., in moments like this, when it comes time for cost
cutting, do they take—do the Democrats in the White House take New York
for granted? They look at that state and think we‘re going to win that
state, doesn‘t matter what we do? Is that part of the calculation?
STODDARD: I would imagine they would have to. It is not purple. It
is not a problem. And that‘s just—that‘s terrible political cynical
reality, but I think you‘re right. Even though it is the number one
target.
O‘DONNELL: All right. We‘re going to break it right here. Thanks,
A.B. and Jack. Coming up, Jonathan Turley on Elena Kagan‘s hard to read
record. That‘s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Welcome back. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was back
on the Hill for a second day of meetings with senators. Her visit was met
with cursory praise from most Democrats and predictable caution from most
Republicans. But the reactions from two senators are worth noting. The
first is Senator Arlen Specter, who voted against her for solicitor general
when he was a Republican. As we heard in the last block, he‘s now battling
in a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, and yet he still refused to commit
to voting for her.
And there was this striking comment from Republican Senator Scott
Brown, the junior senator from Massachusetts. Brown says his meeting with
Kagan convinced him she supports the military, even though she banned
military recruiters from campus when she was dean of Harvard Law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. SCOTT BROWN ®, MASSACHUSETTS: It was very clear to me after we
spoke about it at length, is that she is supportive of the men and women
who are fighting to protect us, and very supportive of the military as a
whole. And I do not feel that her judicial philosophy will be hurting our
men and women who are serving.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O‘DONNELL: The Senate‘s newest Republican may have just punctured a
major GOP attack line. For more, let‘s bring in Jonathan Turley, a
professor at George Washington University School of Law. Professor Turley,
what do you make of the Arlen Specter predicament? Here he, as a
Republican, just last year, voted against the confirmation of Elena Kagan.
And now he‘s running in this Democratic primary next week. He can‘t even
come out and say I support the Democratic president‘s choice for the
Supreme Court.
JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well, I
think that does create something of a quandary for him. And I think you‘re
going to see that across the board. You know, she was selected, like so
many of our recent nominees, because she doesn‘t have much of a paper
trail. She has not made many statements publicly. She is, in fact, an
unknown.
That was I think one of the great advantages that the White House
sought. And it‘s going to be hard to punch those shadows. There‘s not
much there to really get much traction on.
O‘DONNELL: Jonathan, clearly the Republicans were I think hoping to
score some points on her attitude toward the military that she demonstrated
when she was dean of Harvard Law School. Tell us exactly what she did do
and how you think Scott Brown‘s comments affect any strategy the
Republicans might have with that going forward?
TURLEY: Well, actually, Harvard Law School went back and forth in
terms of allowing military on campus. And Kagan was part of that effort.
She allowed the military to work through an association of students for a
while. She found ways to accommodate them. Then they were removed from
campus. Then Harvard essentially backed down when federal funds were
endangered.
So it‘s a very mixed record. It‘s not a particularly compelling one
to say oh, my lord, Kagan must be anti-military. There‘s just no evidence
of that whatsoever.
O‘DONNELL: And what do you make of Scott Brown‘s comments today?
Does that—does that defuse what the Republican strategy, or does it
indicate that there may be some other Republicans will be going in that
direction?
TURLEY: Oh, I think they‘re still going to attack on this. The fact
is that she did act to keep the military off campus for part of this
period. I think that is enough traction for that issue. But it‘s not
lethal. They still can‘t find something that‘s positively lethal in this
record. There were a great number of deans in law schools that joined the
effort with Harvard.
O‘DONNELL: Do you expect them to find anything in the White House,
the Clinton White House documents, memos of Elena Kagan‘s that can be in
some way useful in productively evaluating how she would operate on the
Supreme Court?
TURLEY: Well, those are always very dangerous for nominees because
they are largely unguarded moments where you‘re sharing thoughts, and many
times you‘re putting ideas out there. You know, Kagan is an academic, and
academics are used to pushing the envelope and suggesting things that they
might not ultimately support. And so that‘s what makes these so difficult.
Sam Alito had a problem like that in the Justice Department when he seemed
to—well, he didn‘t seem to. He clearly opposed what became known as
Gardner Versus Tennessee. He seemed to suggest you could shoot unarmed
fleeing suspects. But ultimately that didn‘t produce much of a problem for
him in his nomination.
O‘DONNELL: OK. We‘re going to have to wrap up there. Thank you,
Jonathan Turley. We‘ll be back, I‘m sure, for more updates on the Supreme
Court story. Thanks a lot.
TURLEY: Thanks, Lawrence.
O‘DONNELL: And we‘ve got a few stories to update here tonight. We‘re
learning a little more about the so-called Miracle Boy tonight. Doctors
say the lone survivor of that plane crash in Libya is miraculously in good
condition. The survivor is a nine-year-old Dutch boy. He had surgery on
his shattered legs and is expected to make a full recovery. The crash
killed 103 people on board.
And finally, Ed is down in Greenville, South Carolina today. He
played in the BMW Pro-Am with his professional golfer son, Dave. The
Schultz duo finished five under for the day and are still in the hunt to
take it all. We‘ll give you an update tomorrow night on whether Big Eddie
and his son Dave made the cut. Good luck, guys.
Coming up, Republicans want to protect the Second Amendment rights of
people on the terrorist watch list, and Democrats are letting them get away
with it. The American people want them to step up. That‘s next on THE ED
SHOW.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O‘DONNELL: Welcome back. In the face of loud opposition and
passionate rallies from gun rights activists, Democrats have shied away
from addressing gun control head on, so much so that the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence gave President Obama an F for his lack of attention to
the issue. Joining me now for more on this is Paul Helmke, president of
the Brady Campaign. Paul, you have some new polling indicating that the
public is opposed to what they‘re seeing now in these public rallies of
people carrying weapons.
PAUL HELMKE, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: Quite clearly
politicians shouldn‘t be afraid to talk about this issue. We asked people
whether they support or oppose people openly carrying guns in public. They
say no, they don‘t want that. They‘re opposed to people carrying loaded
guns, concealed or openly in public. They say they‘re a lot less likely to
vote for politicians that are trying to push more guns into the public.
They‘re opposed to places like Starbucks allowing guns to be carried
into their places. It‘s clear that a strong majority of the American
people, particularly females, are strongly against this idea that we want
more guns in more places.
O‘DONNELL: So these gun rallies, in effect, seem to have gone too far
for the average Americans. Are Democrats missing an opportunity here to
jump into that political spot and take that territory?
HELMKE: I think Democrats are clearly missing the message. We‘re not
trying to ban guns. The American people don‘t want to get rid of all the
guns that are out there. But they want some common sense. They want to
make it harder for dangerous people to get guns. They don‘t want to see
guns in every part of their lives. They want some common sense here.
But politicians that shy away, that are afraid to talk about it, those
people are missing the boat because the people are behind them.
O‘DONNELL: There‘s no pending legislation even for people to rally
behind on the—
HELMKE: Well, there‘s legislation to close the so-called Gun Show
Loophole. This is something that says if we do background checks with
federally licensed dealers, let‘s do background checks at gun shows, too.
Right now, if you‘re a so-called private seller, you can sell a gun to a
felon or somebody who‘s dangerously mentally ill—
O‘DONNELL: We have Republican senators coming out saying it‘s OK to
sell guns to people who are on the no-fly list. There seems to be a
missing move for Democrats.
HELMKE: This is a crazy one. Right now, you can be on the terrorist
watch list and you are allowed to buy guns in this country. And some of
the Republican senators say—
O‘DONNELL: We‘ve got to leave it there. Paul Helmke, thank you very
much. We‘re going to come back to this one.
Tonight, in our phone survey, I asked you, do you believe BP knew
disaster was coming? Eighty eight percent say yes; 12 percent say no.
That‘s it for THE ED SHOW tonight. I‘m Lawrence O‘Donnell.
“HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2010 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.>