Guest: Al Sharpton, Gary Peters, Raul Grijalva, Joan Walsh, John Feehery, Joe Sestak, Bob Shrum
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW
tonight from New York.
These stories are hitting my hot buttons tonight.
Well, I was in the office this afternoon and I was highly entertained.
Low-rated right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt hijacked MSNBC air time this
afternoon and went after me. Little old me.
Hugh, I hope you‘re watching tonight, because if you want to make this
a fair fight where I can talk back, I‘m going to give you an offer you
can‘t refuse.
That‘s coming up in the “Playbook” tonight.
Arizona is one step away from what I believe is legalized racial
profiling. I think the state government is way out of bounds on this one.
I‘ll talk to Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva and Reverend Al Sharpton about
this in just a moment.
Plus, Sean Hannity thinks Michele Bachmann is a victim.
Sean, you don‘t want to silence her. It would screw up my entire
show. We‘d have to change “Psycho Talk.” Come on.
But this is the story that has me fired up tonight. Racism is alive
and well in this country, the United States of America.
Police in Arizona may soon be able to target you because of the color
of your skin. Arizona lawmakers passed an immigration bill Monday
requiring cops to determine the status of people if they are—if there is
reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants. The law requires both
state and local police to arrest people who are unable to provide
documentation proving that they are in this country legally.
Now, reasonable suspicion, I think, is a real slippery slope to
fascism. No American cop should ever utter the phrase, “Can we see your
papers?”
Well, where are you, Tea Partiers? This is big government. Glenn
Beck should be just screaming and crying about this.
Bill O‘Reilly, aren‘t you looking out for these people?
This is the government takeover that they‘ve been squealing about all
along, but don‘t hold your breath. They would much rather defend old white
guys who bring loaded guns to presidential rallies. They don‘t seem to
care about a state terrorism terrorizing an entire race of people,
especially if they‘re brown people.
Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator who wrote the bill down
in Arizona, told Reuters, “I believe handcuffs are a wonderful tool when
they‘re on the right people. We want to get them off law enforcement and
get them on the bad guys.”
Nothing judgmental there.
Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, has five days to veto the bill or
sign it into law. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, well, they‘re urging her to
veto it.
Well, here is Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), ILLINOIS: The governor of Arizona should
veto the bill. And if she doesn‘t, the president of the United States,
Barack Obama, should assert federal government‘s preeminent role in
regulating and enforcing our nation‘s immigration laws. The lunacy of
rounding up people because they look a certain way or suspected of being in
violation of immigration statutes can only lead to one thing—violations
of people‘s basic fundamental civil rights, profiling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: That‘s exactly what it is.
Well, of course this is just another mess that Bush left for Obama to
clean up. The Republicans? Remember, they had the House, Senate and White
House. They didn‘t do anything about illegal immigration.
They all accomplished—the only thing they accomplished really is a
half-built fence on the border. That‘s really what they did.
The law puts too much power in the hands of law enforcement here. But
I also think that law enforcement shouldn‘t have to mop up what politicians
haven‘t taken care of.
I think this whole thing is wrongheaded. It will lead to more
problems than solutions. The moment the governor signs this bill in
Arizona, the ink won‘t be dry before the first lawsuit is filed.
America has to find the intestinal fortitude to address this issue,
starting in Washington, because this could be a slippery slope. Arizona
passes it, then there‘s going to be more states passing it.
And tell me how this leads to a better understanding of the racists in
this country. It simply does not. People will have a short fuse fast if
the wrong situation is put upon them.
Tell me what you think about this in our telephone survey tonight,
folks. The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC.
My question tonight is: What is more harmful to America, cops who
racially profile or illegal immigration? Press the number 1 for cops who
profile, press the number 2 for illegal immigration. We‘ll bring you the
results later on in the show.
Joining me now is Reverend Al Sharpton, president of the National
Action Network.
Reverend, good to have you with us tonight.
REV. AL SHARPTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Thank you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Is this a step backwards from what you can see on the
surface?
SHARPTON: Absolutely, it is. I think that it is absolutely an
attempt to legalize racial profiling.
I mean, all one has to do is imagine if there was a law in Maine or
Vermont saying that if you looked like a Canadian, we can pull you over and
take you in. It wouldn‘t be tolerated. It wouldn‘t even be thought of.
This is basically a law designed to give police the right to stop any
Latino which robs them of their civil rights, because this is who this is
targeted for. And this shouldn‘t be tolerated in a society that subscribes
to what we claim to subscribe to.
SCHULTZ: There‘s a huge difference between reasonable suspicion and
probable cause. In your opinion, how is law enforcement going to
differentiate the two?
SHARPTON: They can‘t. It has to be based on profiling.
If the law, as it is written, says that you can, based on whatever the
policeman thinks is reasonable, stop and pull people over, and the
concentration there, particularly when you get into counties where you have
people like Arpaio, who I‘ve been out there demonstrating on, who has
basically robbed the rights of many Mexicans, whether they are legal or
illegal, I think that this is something that opens the door, as you said,
for a lot of danger, a lot of lawsuits back and forth. It will ultimately
cost the state a lot of money defending the lawsuits, and it will only
raise tensions to where we‘re not solving the immigration problem, we‘re
not even attempting to do it. We‘re scapegoating people, including the
police who become the target of those protests and those rightful protests
and lawsuits, because they have been pushed into doing something that
should be considered unconstitutional on a federal level.
SCHULTZ: Reverend Sharpton, what do you say to those folks who are
genuinely concerned about illegal immigration and undocumented workers and
how the federal government has failed to deal with this? And we are being
overrun by a lot of folks that legally are not in this country.
How should Arizona handle it?
SHARPTON: Well, the first thing I say is that two wrongs don‘t make
one civil right. I think that the way to handle it is not to start
profiling.
I think that there are all kinds of measures that have been laid out
that has, I think, been analyzed and they should go through the Congress
that would establish how we protect American workers, how we protect those
that are here legally, and protect the rights of even those that are not
here legally. But to say because we haven‘t solved the problem we‘re going
to open the door to even more massive problems and sabotage the idea of an
America that doesn‘t profile people based on what they look like, I think
that doesn‘t solve the problem, it only creates a new and probably even
wider problem.
SCHULTZ: So is this a racist law in your opinion?
SHARPTON: In my opinion, it certainly opens the door to some racial
application of the law, and it‘s loose enough to do it. The governor I
think should veto this bill on behalf of the people of Arizona, and making
sure that we live up to a country that doesn‘t violate principles just
because we haven‘t solved an immigration problem.
SCHULTZ: Well, I mean, laws like this I think have a way of being
part of a domino effect. Arizona does it, you get these Republican
governors together at their governors‘ convention and they take ideas from
one another. Then the next thing you know, legislation pops up in another
state.
This is why I think it‘s a slippery slope. That‘s why I said it in
the commentary.
But what about the reaction from the Latino community? There‘s been a
suggestion that they would stay home and not vote, which would politically
rope President Obama into this controversy.
What do you think about all that?
SHARPTON: Well, I don‘t think not voting is the answer. I think, if
anything, they should register and vote even more aggressively and vote all
over the country. Because I agree with your commentary, Ed. It‘s a
slippery slope.
What we‘re really beginning to see, if this law is signed—and
again, I hope it is not—is that we‘re going to go into a states‘ right
era on immigration. And we don‘t need that.
We need to have one law. We need it to be national and federal. And
we need the federal government to protect people‘s rights. This is what we
have a national government for.
If we end up going state by state on immigration rights, we‘re going
to end up in a states‘ rights situation. And many of us know what that
leads to. And I think that a lot of the Latino groups that are talking
about boycotting voting ought to be doing voter registration drives and
voter turnout all over the country to stand up with the rest of Americans
that don‘t want to see us going back.
Their slogan is “Take America Back.” Back to who, from who?
They want to go back before we had laws that protected citizens like
women and blacks and others. We‘re not going back. You can turn back the
clock, but you can‘t turn back time.
SCHULTZ: You know, we just had a compelling discussion with you in
the last week, Reverend Sharpton, in the National Action Network. And I
was fortunate enough to be a part of one of your panels dealing with
minority ownership and media, and the microphone and being able to say what
you can say in this country. But I think the question comes up, as we had
talked about, a black agenda, a Latino agenda.
Here we are. I mean, this is it. There is a law that is on the verge
of being passed. It‘s been passed by the House and Senate in Arizona. All
the governor has to do is sign it.
I mean, doesn‘t this really underscore the need for minority agendas
and to be seen through the political process to prevent stuff like this?
SHARPTON: This is exactly what we‘re talking about. People must
protect their interests based on where they sit in America. All of those
agendas together make one big American agenda that‘s supposed to stand for
liberty and justice for all.
When it does not, they have an obligation to come forward. And we
have an obligation to stand with them.
Again, it would not be tolerated if we were talking about other people
being profiled. I don‘t think that it would be tolerated. It shouldn‘t be
tolerated in this case.
SCHULTZ: One final question on the unemployment rate with black
Americans in this country dealing with undocumented workers who do come in
to America and take jobs at a cheaper rate. Decipher that for us. What
does it mean to African-Americans?
SHARPTON: Well, I think a lot of African-Americans are concerned
about that even though many of the jobs are jobs that African-Americans
don‘t seek. But the culprit here is those that play the undocumented
laborer against the African-American or other Americans that seek
employment.
We should go after those that make profits off of a cheap and illegal
labor base. We should not blame people that are the pawns of a scheme for
profits for people that are looking to get around the law.
SCHULTZ: Reverend Al Sharpton, always a pleasure. Great to have you
with us tonight.
SHARPTON: Thank you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Thank you.
Coming up, conservative talker Hugh Hewitt unleashed a nasty attack on
me while on MSNBC this afternoon. My thoughts on that, and a special
invitation for the Salem right-wing talker coming up in the “Playbook.”
Notice I have a smile on my face.
And gun-toting protesters are warning that America‘s heading towards
civil war? We‘re living in tyranny?
Much more on that at the bottom of the hour.
All that, plus Hannity rises to the defense of his “psycho” sister
Michele Bachmann.
And slick Texas Governor Rick Perry nuzzles up to George W. Bush in
the “Zone.” Oh, you don‘t want to miss it.
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW, and thanks for watching
tonight.
Something profound has been happening in this country while the
righties have been out there screaming about socialism and government
takeovers.
Now, get this story. You guys who were on the Potomac yesterday with
your guns, I want you to pay attention to this one.
GM, the company that you conservatives derided as “Government Motors,”
has used its government loan money to get back on its feet. Tomorrow,
General Motors is expected to announce that the company will have all its
loan money repaid by June, five years ahead of schedule.
Executives are also hopeful GM will turn a profit for the first time
since 2004. But most importantly in all of this, 240,000 General Motors
employees are still working. These are the folks the righties wanted to
throw into the river.
Those folks have jobs because this president wasn‘t willing to let the
American auto industry die on his watch. He was willing to take a chance
on the American workers.
For more, let me bring in Michigan Congressman Gary Peters.
Gary, this is a story that is not getting a lot of attention. But
since they‘re crying about government takeovers and socialism and
government intrusion, I thought we should point out that where the credit
markets dried up on Wall Street and GM couldn‘t get any money anywhere
else, the government, you and me, the taxpayers, stepped in and let workers
try for another day.
What about it?
REP. GARY PETERS (D), MICHIGAN: Well, you‘re absolutely right, Ed.
This is a big victory for American workers, American families.
We had a situation because of the mess on Wall Street and the
unbridled greed that existed on Wall Street that brought our economy to its
knees, and the auto industry was in a horrible situation. And if it was
not for the government stepping forward and providing loans to the auto
industry, you would have seen not only those hundreds of thousands of jobs
at GM, but also at Chrysler and all the auto suppliers and auto dealers.
There were millions of jobs at stake that would have been lost. It
was very clear, without the help from the government, these companies wold
have liquidated and we would have lost a major component of manufacturing,
and might have well lost all manufacturing in this country, because you
need a strong auto sector in order to have manufacturing. And without
manufacturing, you don‘t have good-paying middle-class jobs for hundreds of
thousands of families.
SCHULTZ: And how much Republican support did you get on this loan
effort to GM?
PETERS: Well, almost zero. I mean, Republicans continue to fight it.
In fact, even last week, I continued to hear Republicans talking about this
bailout of GM and how the government shouldn‘t have done that.
I just would challenge them to look in the faces of those millions of
families that have jobs today and have a secure future, and is getting
brighter and brighter every day. And that would not have been the case had
the government not stepped up.
SCHULTZ: So, the Republicans deregulated Wall Street. They went and
played with their money, fell flat on their face. Yet, when it came time
to help the blue collar workers and the middle-classers of this country,
they didn‘t want to do that.
But now that we have a success story, does President Obama get any
credit at all for sticking his neck out and leading the way? He put
together an auto task force to come up with solutions and then stepped out
and made it happen.
PETERS: Yes, absolutely. The American public, Ed, needs to realize
this story. Certainly, we know it in the Midwest because of all of the
impact it directly has on us. But this is not just about the Midwest.
This is a strategic industry for the entire country and jobs all over
the country. And I think had we not done this, if we would have let this
credit crisis with greed run wild on Wall Street, the credit crisis bring
down the American auto industry, we would have looked back and said, how
could that have happened? How could that have happened on anybody‘s watch?
But it certainly took a lot of courage to step forward and make that
kind of investment necessary to protect these good-paying jobs in the
manufacturing sector, which in my mind you cannot have a strong country,
you can‘t have a strong democracy if you don‘t actually build something.
This is not about gambling on Wall Street. This is about making tangible
products that we can sell here in our country and export to other countries
as well.
SCHULTZ: And the future is bright for GM because they‘ve got the Volt
coming out. Their technology, when it comes to battery-operated cars,
electric cars, is advancing. I think this is a great story. But, of
course, none of the Republicans wanted to make it happen.
Congressman Peters, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much.
PETERS: Great to be with you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
Coming up, Texas Governor Rick Perry should lay of the Texas tea. He
thinks this guy might go down in history as one of the best presidents
ever? Well, he‘ll boogie his way into the “Psycho Talk” zone next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in “Psycho Talk‘ tonight, we have the Tea Party and
governor from Texas, Rick Perry. Now, of course Rick has publicly
entertained the idea of the state of Texas seceding from the United States,
which would be bad because then they‘d probably want to invade somebody.
But even that‘s not as crazy as what he recently said about former
President Bush.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
GOV. RICK PERRY ®, TEXAS: At the end of the day, when the history
books are written, I think George W. Bush will go down as a very, very good
president. Here‘s why he was an incredibly good president, because this
man kept America safe. Anyone who is not a rank political hack, who has an
agenda, and looks at this president‘s efforts, there are two things that I
think people judge presidents on, their safety and the economy.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, you‘re zero for two on that one, big guy.
Like a lot of Republicans, Rick seems to forget who was in the White
House on September 11, 2001.
As far as the economy goes, Bush managed to turn a $127 billion budget
surplus into a $1 trillion deficit. Although, you know, Texas, the history
books, the way they change things around, W. will be a great president by
the time they end up writing the books.
Because of all of that, it is “Psycho Talk.”
Coming up, this is only one guy who‘s more fired up than I am about
racist law that is passed in Arizona. Congressman Raul Grijalva will blast
away in just a moment.
Plus, an extremely low-rated, right-wing “Psycho Talk” talk show host
took a personal shot at me on this network today. And, of course, I will
entertain all of you with my response coming up.
And Sean Hannity has Michele Bachmann‘s back in a way that you really
won‘t believe. The victim mentality? Come on, Slant Head.
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. And thanks for watching
tonight.
I think Arizona is a step away from legalizing racial profiling. In
the next five days the governor will decide whether or not to sign a new
law that would allow a police officer to stop any person on reasonable
suspicion they are an illegal immigrant and demand to see their ID.
On this program last week Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio, defended the
policy to me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF: This is just two more—one
more law that is going to give the cops the authority to arrest someone
that‘s here illegally on a misdemeanor charge.
Also it will give the government entities and make sure that they do
not have a policy that restricts their officers from enforcing the illegal
immigration law.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva. He is
also the chairman of the Progressive Caucus.
Congressman, good to have you with us tonight.
REP. RAUL GRIJALVA (D) ARIZONA: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: I need your—I want your straight take on this issue. Is
this a racist law that‘s on the verge of being signed into law in Arizona?
What do you think?
GRIJALVA: Absolutely. I think once you single out a group of people
and this law is based on appearance, it‘s based on accent of your
language, it‘s based on those parameters—you can only single out a
certain group of people for that criteria.
The people of color, it‘s Latinos, and it‘s someone that speaks with
an accent that is not considered English.
SCHULTZ: Congressman --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Yes. Congressman, what should be the response of the Latino
community be to this law if the governor signs it?
GRIJALVA: I think the response needs to be, in Arizona, to punish the
people that are part of it and to support the people that are opposed to
it. But beyond that, I think part of the national—you have to
nationalize this issue.
And I think Arizona deserves not—national organizations,
conventions, Super Bowls—they need to not be part of doing business with
Arizona until they take away this very racist, discriminatory,
unconstitutional agenda away from Arizona.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Congressman, that sounds like you want to impose an economic
sanction by race on Arizona.
GRIJALVA: Well, I want to—I want to impact an economic sanction
based on the unconstitutionality of it, the discriminatory practice, and
the fact that Arizona is taking this back to some dark age in this country
that we don‘t belong. And certainly you don‘t want it to be a model for
the rest of the country.
SCHULTZ: OK. Well, that‘s the—this could be the tip of the
iceberg. You know how a law like this could be reciprocated in other
states as well, which would be a slippery slope. That was my commentary
earlier tonight.
But how do you justify law enforcement on reasonable suspicion versus
probable cause? There is, I‘m told by law enforcement officials this
afternoon, there is a huge difference between these two.
And this is going to give Arizonans to set the table for almost a
police state. Do you think that goes too far?
GRIJALVA: No, I don‘t think it goes too far. I was really happy to
see a couple of sheriffs—Sheriff Estrada from a border town in Arizona
said this is a discriminatory law. It does not help us do our law
enforcement job and it hurts us providing safety for the people of the
state.
And I think more and more of the law enforcement people that
understand that their job is safety and security for neighborhoods and for
towns are going to realize that they‘re being asked to do something that is
dictatorial, discriminatory.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
GRIJALVA: And fundamentally unconstitutional.
SCHULTZ: Should this put legislation on the fast track? Should this
be on the president‘s desk tonight?
GRIJALVA: Well, you know, it should have been a year ago, but the
point being that if we don‘t do comprehensive reform at the federal level
you give the opportunity for the Arpaios of the world to begin to dictate
immigration reform for this country based on the state --
SCHULTZ: What‘s your opinion of him? What‘s your opinion of Joe
Arpaio?
GRIJALVA: My opinion of him has been the same since he started on his
rant against immigrants. His issue is basically a racial issue, and he has
turned it into a profitable, political opportunity for him.
SCHULTZ: And finally, Congressman, what do you say to those residents
of Arizona who are very concerned about undocumented workers and the
operations of bringing people across the border illegally? How should that
be remedied if it‘s not this law?
GRIJALVA: I think you need to target. You need to target the human,
the drug, and the gun runners. You target them, you destroy their
organizations, and you don‘t spend as much important capital on that poor
Schlep that‘s trying to get across to pick some lettuce in Yuma.
That is not where the problem is. The problem is organized crime. We
keep avoiding that issue in Arizona.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
GRIJALVA: Because we continue to pretend that it‘s about the poor guy
that‘s coming over to try to pick some fruit.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, great to have you with us tonight. Thanks so
much.
GRIJALVA: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Now let‘s get some “Rapid Fire” response from our panel on
these stories. The right wing network backed by TV star Kelsey Grammer—
and I‘ll never watch “Cheers” the same again—may be coming near you. It
claims to be content that reinforces a conservative world view?
I just want to know if they‘re going to be crazier than the guys
across the street. And will they lie as much?
Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is looking for a new job. Wants to
be the mayor of Chicago.
Plus, I want to know what my panel thinks of the invitation for
legalized racial profiling in Arizona.
With us tonight, Joan Walsh, editor and chief, Salon.com, and John
Feehery, Republican strategist with us tonight.
All right. Let‘s pick up, John, if I can with this story that we just
interviewed Congressman Grijalva about.
Is this a racist law?
JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Ed, I don‘t know enough if it‘s
a racist law or not. I do know that the situation in Arizona is very
tenuous. The crime has skyrocketed. There‘s a drug war right on the
border in Mexico.
A lot of those folks are coming across are—the ways into Arizona
are now controlled by the drug runners and that is actually caused a big
spike in crime in Arizona and in Texas.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
FEEHERY: The situation in Arizona is almost desperate and I think
that that‘s why you see some desperate measures going on down there.
SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, does this give sweeping powers to law
enforcement and set up racial profiling in your opinion?
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Of course it does. It does nothing other than
that. And I just want to know—I want to ask John, where are the
principled conservatives who used to believe in human liberty when it comes
to a law like this?
I can‘t believe that Barry Goldwater would support a law like this
where you have to show your papers if you look a little tan.
I go to Arizona every year for baseball spring training, Ed, and I‘m
going to be worried about driving while tan there. I‘m making a joke about
it. But I think the people should think about the dollars they spend
there.
This is a racist law and conservatives of principle need to speak up.
We need to do something about illegal immigration.
SCHULTZ: John, this is your government takeover, man. This is the
cops and the police --
(CROSSTALK)
WALSH: Yes. Really. So let‘s see the picket. Let‘s see the picket
signs.
FEEHERY: Well—well, I‘ll tell you what. When you have a situation
down there, you have an unbelievable drug war going on in Mexico. It‘s
spilling over into Arizona and Texas. Something‘s got to be done about it.
Ranchers are under assault from these drug runners and, you know, you
can‘t just say, hey, this is no big deal. It‘s a huge deal.
WALSH: I‘m not saying that, John.
FEEHERY: And then—and you need, Joan --
WALSH: I‘m not saying that.
FEEHERY: You need to stand up for law and order. And you‘re not
standing up for law and order. Someone has got to stop the drug runners
and they‘ve got to stop the carnage in Arizona.
WALSH: You know I remember law and order when that was a kind of
George Wallace appeal. That‘s always had a racial appeal.
FEEHERY: That‘s not—it‘s not --
WALSH: It has a racial connotation --
(CROSSTALK)
FEEHERY: Not at all.
WALSH: And I believe in law and order.
FEEHERY: Not when the drug runners are running the border.
WALSH: I‘m against the --
FEEHERY: Are you really against the drug runners? Are you, Joan?
(CROSSTALK)
FEEHERY: I don‘t think you are.
WALSH: Are you kidding me?
FEEHERY: You might be. Are you calling me George Wallace? Are you
kidding me when you say that? That‘s ridiculous.
WALSH: I‘m not. I‘m for the drug runners.
FEEHERY: Don‘t call me George Wallace, Joan. That‘s not very fair.
WALSH: I didn‘t. I said it sounded like George Wallace.
FEEHERY: I didn‘t sound like George Wallace.
WALSH: Law and order. Law and order has an old ring.
FEEHERY: Sounds to me like—it sounds to me like you might be for
the drug runners when you say I‘m like George Wallace. I‘m for law and
order down in Arizona.
WALSH: That‘s ridiculous.
SCHULTZ: Well, OK --
WALSH: So am I.
SCHULTZ: OK, John, we‘re all for law and order.
WALSH: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Are we for, nationally—and you know how these things can
spread from border to border. Are we in favor of giving law enforcement
almost unparalleled freedom in going up and shaking people down, saying,
well, it‘s reasonable suspicion?
FEEHERY: I‘m not for that, Ed. I am—what I am for is, is Arizona
has to deal with a problem that‘s escalating and only getting worse. And
they are desperate measures.
I will say this, though, Ed. I think we do need comprehensive
immigration reform because we‘ve got to get control of our borders. First
we got to secure our borders.
SCHULTZ: OK. All right, let‘s go to Rahm Emanuel. What do you think
of him, Joan, wanting to be the mayor of Chicago?
(LAUGHTER)
WALSH: He‘s got to take a number, you know? It‘s not (INAUDIBLE)
compete by any means. Lisa Madigan, Jessie Jackson Jr. wants it, Billy
Daley might want it. So it‘s a little bit weird. It‘s a little bit weird
for him to talk about anything.
SCHULTZ: I think it is, too.
WALSH: Post-White House.
SCHULTZ: John, is the—John, does the president have an unhappy
camper on his hands?
WALSH: Yes.
FEEHERY: Well, you know, I‘m from Chicago so I can understand why
he‘d want to be mayor. It‘s a great city and it‘s a big job. I can‘t
imagine someone other than a Daley being mayor because it‘s pretty much my
whole life it‘s been a Daley being mayor of Chicago.
WALSH: There was Harold Washington. God bless him.
SCHULTZ: Do you think he‘d win in Chicago?
FEEHERY: I don‘t know. I think it‘d be very hard for Rahm Emanuel to
be mayor. But you know there‘s a big organization. If he can get control
of the organization over the Daleys then he might win. But I don‘t think
he‘s going to be able to do.
SCHULTZ: All right.
WALSH: Barack Obama wanted to be mayor of Chicago. So we know it‘s a
big job.
SCHULTZ: All right. What‘s—what‘s your take on the right network
that apparently is going to start up this summer and it‘s, of course,
bankrolled and promoted and supported by Kelsey Grammer, you know, the old
guy that sat at the bar in “Cheers.”
I always thought that guy was kind of goofy. I mean this is kind of
goofy, too.
Joan, what do you think?
WALSH: I think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are just shaking
in their boots. They are afraid of Kelsey Grammer. He just brings so much
to the table in terms of audience and in terms of political perspicacity.
So I‘m—you know, I‘m really—I‘m frightened by it. I know you are
here at MSNBC, too.
Look, there‘s going to be—I‘m surprised there hasn‘t been another
FOX rip-off. They have been successful, Ed. We don‘t like it but they
have been successful. I just don‘t see this. This sounds cheesy to me.
SCHULTZ: All right. Here‘s Grammer commenting on the whole thing.
Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELSEY GRAMMER, RIGHTNETWORK.COM: Things that just aren‘t right. Big
government. More taxes. Group hugs. Cats on leashes. Hmm. Running in
place. Flightless birds. Grown men tickle fights.
That‘s definitely not right. There‘s wrong and there‘s right.
Right Network. All that‘s right with the world.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SCHULTZ: “All that‘s right with the world.”
WALSH: Sure.
SCHULTZ: John Feehery, are you going to try to be a host on this
network?
(LAUGHTER)
FEEHERY: You got—that would be awesome, Ed. I‘d love that. You
know I think that it‘s a big country out there and when you‘re talking
cable, if you can pull in ratings of a couple million an hour, you know,
you can make some money.
So, you know, I think this speaks to a crowd out there that needs
somewhere to go and the marketplace is actually demanding for it which is
why your competitors at FOX are doing so well.
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight. John Feehery and Joan
Walsh. Thank you for joining us here --
FEEHERY: Thank you.
WALSH: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: -- on our quick response section of THE ED SHOW.
Coming up, low-rated Salem radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt launched a
verbal sneak attack on MSNBC this afternoon. His target? Yours truly.
Buckle up, you. Oh yes. I got a response for you in just a minute in the
“Playbook.”
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And it‘s not too late to let us know what you think on the
subject tonight. The number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC.
Tonight‘s telephone survey question is, what is more harmful to
America, cops who racially profile or illegal immigration? Press 1 for
cops who profile, press 2 for illegal immigration.
Again the number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in my “Playbook” tonight. Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.
Earlier today on this network right-wing talk show host Hugh Hewitt of
the Salem Radio Network, without warning to our producers attacked me like
a coward. Actually I was sitting in the office. I was pretty entertained
by the whole thing.
Hewitt has a long history of personally attacking liberal talkers in
the industry. He suggested I be taken off MSNBC‘s air. He called me a
hatemonger and it was downhill from there. Here‘s the exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUGH HEWITT, SALEM RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: He spat off about something
you don‘t know about then I don‘t think you don‘t deserve much credibility.
Depends upon the source. You got to go source by source. But MSNBC should
start with Ed Schultz who‘s just kind of a joke.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And let‘s go on your hate of Ed Schultz. Or—he
should be off the air. What if I said to you, you know what --
HEWITT: I didn‘t say he should be off the air, Donnie. I don‘t hate
him. I think he‘s a joke. I spend my time talking --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, but even saying he‘s a joke --
(CROSSTALK)
HEWITT: -- to people like you --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen to me, listen to me.
HEWITT: I spend my time talking to people like Jonathan Alter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hugh --
HEWITT: I spend my time talking to smart lefties.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know you --
HEWITT: I just know Ed‘s not. And if E.J. Dionne and Jonathan Alter,
and people like who are friends of mine, and good lefties come on and talk
to me in a serious sustained way over a long period of time.
Ed Schultz doesn‘t do that. He doesn‘t have the ability to do that.
It doesn‘t happen.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hugh, I got to say something. Hugh, you are the
problem. Why don‘t you just say, you know what, I disagree with this guy?
Why do you to say he‘s a joke? I happen to know the man.
Once again, you disagree with everything he says, but his heart‘s in
the right place. Glenn Beck, once again, I disagree with everything he
says. Say it. I don‘t care. Knock yourself out. I don‘t need to say
you‘re a moron. I don‘t need to say—that‘s it, Hugh, enough with this
stuff.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
SCHULTZ: You know, I realize many of the viewers of this show have
never heard of this guy, Hugh Hewitt, or ever listen to him because he‘s
got a very small radio show. Hugh is kind of a lower tier Limbaugh
wannabe.
He‘s a hate merchant. He‘s an attack Meister. He‘s got a record of
trying to destroy people. For example, in 2004 he was part of a panel
discussion at a talk radio seminar and he flat-out said that his job was to
defeat John Kerry.
Now, Hugh, if I‘m a joke, come on this show tomorrow night. Lead
story, right here, let‘s get it on. Let‘s talk about the economy and
health care. And some labor issues. Because we know you love labor and we
know you hate outsourcing and we know what you‘re all about.
You‘ve got a history of attacking me. I‘ll give you the biggest
audience you‘ve ever had, Hugh. And let‘s see who the smart one is. It‘s
going to be fun. I hope all of you watch. I hope he accepts the
challenge.
Let‘s move to a more serious subject on politics. A lot of incumbents
in Congress are in serious jeopardy of losing their seats this November.
But a lot of candidates aren‘t waiting for the general election to play
dirty.
Attack commercials are flying across the airwaves in Pennsylvania.
Democratic primary between two guys going at it, incumbent senator Arlen
Specter and his challenger congressman Joe Sestak. Like this one from the
Specter camp.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Sestak, relieved of duty in the Navy for
creating a poor command climate.
Joe Sestak, the worst attendance of any Pennsylvania congressman and
near the bottom of the entire Congress. Last year alone Sestak missed 127
votes. Sestak says the missed votes weren‘t important. He went
campaigning instead.
Let‘s say no to no-show Joe.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak joins us now on THE ED
SHOW Tonight.
Congressman, good to have you with us.
REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be back, Ed. Thanks.
SCHULTZ: Have you missed all those votes? Is that accurate?
(LAUGHTER)
SESTAK: You know, it‘s interesting. I guess Arlen Specter is a Hugh
Hewitt of the U.S. Senate.
Look, last summer I had to make a decision to get into this race after
the Democrat establishment said not to. And I spent three weeks going
around Pennsylvania and missed a few votes, but my father was on his death
bed between June and September. World War II vet. Never left the ICU
room.
So like any good son in Pennsylvania I rushed up on certain nights to
see him. We laid him to rest in Arlington Cemetery.
The bottom line here is, my overall voting record is 95 percent. I‘m
pretty proud of it. I‘m pretty proud that we passed more bills than any of
the senator in Pennsylvania last year. I was called the most productive
legislator in my office.
It is opened, Ed, seven days a week and handle four times constituent
(ph) cases of the average congressional office.
But here‘s the U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, 30 years in Washington, we
have two wars overseas, a savage recession at home we‘re coming out of, and
this is what he brings to the public?
You know, just like Hugh, he won‘t come on your show, perhaps. He
won‘t even debate me except for one night downtown Philadelphia during the
Mets-Phillies game.
SCHULTZ: Do you want to debate him again? Do you want to—do you
want to debate --
SESTAK: I would debate him every day.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SESTAK: Have us both on. He turned down “Meet the Press” to go on
with me. He can‘t --
SCHULTZ: Arlen Specter --
SESTAK: He‘s not a Democrat. So he can‘t argue --
SCHULTZ: Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a second. Arlen
Specter turned down “Meet the Press” with you?
SESTAK: Yes. Yes, he did. He‘s turned down something like eight
debates so far with me.
SCHULTZ: OK.
SESTAK: And only one will do, downtown Philadelphia, during the Mets-
Phillies game.
SCHULTZ: All right.
SESTAK: “Meet the Press.” Imagine the transparency we could have.
SCHULTZ: What about the Quinnipiac --
SESTAK: And accountability.
SCHULTZ: What about the Quinnipiac poll that‘s out right now? He‘s
up on you 53, 32 percent, but 15 percent are undecided. How are you going
to turn this around if this is accurate?
SESTAK: Well, as you know, the last two polls since then have me
down, like the Rasmussen, 44-42. So it‘s a dead heat right now. The polls
are changing rapidly right now because, you know, Ed, out there—not in
Washington, but out there.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
SESTAK: People are trying to keep their jobs. They‘re just trying to
hold on and now they‘re turning to this primary.
SCHULTZ: Congressman --
SESTAK: And you know, they‘ve already made a verdict in Arlen Specter
because that other poll I mentioned is 52 percent undecided. We‘re going
to win this for the working families.
SCHULTZ: Got to run.
SESTAK: And for being honest.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, good to --
SESTAK: Thanks a lot.
SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time.
SESTAK: Good to be here.
SCHULTZ: One final page in the “Playbook” tonight. We got a new
addition do THE ED SHOW family.
Yesterday afternoon our director Jeff and his wife welcomed a baby
girl. Her name Mikayla Quinn. And she‘s gorgeous. Yes. She joins her
sister, Ansli.
Congratulations to Jeff and family.
Coming up, Mr. Intellectual Honesty and machine gun Michele want you
to believe they are victims of violence. Great American Bob Shrum will be
here to separate fact from “Psycho Talk.” That‘s next on THE ED SHOW.”
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And finally tonight on The Ed Show, Congresswoman Michele
Bachmann has made it into the right wing club over across the street. Good
old boy Sean Hannity defended his psycho sister on his show yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: There seems to be a coordinated effort
to intimidate, silence and demonize any critic of this administration.
You, in particular, have been singled out here.
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN ®, MINNESOTA: One word that we‘ve heard a lot
just in this last week is the word “violence.” And that when people on the
right are disagreeing with the Obama administration, that we‘re fomenting
violence, that‘s what they equate violence with.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Yes, sure. Democrats think righties are violent because we
disagree with them? It couldn‘t have anything to do with crazy rhetoric
like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: Now in Washington I‘m a foreign correspondent on enemy
lines. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: But so far playing the victim has kept Bachmann in the
spotlight. So she kept it up over the weekend in a speech to some tea
partiers in Chicago. This time she claimed former President Bill Clinton
is after her.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
BACHMANN: Bill Clinton gave a speech yesterday—the former
president—and the Center for American Progress, John Podesta‘s group,
and gave a speech and he called me out in his speech. And he said because
I‘m using a term like “gangster government” I‘m responsible for creating
the kind of climate of hate that could lead to another Tim McVeigh and
another Oklahoma City bombing.
How do you like that?
The former president of the United States decided I‘m important enough
to take on. This is a gangster government. There is no two ways about it.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, for more, let me bring in Bob Shrum, Democratic
strategist and professor at NYU.
Little in-house cleaning here. We call it Bachmann/Palin overdrive.
I mean, they just keep serving it up.
Gangster government, is that over the top?
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It‘s way over the top, and look, we
know from what we went through in this country in the 1960s, the killing of
(INAUDIBLE), the killing of Dr. King, this kind of language contributes to
a climate of violence which could have really tragic consequences.
I think back, you know, to the first presidential debate in 2004. And
John Kerry began that debate by saying President Bush and I love this
country. We both just—we each have a different vision of where to lead
it.
I think if Ronald Reagan, who could have respect and friendship for
Tip O‘Neill and Ted Kennedy, or JFK who had disagreements with Barry
Goldwater but could respect him as an individual and never engaged in that
kind of rhetoric, I think that‘s the standard that we ought have to in this
country if we‘re going to make the democracy work.
SCHULTZ: Are we at fault for covering it, Bob? I mean, you know,
we‘re in the news business. I mean we cover what people say, but the
rhetoric of Bachmann and the rhetoric of Sarah Palin, you know, locked and
loaded—reloaded and all this stuff, how are we supposed to handle that?
I mean this is what these people believe.
SHRUM: Well, I think with the nomination of Sarah Palin which was a
“Hail Mary” pass that never got John McCain anywhere near the end zone, we
opened a new chapter in the kind of freak show in American politics.
And you hear it not just from them, you hear it from a congressman
from Georgia, who‘s talking about people need to take up arms. They need
to be ready to fight their own government. You hear it today from the
people who are out there with guns in Washington, D.C.
A scraggly little mob, actually. But they‘re threatening a new civil
war. It‘s hard not to cover the freak show. But to some extent when we
cover it we do give it oxygen.
SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, always a pleasure. Great to have you with us
tonight.
SHRUM: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Tonight in our telephone survey I asked you what is more
harmful to America? Cops who racially profile or illegal immigration?
Sixty-eight percent say cops who illegally—racially profile, 32 percent
say illegal immigration.
That‘s THE ED SHOW. I‘m Ed Schultz. “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews
starts right now on the place for politics, MSNBC. We‘ll see you back here
tomorrow night for THE ED SHOW, 6:00 Eastern.
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.>
transcript