Guest: Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Ben Cardin, Rep. Joe Sestak, Steve McMahon, John Feehery, Joan Walsh, Sen. Ron Wyden
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW
tonight from New York.
These stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour.
Nothing is going to stop me from holding BP accountable and all the
oil barons or the lawmakers who just don‘t seem to be doing the right thing
on this oil spill. Now, I‘ve been critical of Louisiana Senator Mary
Landrieu. She‘ll get her chance to return fire in just a moment.
Joe Sestak is now leading Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, just one
week before the primary in that state. Sestak cleverly used George W. Bush
in a commercial to take the lead. We‘ll talk about it.
Plus, the Tea Partiers have been—well, they‘ve put out their most
wanted trading cards. Classy thing to do, isn‘t it? Nancy Pelosi is the
Joker, of course, and I don‘t think these nut jobs are playing with a full
deck.
All of that is coming up later on in the show.
But this is the story. I won‘t get off this story. I guess you could
say it‘s kind of my health care gig as we were on for so many months,
because I think this is going to have such a tremendous impact on the
country.
The story that‘s got me fired up is, of course, the oil spill. And
what are we going to do about it?
The companies involved in one of the worst ecological disasters ever
to hit American shores testified on Capitol Hill today—Halliburton,
Transocean, British Petroleum. Well, they‘re just pointing fingers at one
another during this congressional hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAMAR MCKAY, CHAIRMAN, BP AMERICA: Transocean, as owner and operator
of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, had responsibility for the safety of
drilling operations.
STEVEN NEWMAN, CEO, TRANSOCEAN: Liability and culpability and
ultimate responsibility for the events that resulted in the incident are
one thing, and responding to the economic impact of the event is another
thing. And as the lease operator and the well owner, that falls on BP.
TIM PROBERT, HALLIBURTON EXECUTIVE: Halliburton‘s confident the
cementing work on the Mississippi Canyon 252 well was completed in
accordance with the requirements of the well owners, well construction
plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Have you noticed all those CEOs look like they‘ve been
sunning and funning? They‘re well tanned and well rested.
They ought to be, because, you see, Transocean, they have their
mailbox in the Cayman Islands, and now they have since moved to
Switzerland. I just wonder how much they really do pay in tax.
They just don‘t seem to have the character to take the responsibility
for any of this. They want to blame the next guy. Although they cut deals
with one another, don‘t they?
If the Congress can‘t put the heat on these companies for this, when
is it going to happen? Some of it happened today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO ®, WYOMING: I hear one message, and the message
is, don‘t blame me. Well, shifting this blame does not get us very far.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI ®, ALASKA: I would suggest to all three of you
that we are all in this together, because this incident is affecting—
will have impact on the development of our energy policy for this country.
SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN (D), NEW MEXICO: I don‘t believe it‘s enough to
just label this catastrophic failure as an unpredictable and unforeseeable
occurrence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You know, folks, I want to believe that the Congress is
serious about all of this at this time, but we have to understand the
dichotomy of all of this. Look what‘s happening in front of us.
You have congressional members trying to grill corporate heads when
corporate heads are lining the pockets of these politicians. This is
wrong. And if the Senate can‘t make this right now, I‘ll just feel like
that Washington is really broken.
Here‘s what‘s really bad about this, especially for the liberals. If
the liberals in power—and they have the majority, I think—if they
don‘t do something about this now, when are they going to be doing it? Who
is going to be doing it? What party is going to do it? What independent-
thinking powerful political group is going to come in and say, you know
what, we‘ve to change the way we do business when it comes to major
corporations in this country when they gut our environment?
These companies are in damage control mode right now. The game plan
has been very classic, very simple: point the finger, lawyer up, and then
go find a friendly court, and just do the tap dance in front of the Senate,
and hopefully nothing will become of it.
The only people British Petroleum, Halliburton and Transocean, I
think, really care about are their shareholders. Do you really think they
care if we‘re energy-independent as a country? I don‘t think they care
about our fragile ecosystem, but that‘s just me. And do they really care
about the middle class jobs that are in the crosshairs of this epic spill?
President Obama says he‘s on board with lifting the liability caps on
this disaster. The president has also asked for independent scientists to
get involved.
Now, think about that statement. The president wants independent
scientists to now get involved in this because the oil companies and their
engineers just can‘t figure out what they‘re going to do at this point.
I think the tone of the hearing today was pretty much tame and lame,
because I didn‘t hear anybody say, “Gentlemen, you need to know that there
will be new regulations coming out of this. And you‘re not going to be
able to go that deep unless you have all the safety precautions and all the
measures in place.”
And the American people are sitting back here just wondering, is
corporate America going to be stronger than how the people feel about this
issue?
I have to tell you, I have never taken so many e-mails of people who
are furious at the lack of intensity by the Congress.
Now, to give them a fair shake, let‘s let them—this is just day
number one. And let‘s just hope that they‘re going to come out with some
new regulations, and that this just wasn‘t another Washington dog and pony
show.
But if we don‘t keep the pressure on them, who‘s going to? This story
can just go away.
By the way, where is the miner story? How quickly we get it out of
the media.
My issue with all of this is that if the liberals don‘t move on this -
because the conservatives do protect big oil, we know that—my issue is
if the liberals don‘t move on this, and if we don‘t lift the caps and
protect job, it‘s going to affect our economy for years to come.
Tell me what you think in our telephone survey tonight, folks. The
number to dial is 1-877-ED-MSNBC.
And my question tonight is: Do you believe the oil spill will
ultimately impact every American? Press the number “1” for yes, press the
number “2” for no. And I‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.
And throughout all of this, as our coverage is taking place here on
this show with the oil spill, I have been critical of a number of senators.
One of them has been Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.
We invited her to come on this program. She, of course, a member of
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. She was professional
enough and kind enough to come on the program tonight to answer a few
questions.
Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D), LOUISIANA: Thank you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: I appreciate your time.
I want this to be your time without interruption. Just a few
questions.
Where are we right now, in your opinion? And has your position
changed at all in the wake of what is unfolding off the shores of
Louisiana?
LANDRIEU: Well first of all, Ed, I hope to come on your show more
than just tonight. And this hasn‘t been the first day for us. It‘s been
three weeks of trying to contain this, not just spill, but uncontrolled
flow from BP.
And I want to be perfectly clear with you. I intend, as many members
of Congress do, to hold BP completely accountable in the law, regardless of
whose fault this was.
And they admitted that today. They are the responsible party and have
to pay all claims to people in Louisiana, Mississippi, the Gulf Coast, or
federal agencies that put out any taxpayer money.
So I just want you to know that I am not, and no one that I know in
Congress, is trying to protect BP.
Secondly, I‘m glad to know that you are concerned about jobs, because
we need to be. The American people are very interested in jobs.
And this industry, as bad as maybe some of the actors are, and as
irresponsible as some of are, Ed, one thing I hope that you can realize,
this is a big industry, and it‘s not just big oil. It‘s small companies,
it‘s independent companies.
And in my state, alone, just Louisiana, it‘s 300,000 people that go to
work every day in this industry. And, Ed, you can‘t just beat up on them.
You know, they earn a living through this industry. We want to hold
the industry accountable, but if you would upend the industry completely,
it would be bad for our economy, we‘d lose millions of jobs and put people
out of work.
I know that‘s not what you want to do. We want to be safe. We must
hold them accountable.
SCHULTZ: Well, is it holding them accountable letting them go down
5,000 feet without all the safety precautions in place? And to pass this
off as just an accident seems rather cavalier to a lot of Americans. I
mean—
LANDRIEU: That would be cavalier if that‘s what we were doing. But
let me say, no one is passing this off. Even those of us that support the
jobs created by this industry and realize that America actually needs this
oil, it‘s not something we can do without, at least tomorrow or the next
few years, maybe in the distant future we can, but not tomorrow unless we
want to drive this county into another recession or depression.
SCHULTZ: Well, nobody is trying to do that. But they were drilling
with not all the safety precautions. And now we are on the verge of the
worst ecological episode this country‘s ever had to deal with.
LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, you need to get your facts straight.
And I know you‘re a good reporter, so you will. But these are some of the
facts we learned today. And we don‘t know everything.
That America has very stringent rules. We learned today we don‘t have
the most stringent. That‘s obvious with what‘s happening.
SCHULTZ: And I‘ve said that. That is accurate.
LANDRIEU: Hold on. And you‘ve said that. That is accurate.
But that Transocean, that I did not have any relationship with before
this, never even knew the person that testified, but he was impressive
today. And that‘s just not from advocates, but from critics as well, will
say that to you.
He said that their requirements for this well exceeded what Minerals
Management had required for them. Now, that leads you to the question, is
Minerals Management requiring enough? We don‘t know. We‘ll find that out.
But let me say this, Ed. We‘ve drilled 4,000 deep wells in the Gulf
in the last 20 years. We drill 120 deep wells in the world every year.
SCHULTZ: Not at this depth.
LANDRIEU: Yes, at this depth.
SCHULTZ: Not at this depth, Senator.
LANDRIEU: Absolutely. Yes, yes, yes, at this depth.
SCHULTZ: That‘s not the information that we have. They have no—
LANDRIEU: You need to check your information. There are 120 deep-
water wells drilled in the world. And we have drilled 41,000 wells in the
Gulf in the last 20 years. Some of them shallow, some of them deep.
SCHULTZ: And they were permitted to go down to 18,000 feet?
LANDRIEU: Yes, they were permitted—well, not all 41,000, but 120 -
-
SCHULTZ: Well, that‘s the key point. That‘s the key—
LANDRIEU: No, but—but this is the facts, Ed. We have been
drilling in the deep water in the Gulf for a long time.
Now, obviously, something terrible went wrong. There were not enough
backup systems. But that‘s what these hearings are about.
And I can promise you, no one‘s going to let the industry skid. We‘re
going to make BP pay.
And, I might say, and you know because you‘ve heard me say this
before, when will America realize that the Gulf Coast states need revenue-
sharing? Do you know how much money the federal treasury gets from this
industry every year? An average of $5 billion. Do you know how much money
Louisiana gets? Not one single penny.
SCHULTZ: But Senator, I‘m not disputing that. Senator, I‘m not
disputing that, but what I am saying is that it can‘t be about the money
all the time. There‘s other ways for us to do this. And for them to be
down there that far without an acoustics switch, someone failed in
oversight.
Now, let me finish up with just a final question.
LANDRIEU: You may be correct, but hold on about the money. Tell that
to the fishermen that are out of work. They‘re looking for a paycheck.
SCHULTZ: Oh, I believe me, I am.
LANDRIEU: How about the money for the booms? That‘s expensive. And
we need more of those.
So, it really is about the money. And it‘s about being fair to the
coastal states—Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama—that have
been drilling for this oil for years. The nation needs it, and we want to
share that revenue to protect our coasts and protect the environment.
And you know what, Ed, who‘s fought us? Both the industry and some of
the environmentalists have fought us. So I hope now people will realize—
SCHULTZ: Well, your fellow Senator in the Democratic Caucus, Bill
Nelson, says big oil gets what it wants.
Do you agree with that?
LANDRIEU: That is not true.
SCHULTZ: OK.
LANDRIEU: And Bill Nelson—that is not true. And it also is true
that there are a lot of independents in this industry, and that there are
many people that work in this industry that are good people. Bill Nelson
has a lot of good people that work in Florida. We have tourism, too, but
our coast is a working coast. We need to balance it.
SCHULTZ: Finally, Senator, I‘m short on time here. Are you for
unlimited caps in liability?
LANDRIEU: I am for BP paying every single penny that they owe. And
if we can raise the caps without crashing the entire industry, then I‘m for
it. But I‘m not for putting people out of work. I‘m for putting people in
work, to work.
SCHULTZ: So unlimited does not fit with you?
LANDRIEU: Well, if it puts the industry out of work, no.
SCHULTZ: All right.
LANDRIEU: Now, if we can do it in a way that doesn‘t put the industry
out of work, and holds BP accountable, I‘m for it. Ed, if you haven‘t
checked, we can‘t lose any jobs in America. We need every one.
SCHULTZ: Oh, I know that. But we can‘t lose the environment either.
LANDRIEU: Right, we can‘t lose our jobs either.
SCHULTZ: Senator, I appreciate you being on.
LANDRIEU: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Thanks so much.
LANDRIEU: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Joining us now is New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. He‘s
a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and he‘ll be
joining us in just a moment.
We should point out that Senator Landrieu has taken $1.8 million from
BP over the last 10 years. And she‘s also taken money from the anti-
drillers.
But I‘m not convinced. And I don‘t think that there‘s enough
oversight, and we will have her on the program again talking more about
this.
You just can‘t look at this number and say that people aren‘t affected
by that. And I will give her an opportunity again to come back and talk
about it.
We‘ve got to move along. We‘re short on time tonight because that
interview went rather long.
We‘ll get Senator Lautenberg on at another time.
When we come back here on THE ED SHOW, here on MSNBC, now the Tea
Partiers really have nothing to party about. A new report shows our taxes
are the lowest they‘ve been in 60 years.
We‘ll have that and so much more coming up here on THE ED SHOW.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW.
For more on the oil disaster, let me bring in New Jersey Senator Frank
Lautenberg, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. He has
also helped lead the effort of the Senate to raise the liability cap.
Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: Good to be here, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Liability cap—talk to us about what it should be. I have
suggested and many of our listeners have responded that there shouldn‘t be
any cap at all.
What do you think of that?
LAUTENBERG: Well, I think that‘s probably right, except that right
now it‘s only $75 million. It‘s peanuts, forgive me. We have a bill in
place that‘s going to bring it up to $10 billion, but we could take the cap
off that very well.
When they make a mistake like this—and it is a mistake—they made
promises that there would be no chance of this kind of a mishap, but there
is. And since 2002, Ed, we‘ve had six major oil spills in this country,
and lots of minor ones that are still very damaging.
So, who should pay for it, the citizens who are hurt, the people who
lose jobs, the people who lose their homes or otherwise?
SCHULTZ: Senator, how did you come to the $10 billion figure?
LAUTENBERG: Well, that was, perhaps, you might say, arbitrary, but it
was something that they would feel if an accident like the one that we‘re
looking at is happening. This is going to obviously grow past $1 billion
like nothing.
SCHULTZ: Frank, is this a game-changer, you think, for energy in this
country?
LAUTENBERG: Well, it should be a game-changer, because one of the
things that we determined from the lips of the BP representative who
testified at my committee just now is that he thinks they did reduce their
investments in alternative energy, they just, for some strange reason—
they had an increase in the quarter of $3.2 billion in earnings. An
increase up to—it‘s incredible to look at those kinds of earnings when
the country is reeling from economic shock.
And these guys are going along making ever more money. Five companies
made $23 billion in the quarter.
SCHULTZ: They can sure spread that along, I think, with unlimited
caps.
Senator Lautenberg, good to have you with us tonight. Thanks so much,
sir.
LAUTENBERG: Good to be with you.
SCHULTZ: Now on to some other big story business out of the nation‘s
capital.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will have her first meetings with
senators on Capitol Hill tomorrow. But already, Oklahoma Republican Jim
Inhofe says that he will vote against Kagan.
He‘s not interested in even meeting with her or hearing what she has
to say about her confirmation hearing. He‘s just going to say no.
Inhofe is the only Republican to oppose Kagan outright, but the rest
of the Republicans got their talking points in order—she‘s never been a
judge and she‘s not qualified for the court.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell even suggested that Kagan, who is a
top lawyer for the United States government, might require on-the-job
training. I can‘t believe what they‘re saying about this nominee.
For more, let me bring in Maryland Senator Ben Cardin. He‘s a member
of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator, nice to have you with us tonight.
It appears to me that your opponents there in the Senate and on right-
wing radio are making Kagan out to be an intern.
SEN. BEN CARDIN (D), MARYLAND: Ed, I think this person—I think
Elena Kagan has incredible credentials, a background that I think will be
extremely helpful. She knows the Supreme Court. She works at the Supreme
Court as the solicitor general of the United States.
She has broad experience both as a professor, as a dean, in an
administration, and as solicitor general. So, no, she has the experience
and she has the knowledge of the Supreme Court, which I think is critical
for the next justice.
SCHULTZ: Will any Republicans come on board? She got seven votes for
the position of solicitor general. Do you think any of those will come
along?
CARDIN: Well, it‘s hard to predict the strategies of the Republicans.
But I think that she should be judged on her record. This shouldn‘t be a
partisan division.
We should have a civil debate. We should consider this in a timely
way. I think that when you look at her credentials—and we‘ll see how
the confirmation hearing goes—I am hopeful we‘ll have Republicans who
support it.
SCHULTZ: OK. And this has become really a political football again.
Is this—will this be just as tough as the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, or
tougher?
CARDIN: Well, I think the—
SCHULTZ: I mean, she hasn‘t—and the big thing is that she hasn‘t
had any judicial experience, the first nominee in 40 years to be in that
category.
Does that bother you at all?
CARDIN: No, it doesn‘t at all. I mean, if you look at some of the
great justices and chief justices over the history of the Supreme Court,
you find many who didn‘t come with judicial experience.
She has legal experience. She has knowledge of the Supreme Court.
Look, I think when everything is said and done, that the process
that‘s been set, this is the Supreme Court of the United States, the Senate
has an obligation for an in-depth review during the confirmation process.
I just hope it‘s a civil debate and that the members make their judgment on
her qualifications and not to make this political.
SCHULTZ: Senator, good to have you with us. Thanks so much.
CARDIN: Ed, it‘s always nice to be with you.
SCHULTZ: You bet, sir.
Coming up, the same person that said Sarah Palin is extraordinarily
qualified to be the president is slamming President Obama for dumbing down
the Supreme Court? Oh, we‘ve got a newcomer lander in the “Zone.”
Plus, Tiger Woods gets fired.
The governor of Arizona slamming those who are against the law.
We‘re right back here on THE ED SHOW. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, we welcome a new member to the
crazy club—Reaganite Bay Buchanan.
Yesterday on CNN, she ripped into President Obama‘s Supreme Court
pick, Elena Kagan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAY BUCHANAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Do you know what this says about
Obama? He‘s gone safe. It‘s an election year. He doesn‘t want too much
controversy. Let‘s pick somebody who hasn‘t done anything.
Very, very safe. We go to Harvard, everybody will say—
DAVID GERGEN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: This is not true.
BUCHANAN: It is absolutely true.
What makes her qualified? She has no—being a president of Harvard
makes you qualified? It does not. What he‘s done is dummy down—
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Was Sonia Sotomayor a safe pick?
BUCHANAN: Absolutely not. He has dummied down the Supreme Court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: You want to know why CNN is going to the toilet? There‘s
some heavy political insight. The dean of the Harvard Law School would
dummy down the Supreme Court? Now, that‘s coming from a political
operative who had this to say about Sarah Palin back when she was running
for vice president --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUCHANAN: John McCain has made a remarkable decision. It was quite -
looking back, it‘s brilliant. She has one accomplishment after another,
all of which are very much on a—
LARRY KING, HOST, “LARRY KING LIVE” So you have no concerns about her
being president?
BUCHANAN: None. Not only am I not concerned, she is extraordinarily
qualified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Oh, what a classic piece of audio that was. Saying Elena
Kagan is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, after insisting that the
quitter from Alaska, Sarah Palin, who writes her talking points on her
hand, would be qualified to be the leader of the free world, that is some
serious “Psycho Talk.”
Coming up, they‘re getting down to the dirty. They‘re getting down
and dirty in Pennsylvania. Congressman Joe Sestak has closed the gap on
Senator Arlen Specter, and now he‘s going for the jugular and reminding
everybody just how tight Specter once was with W.
He‘ll join me in just a moment.
And the Tea Partiers are selling America‘s most wanted trading cards.
They think Nancy Pelosi is the Joker. I‘ll show them something that will
turn their entire world upside-down.
Plus, “The Maverick” needs acting lessons, Tiger gets canned, and
“Playboy” is going 3-D.
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. The battleground story
tonight, all eyes turn to Pennsylvania one week from tonight. It‘s become
the battleground for progressives. Congressman Joe Sestak was counted out
when he decided to challenge coveted Democratic Senator Arlen Specter. For
much of this year, Sestak has been way behind, upwards of 30 points. But
last week his campaign went up with an ad reminding Democrats that Specter
was once endorsed by George W. Bush.
Now seven days out from the primary, Sestak is surging, and Arlen
Specter‘s camp is scrambling to remind Democrats that he has the backing of
the current president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama and newspapers across Pennsylvania
agree, Arlen Specter is the real deal.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to say a few
things about Arlen Specter. He came to fight for the working men and women
of Pennsylvania. And Arlen Specter cast the deciding vote in favor of a
Recovery Act that has helped pull us back from the brink. Because you know
he‘s going to fight for you, regardless of what the politics are.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (D), PENNSYLVANIA: I‘m Arlen Specter and I approve
this message.
OBAMA: I love you, and I love Arlen Specter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Joining me now is Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, who
is challenging Senator Specter in the Democratic primary. Congressman,
good to have you on tonight. Let‘s go down the list.
REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Good to be back.
SCHULTZ: Politically, it doesn‘t get heavier than having President
Obama on your side. Along with Joe Biden, along with John Kerry, and Ed
Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, said that if you ran against Arlen
Specter, you‘d get killed in the primary. Here you are leading. What‘s
the key? Is it George W. Bush connected to Specter? What do you think?
SESTAK: No. That‘s part of it. What‘s really the matter is—and
if you went around with me to the 67 counties, to the over 500 events, as
I‘ve done since one January, you would find people have lost any faith that
Washington, D.C., could do something right. They feel it‘s broken down in
Washington. And they know that no career politician, particularly one
who‘s been there 30 years and advanced the Republican agenda, can actually
be asked to clean up the mess that they created.
They got slammed in this recession. While I appreciate the Democratic
establishment feeling like they needed to deal with someone, and I don‘t
begrudge them that—in fact, Pennsylvanians are pretty independent-
minded. And now that they‘re focused on this primary, as they‘re trying to
hold on to the jobs they have, or trying to regain one, they‘re really
looking for someone that they might believe in again.
SCHULTZ: Senator Specter told me on the radio today that he changed
parties because he wanted to get re-elected, he wanted to keep his job.
And of course President Obama came out early on, got him to switch from the
Republicans to the Democratic party. Is this a deal just playing out? Is
this a bad deal playing out?
SESTAK: Look, I don‘t begrudge the president for having made that
deal, nor for trying now to keep his end of the bargain. After all, Arlen
Specter opposed Solicitor General Kagan when she went up for that thing,
and the president needs him until we get a real Democrat in that office for
this—
SCHULTZ: Arlen Specter is not a real Democrat?
SESTAK: No, I think as he said, very much, is that he really is not
going to be a loyal Democrat. I mean, he very much supported George Bush.
He very much said to Rick Santorum, when Rick said I‘ll only give you my
endorsement when you run against Pat Toomey if you promise that whomever
President Bush nominates for the next two positions on the Supreme Court,
you‘ll vote for them. So he finds somebody who claims to be independent,
was carrying the water of the right wing.
In short, I don‘t think whether it‘s Republican or independent, it
seems to be more the Specter party. I appreciate him. He‘s done some good
things. But his time has come and gone after down there for 30 years.
They need someone who is in it with conviction and core beliefs and willing
to stand up, as John F. Kennedy once said, sometimes the party asks too
much.
SCHULTZ: Would you be a friend of—I have to ask you, Joe, will you
be a friend of labor? Because labor‘s big in Pennsylvania. Employee Free
Choice Act is huge with labor right now. Will you support that? Will you
be a friend of labor?
SESTAK: I‘m an original co-sponsor and voted for it my first year
here and co-sponsor my second. My overall voting record of the AFL-CIO is
97 percent. My third grade daughter would fail with the 61 percent AFL-CIO
voting record that Arlen Specter has.
Why am I for them? Because they‘re the backbone of the working force.
I‘m a strong supporter.
SCHULTZ: Are you going to be standing here a week from tonight
victorious, headed for the Toomey showdown?
SESTAK: Yes. But I‘m also going to be standing here as a public
servant for the working families. And I‘m willing to lose my job as a
senator later on in fighting for the policies with this president that I
want to be the strongest ally with, not a yes man, obviously, in order to
bring about the policies that working families and those who want to work
have to have.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. Congressman
Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania.
Now let‘s get some rapid fire response from our panel on these stories
tonight. The midterm campaign pandering is out in full force. Senator
John McCain has border police shilling for him in a new campaign about the
dang fence.
And everyone‘s talking about the Ohio Democratic party‘s topless ad
against Republican Senate Candidate Rob Portman.
And one of the most significant changes in health care reform went
into effect this week. Young adults can now stay on their parents‘
insurance until they are the age of 26. The Chamber of Commerce is
slamming it as government over-reach.
With us tonight, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon and also
Republican strategist John Feehery with us tonight. All right, gentlemen,
we have a lot to talk about tonight. Pandering out in full force. John,
explain John McCain‘s ad. He‘s been in Washington since 1982, and he
hasn‘t stopped illegal immigration. Yet, he says he‘s got the answers for
it. Does he have any credibility?
JOHN FEEHERY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You know, I think he does. I
agreed with John McCain when he pushed for comprehensive immigration
reform. I agree with him today. We have to do something about the border.
We have to secure the border in Arizona. The situation in Arizona, as
we‘ve talked about on this show time and time again, Ed, is getting
increasingly perilous. The number one state as far as kidnappings. The
drug war is coming over the border.
So John McCain is exactly right on this issue. We‘ve got to secure
the southern border.
SCHULTZ: Here‘s the ad that we‘re talking about. We‘ll get response
from Steve. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: Home invasions, murder.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We‘re out-manned. Of all the illegals in America,
more than half come through Arizona.
MCCAIN: Have we got the right plan?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Plan‘s perfect. You bring troops, state, county
and local law enforcement together.
MCCAIN: And complete the dang fence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will work this time. Senator, you‘re one of
us.
MCCAIN: Home invasions, murder—
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We‘re out-manned. Of all the illegals in America,
more than half come through Arizona.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Steve, what do you think of that?
STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Wow. I have to tell you, the
maverick that we used to see in Washington, D.C., has become a typical
career politician who is now desperate to save his job, and seems to be
willing to say anything to do it. You know, this is a guy who co-sponsored
the Kennedy/McCain Immigration Reform Bill, which was a responsible measure
that recognized that 12 or 13 million people are here, created a path to
citizenship.
We absolutely have to secure the borders. That‘s correct. John
McCain is talking about building a fence now, which isn‘t the John McCain
of two or three years ago. It‘s the John McCain who‘s scared in a
Republican primary.
SCHULTZ: Did I hear it right in that commercial? He asked the
officer if we‘ve got the right plan. John, isn‘t John McCain supposed to
know what the right plan is after all these years?
FEEHERY: Ed, you know, it‘s never a bad idea to ask the folks on the
border who are actually protecting America if this is the right plan, which
he did and he got the right answer. Listen, this is smart politics. John
McCain‘s probably going to win that primary, by the way.
SCHULTZ: OK. Let‘s go to Ohio. This is an ad against Rob Portman,
who is running for Senate. And the working folk of America in Ohio
reminding him exactly where the jobs went. It‘s pretty clever. Here it
is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jobs out of Ohio.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And when he—
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- supported tax breaks for companies moving over
seas.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he served as Bush‘s czar --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- letting the national debt --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- swell by 500 billion dollars.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand in solidarity.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With Ohio workers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let‘s let them know how many people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lost the shirts off their backs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go to PortmanTookTheShirtOffMyBack.com.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We‘ll deliver a shirt in your name.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To Rob Portman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go to this website.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sign up today.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay in solidarity.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With Ohio workers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Steve McMahon, rate it from one to ten. Is it effective?
MCMAHON: That‘s a great ad. It‘s a ten. It‘s effective. It‘s
memorable. It‘s funny. But it makes a very serious point, and it reminds
people of what the Bush administration and Rob Portman did to Ohio. It‘s
going to work very, very well there.
SCHULTZ: What do you think, John?
FEEHERY: Since Ted Strickland and Lee Fisher got into office, the
unemployment rate has doubled in Ohio. This is not a problem with Rob
Portman. It‘s with the Democrats. Ohio is dependent on exports. Without
exports, the jobs don‘t come back to Ohio. Rob Portman‘s got the right
plan. Lee Fisher does not.
SCHULTZ: Let‘s—
MCMAHON: Rob Portman, George Bush. The same thing that‘s going to
happen to him is happening to Arlen Specter right now.
FEEHERY: Long time ago. Nice try.
SCHULTZ: Wait a minute, John, they did lose more jobs under President
Bush than they have under President Obama.
FEEHERY: Since Ted Strickland and Lee Fisher have begun in office,
the unemployment rate has doubled in Ohio.
MCMAHON: Who was the president? Who was the president when that was
happening?
FEEHERY: It‘s about Ohio right now, Steve. And—
MCMAHON: That‘s happened all across the country, John. It‘s happened
all across the country. Who was the president when it happened?
FEEHERY: This is about the Democrats in Ohio. They led the state
poorly.
MCMAHON: Did they ruin the whole country, too?
FEEHERY: The unemployment rate has doubled in Ohio—
(CROSS TALK)
MCMAHON: Did they ruin the whole country too? Who was the president?
I‘m just—refresh my memory. We‘re talking about the rest of the
country. What was the condition of the country when President Obama got
there?
FEEHERY: The unemployment in Ohio doubled with Ted Strickland as
governor.
MCMAHON: Uh-huh.
FEEHERY: That‘s why that ad doesn‘t work.
SCHULTZ: It doesn‘t work? I mean—
MCMAHON: It‘s going to work.
SCHULTZ: The outsourcing was pushed by the Republicans. Their tax
policies didn‘t that, undoubtedly. Their corporate breaks and what not.
Let‘s move forward to health care. All right, the Chamber of Commerce is
slamming the president for making sure that people under 26 years old are
going to be able to be on their parents‘ insurance policy. What about
that, Steve?
MCMAHON: Well, listen, I think actually this is a case where the
insurance companies moved first. They moved where the country‘s going.
They moved to where the bill required. They moved early. Good for them.
Everybody else ought to move with them. Kids ought to be able to stay on
their parents‘ policies. If the insurance industry realizes that, I don‘t
know why anybody else wouldn‘t.
SCHULTZ: John, where do you come down on that? Isn‘t this good for
Americans?
FEEHERY: Well, it‘s great if you have a kid who‘s 21 to 26 who
doesn‘t have a job. It‘s really bad if you don‘t because your premiums are
going to go up significantly. If you‘re paying more, that‘s the problem
with this. All these good intentions lead to higher premiums for folks. A
lot of these folks are already struggling with paying their premiums. This
is going to be the unintended consequence of this legislation.
SCHULTZ: Steve McMahon, John Feehery, great to have you with us
tonight. Thanks so much.
Coming up, the big oil slickers were short on the answers and long on
the finger pointing today. Senator Ron Wyden isn‘t having it and he will
be here to smack them down coming up in the playbook.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in my playbook tonight, there was plenty of blame to go
around during today‘s hearings on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon hammered BP for failing to address a history of
safety problems.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: We understand that the specific cause for
the Deep Water Horizon disaster isn‘t known. But this sure fits, in my
view, a pattern, a pattern of serious safety and environmental problems at
BP.
LAMAR MCKAY, CHAIRMAN, BP AMERICA INC.: What I‘m telling you is I
have not been aware of or seen deficiencies in the Gulf of Mexico systems.
WYDEN: And I‘m still not clear what changes have been made after Tony
Hayward said there were going to be changes made.
MCKAY: Well, it gets down to the agenda and the culture of the
company.
WYDEN: It sure does. The culture of this company is that there‘s
been one accident of another.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Now it‘s time for the next step. I want to know what
Congress plans to do to hold these oil barons accountable. Senator Ron
Wyden, Oregon, joins me now on THE ED SHOW. Senator good to have you with
us. Did we make any progress today? What do you think?
WYDEN: I think we did shed some light on this situation. The fact of
the matter is the principle federal agency in this area, the Minerals
Management Agency, Ed, has simply been too cozy with this industry. We‘ve
documented some of the financial mischief there in the past. Now we‘re
getting on top of some of the safety concerns.
Secretary Salazar is coming forward with what I think is a promising
proposal that could put more scrutiny on the safety side. I think it‘s
encouraging.
SCHULTZ: Well, was it a mistake, in your opinion, for them to be down
that deep without all the safety precautions like an acoustics switch in
place?
WYDEN: Certainly you get the sense, today, that there were not
adequate backup systems.
SCHULTZ: Will this bring new regulations?
WYDEN: I hope this time the committee stays at it until we get the
changes that are necessary. One of the parts of the BP story that‘s so
troubling is that after these accidents, the company always says that
they‘re going to turn around things. It‘s going to get better. They‘re
going to have tougher standards. Yet, there‘s another accident. There are
serious questions in my mind about whether BP is even keeping up with other
companies‘ standards in this area.
SCHULTZ: Can you go along with the theory of dollar for dollar,
unlimited caps? No matter what damage is done that, to make these
companies whole—these Americans are going to lose their jobs, lose their
industry, not to mention what it‘s going to do to the environment. We
could be looking at decades of problems here.
WYDEN: There was a lot of dancing around, a lot of semantics with
respect to paying claims. Here‘s the bottom line: I‘m going to insist on
all legitimate claims being paid. There are too many folks that are
hurting there, working families, folks who deserve a fair shake. All
legitimate claims have got to be paid.
We‘re not going to let them squirm out with a bunch of legalistic
definitions of a claim.
SCHULTZ: Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
Final page in the playbook tonight, it just keeps getting worse for
Tiger Woods. He was just fired by his swing coach, Hank Haney, one of the
best. At least that‘s Haney‘s side of the story. Haney has been working
with Tiger for seven years. Had a lot of success. He said that he and
Tiger will always be friends, but the time has come for him to move forward
in other areas of his life.
Coming up, it‘s time for the Tea Partiers to take off those wacky
costumes, all that moaning they‘ve been doing about paying taxes is based
on what? Nothing. You won‘t believe what‘s coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Finally tonight on THE ED SHOW, the Tea Partiers, well,
they‘re out for liberal blood this election season. One group has even
gone so far as to put out playing cards featuring their top targets in
2010. The deck, of course, modeled after the cards the Bush administration
created in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq. Those cards depicted Iraq‘s
most wanted. The Tea Partiers‘ version is called America‘s Most Wanted.
It features House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid as jokers.
A couple Republicans made it into the deck as well. Senator John
McCain is the ace of spades. And incidentally, the Ace of spades is the
most—is Iraq‘s most wanted deck was Saddam Hussein. Now we all know the
Tea Party‘s big problem with big government is taxation. They hate taxes.
A new report should bag that complaint. As it turns out, last year,
Americans paid their lowest level of taxes since 1950. For more on that,
let‘s bring in Joan Walsh, editor in chief, Salon.com. This, of course, is
averaging out all incomes over all regions across the country, but it is a
rather interesting report that‘s out there. Joan, does this take the wind
out of their sales? What do you think?
JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: It doesn‘t, Ed. It really doesn‘t. Not to
make a pun, but they‘re not playing with a full deck in the Tea Party. You
know, I went to a Tea Party last year. And I talked to this guy who told
me he made 45,000 dollars and that his taxes went up. I was like, no, they
didn‘t. Your taxes went down. President Obama lowered your taxes. He
insisted I was wrong.
So, you know, they have their own facts. They have their own point of
view. I don‘t see them letting this information permeate their world view.
SCHULTZ: Here is a Pennsylvania campaign ad supporting Republican Tim
Burns. Let‘s take a look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Once Nancy Pelosi was safely confined to liberal
San Francisco. But Harry Reid and Barack Obama had other plans.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Under my plan, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, gorged on our taxpayer dollars, Pelosi has
grown into a power hungry goliath, defying the will of the American people.
Who has the power to stop her? Who can save America?
You, the Pennsylvania voter. Vote May 18th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Fear merchants galore. What do you think?
WALSH: Oh, you know, Ed, I think they have mommy issues. I think
they really need to see somebody about that. Because Nancy Pelosi does not
want to hurt them. You know, they‘ve been running against Nancy since
2006. And it didn‘t win—didn‘t work. They took—you know, the
Democrats took back the Congress in 2006. It doesn‘t work. It scares
politicians. It doesn‘t scare voters.
SCHULTZ: And the numbers show this, when it comes to whether we think
we‘re overtaxed: 48 percent of the people say taxes are too high. That‘s
near a 50-year low. Of course, 45 percent of the people in the Gallup poll
say the taxation is about right. We‘re divided down the middle on just
about everything in this country.
WALSH: Right.
SCHULTZ: How much of a play do you think the Tea Partiers will make,
and will they be a political force? I mean, they‘re taking credit for
Senator Bennett being ousted by the GOP in Utah.
WALSH: I think they will be and have been a political force in the
Republican party, and they seem to be pulling it to the right. I mean,
John McCain will be a big test. We‘ve seen McCain move as far right as he
can. He‘s not a maverick anymore.
For them to make him their ace of spades is pretty interesting and
pretty significant. If he holds on, that will be bad news for them. I
expect them to be a force, especially, maybe only in Republican primaries.
They‘ve proven that they can do that.
SCHULTZ: Joan, make the call in Pennsylvania. One week from tonight,
Sestak or incumbent Senator Arlen Specter? What do you think?
WALSH: Sestak seems to be surging and he has managed to tie Specter
to Bush. And, you know, people just really don‘t trust somebody who flip-
flops in the way that Senator Specter did. So I think the momentum is
certainly with Sestak. We‘ll see, though.
SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, Salon.com, always a pleasure. Thanks so much.
WALSH: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Tonight in our phone survey I asked, do you believe this oil
spill will ultimately impact every American? Ninety eight percent of you
responded yes; only two percent of you said no.
That‘s THE ED SHOW. I‘m Ed Schultz. For more information on THE ED
SHOW , you can go to our radio website at WeGotEd.com, or go to
Ed.MSNBC.com. “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now on the place
for politics, MSNBC. We‘ll see you back here tomorrow night right here 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.>