Guests: Mark Udall, Bob Shrum, Adam Green, Alan Grayson, Joe Madison, Tom
Tancredo, Lionel, Chris Christie, Lizz Winstead
ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC ANCHOR: Good evening, Americans, and welcome to THE ED SHOW tonight from New York.
These stories are hitting “My Hot Buttons” at this hour.
Well, the president is getting bullied by the righties when it comes to doling out tax breaks for millionaires. I want our leader to wake up, and so does the left.
The Republicans are trying to make the rich richer on a day that our unemployment set a new record. Almost 10 percent of this country doesn‘t have a job.
My commentary on that and how the left is pushing the president in just a moment.
Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin‘s pockets are going to get a lot fuller if John Boehner gets his way. Congressman Alan Grayson is getting after it. You won‘t want to miss his take on all of this. That‘s in tonight‘s “Battleground” story.
Rush Limbaugh thinks poor people should not have the right to vote? This may be the most disgusting thing he‘s ever said. I‘ll take him to task in “The Zone” tonight.
But this the story that has me fired up first tonight.
In the midst of a hot domestic debate, President Obama popped up in Afghanistan today, and, of course, here come the critics. They‘re saying that he‘s dodging these numbers and leaving it for Biden.
The latest unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent. The November number makes it 19 straight months above 9 percent. That‘s the longest streak since World War II.
Now, the right wing jumped on these numbers with John Boehner issuing this threat: “The lame-duck Congress should do the right thing and vote immediately to cut spending and stop all the tax hikes. If they don‘t, the new House majority will in January.”
Interesting.
Well, Harry Reid is calling the Republicans‘ bluff, and calling two Senate votes for strictly middle class tax cuts tomorrow.
Now, at the same time, it‘s been widely reported that the White House is trying to work out a deal with Republicans to do a trade. A one-year extension of unemployment benefits for a two-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts? Hey, it‘s a two for one and the workers get screwed again. How about that?
Liberals are afraid that President Obama is going to cave in on this deal. Conversely, the White House should be negotiating from a position of strength.
Mr. President, the American people are on your side on this issue. A new CBS poll shows 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year, and another 14 percent want all of the Bush tax cuts to expire.
Folks, that means that 67 percent of Americans want the tax cuts to end for the rich folks in this country. What‘s there to negotiate?
The bottom line is that we‘ve got to get our fiscal House in order. Isn‘t that what the big crying (INAUDIBLE) thrown at everybody about? Oh, we‘re spending too much, the next generation, we have to do something to get our fiscal House in order. Heck, we just had a big commission that just gave a report about that.
Now, the only way to do it and the best way to do it is to go after the people with the money. Why? Because they have it. Why? Because the Treasury needs it.
They just happen to be rich Republicans. Too bad. The parent‘s got to be over.
Now, the same CBS poll shows less than half of Republicans want the tax cuts extended for the top two percent. Hell, they can‘t even get their own people on the same page.
The tax cuts for millionaires‘ issue, you know what it is? It is the hill to die on for Democrats with a conscience.
The Republicans, give them credit, they have chosen to fight, developed an offensive strategy. They won‘t back down. And they‘ve got all 42 of their senators on board on a sheet of paper committing to stand together to defeat President Obama.
They don‘t care about the people out there. They just care about the power. And they care about bringing the president down. And clearly, you know, when you look at it, it defines the philosophical and equitable differences that separate the two parties in Washington and in this country.
What‘s the right call? Well, I think liberals out there are basically begging President Obama to tell Mitch McConnell to take a hike. And I think a lot of liberals—the conversation on talk radio today was, we remember the president getting personally involved with a professor and a police officer, where he got involved and went out and had a beer with them. And they were in the back yard of the White House, and the president got personally involved between two guys that had an issue.
Well, isn‘t it interesting that every family in this country is going to be affected by this decision, and the president‘s not having too many beers with McConnell? If he did, he should pour one over his head because he‘s wrongheaded on this issue.
The bottom line here is, is that I don‘t think liberals in this country trust Tim Geithner and this new budget director that‘s out there.
Mr. President, this is your issue. This hits every kitchen table in America.
Now, if you‘re going to negotiate a way the top two percent to get unemployment rates—unemployment to people that definitely need the extension, if you‘re going to do the two for one, that‘s a sellout. That‘s what that is. That‘s a calculated sellout.
And what happens in two years? Well, we‘re going to be right back talking about this again in 2012. And what do you think the Republicans are going to be saying in 2012?
Well, the numbers are still real tough, and we just can‘t afford to raise taxes on the job creators. They‘re going to come back with the same old BS.
Put a stop to this madness! It was a campaign promise to raise the taxes on the top two percent, the wealthiest people in this country, and the Democrats, collectively, tomorrow have a chance to do just that.
I hope the votes go the correct way. I hope the Senate Democrats stand with the president, and I hope the president gets tough on this when he gets back from Afghanistan.
Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think about this tonight, folks.
Tonight‘s text survey question is: Do you want President Obama to give tax breaks to rich people? Text “A” for yes, text “B” for no to 622639. We‘ll bring you the results later on in the show.
Joining me now is Colorado Senator Mark Udall.
Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
SEN. MARK UDALL (D), COLORADO: Hey, Ed. Good to see you, as always.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
Fired up. You know how this vote‘s got to go tomorrow.
UDALL: I enjoy listening to you. You‘re fired up. Keep it up.
SCHULTZ: Am I right or wrong? What do you think?
UDALL: You‘re right. Look, there‘s no fact that points out that the Bush tax cuts did anything to really improve our economy.
And I remain convinced that we ought to extend the tax cuts for the working class people you just described, the people that make America work, and we ought to take those upper-end tax cuts, let them expire, and put those resources into job creation, into deficit reduction, into strengthening our economy, so that we can get about the business of getting our country back on track. You were on point with your comments tonight.
SCHULTZ: Senator, would you go for the two-for-one deal? Would that be good, if the White House comes out and says, OK, we‘ve got a deal with McConnell and the Republicans? It‘s a two for one. Would you take it?
UDALL: I have to see more in a deal. Just extending unemployment insurance, it doesn‘t get it done, Ed.
We have to have fundamental tax reform, I believe. We ought to lower rates. We ought to make sure small businesses have an environment in which they can thrive.
There‘s a lot more that ought to come out of any kind of a deal with the GOP. That‘s my strong opinion. I think that you‘ll see it expressed tomorrow in the two key votes we‘re going to have in the Senate.
SCHULTZ: Are the two key votes going to get 60 votes? It can‘t, because the Republicans have already committed the 42 votes. So is this political theater tomorrow?
UDALL: Well, political theater also can combine the important policy statements. And what you‘re going to hear us say tomorrow is that we ought to extend the tax cuts for working Americans and we ought to let them expire on the upper end. We ought to take those receipts and put them to deficit reduction, to a payroll tax holiday, into support for small businesses, which are going to get our economy back on its feet.
SCHULTZ: Yes.
Senator Udall, you‘re in Colorado. I mean, this has been political hot territory the last two election cycles. Can you definitively say tonight how your constituents want this to turn out?
UDALL: It‘s clear in Colorado that my constituents, Coloradoans, understand that we ought to extend the tax cuts on middle-income Americans and on small businesses, but we ought to let the upper end expire and put those receipts, Ed, into deficit reduction, into helping our economy get back on its feet. Coloradoans are fiscally conservative and pragmatic, and that‘s the vote we have a chance to take tomorrow. We can send that message not just to Colorado, but all over the country.
SCHULTZ: So, let the tax cuts expire for the top two percent and get more money into the Treasury. There‘s what folks in Colorado want?
UDALL: That‘s simple. It‘s to the point. It makes sense. It‘s fiscally responsible.
And that‘s, after all, what people I think said in this election. They said they want us to focus on the economy. They want to do something about deficits. And they want us to work together.
You‘re going to see us reach our hands out tomorrow to Republicans to say, let‘s find some common ground here. But focus on working people. Focus on job creation.
SCHULTZ: Are you frustrated, or should I say—ask, why isn‘t the White House just drawing the line right at what you just said? Why continue to negotiate if you know exactly what you want and you know exactly what they‘re not going to cave in on?
UDALL: Well, it‘s been a long year. I am definitely frustrated. I was thinking about Elvis Presley, who says we need a little less conversation, a lot more action. I think now‘s the time for action, frankly.
SCHULTZ: All right.
Senator, great to have you with us tonight.
UDALL: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Senator Mark Udall of Colorado.
Always a pleasure to have you with us.
UDALL: Thanks, Ed. We‘ll do it again soon, I hope.
SCHULTZ: You bet. Absolutely. There‘s going to be a lot to talk about this month.
UDALL: Yes, there is.
SCHULTZ: Joining us now is Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist and professor at New York University.
Bob, the trip to Afghanistan, what‘s it mean, and why now? He left the vice president back home to talk about the unemployment numbers.
What is your take on this trip?
BOB SHRUM, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, knowing the way White House trips are planned, I‘m sure this was planned and set in motion well before they knew what the numbers were going to be. And, in fact, people thought the numbers were going to be better than they are.
I think long term, the president understands and recognizes that 2012 is going to be a referendum on the economy just as 2010 was, which is one of the reasons why while I agree with you on the outcome that I want here, and I want to see Democrats fight for that outcome as they have in the House, they will tomorrow in the Senate, in the end I think we‘re going to get a temporary extension of these tax cuts, even the ones for the people at the top, combined with an extension of unemployment compensation. And there‘s one reason for that.
If there‘s a big tax increase that slams the middle class at the beginning of next year, it‘s going to stop this economic recovery in its tracks. The recovery‘s fragile, it‘s gaining some momentum. The president can‘t afford to see that happen.
SCHULTZ: So you think the president has to take what the Republicans are talking about, an extension for everybody?
SHRUM: Let me give you a reason why, and it has nothing to do with the merits, because the truth is, I share your passion about this.
SCHULTZ: Sure.
SHRUM: And I believe this should have been a big issue in the midterm, but it wasn‘t.
The Republicans will stand there. They‘ll say we want tax cuts for everybody. If nothing happens in this session, taxes will go up.
Next year, they‘ll send the president a bill, or they‘ll try to send the president a bill that cuts taxes for everybody. If he vetoes it, there‘s going to be a huge impact on the economy. That‘s what the Republicans want.
They see a sluggish economy, an economy in stagnation as their road to the White House. And you know what? If we let that happen, if out of our own anger and pique—and some of it should not be directed—or a lot of it should not be directed at Obama, it should be directed at these Republicans, because their strategy of no has worked. If we let that happen, then we‘re going to lose every progressive issue we care about.
SCHULTZ: OK. But, Bob, but what you‘re saying is not what the majority of people in this country want. They want the president to take that tough stand.
I know exactly where you‘re coming from, and it‘s a tough issue. But the fact is, if the president can‘t stand on a campaign promise that he made now, when does he do it?
And what is the guarantee that if we extend it, that the economy is going to be any better? It really is a theory of gamble.
Shouldn‘t he stand on principle, with the majority of Americans, with his campaign promise.
SHRUM: Well, ,first of all, I think he is standing on principle. He is trying to get this done the right way.
Democrats in the House and the Senate are trying to get done in the right way. But the question you face is, what happens when the Republicans in the Senate filibuster this?
And there‘s no guarantee that extending these tax cuts is going to make the economy better. But I think almost every economist would agree that if you hit the middle class with a big tax increase next year, and you deny the long-term unemployed the kind of unemployment benefits they need, this economy is going to take a big shot and could go right back down.
SCHULTZ: So what the Senate Democrats are going to do tomorrow is they‘re going to have a bunch of votes, OK? They‘re going to have votes tomorrow, and they‘re going to do it time and time again to get it on the record, to make sure the American people know who really is the bogeyman in this deal.
Is it a good move? Is it political theater? Is it a good, strategic move?
SHRUM: Oh, I think that it‘s exactly the right thing to do. All the Republicans did for the last two years was play theater. And Democrats ought to let the country see that after all the populist appeals they made in this campaign, Republicans are basically there to serve plutocratic avarice.
SCHULTZ: Bob Shrum, always a pleasure.
SHRUM: Great Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: And, of course, the big elephant in the room is now 9.8 percent.
SHRUM: Yes.
SCHULTZ: And the president is going to have to answer to that when he comes back. I know people are saying that going to Afghanistan was—you know, really the timing of it was very—was more than interesting.
Thanks, Bob.
SHRUM: Thank you.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, Dick Cheney may wind up in the clink. “Shooter‘s” former special assistant and I, well, we‘re going to go head-to-head on this one in “The Playbook.”
“Caribou Barbie” and the “Beckster” and “Slant Head,” well, they‘re a bunch of money-hungry psychos, is what they are. They‘re using the power of the microphone to fuel more greed.
Congressman Alan Grayson, oh, he‘ll break it down for you in tonight‘s “Battleground” story.
Plus, “The Drugster” is tweaking out in “The Zone”; Tom Tancredo and I, we‘re going nose-to-nose on the DREAM Act; and “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winsted headlines “Club Ed” tonight.
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.
Progressives are cranking up the pressure on President Obama. They want him to stop compromising, stop this negotiation, and move forward.
Even after the Democrats got a win yesterday when the House voted to extend middle class tax cuts, the White House went right back to talking to about making deals with the Republicans. So now the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is stepping up the fight to urge the president not to cave in on the Bush tax cuts.
Adam Green, co-founder of the PCCC, joins us tonight. His organization has taken out a number of television buys in the state of Iowa, and they have reached the front page of every major newspaper in the state.
Adam, you‘re hitting the president in the heartland. What kind of reaction are you getting? And do you think the CBS poll is accurate?
ADAM GREEN, PROGRESSIVE CHANGE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE: The CBS poll is definitely accurate. People do not want a renewal of tax cuts for the wealthy, and we‘ve been getting amazing responses.
So far, everyday people have gone to our Web site, BoldProgressives.org, chipped in $3, $4. And together, that has come to about $60,000 so far to run these ads in Iowa.
And I‘ll tell you, you know, you had Bob Shrum on a second ago. I‘m not sure the students of Harvard are getting their money‘s worth with Bob Shrum. He is kind of a time-proven political loser from the George McGovern campaign, to the Dukakis campaign, to the Gore campaign, to the Kerry campaign.
He‘s been advising Democrats how to lose for decade after decade. So, the fact that he is telling President Obama to cave instead of fighting on tax cuts, there‘s no stronger validator than that for a strategy of actually fighting.
SCHULTZ: Well, Bob Shrum is also regarded as one of the best Democratic consultants out there. He‘s had some victories in his career, and he has a revered opinion.
He says, as you heard him, he believes that the president needs to get the middle class the tax cut at all costs. That‘s what it comes down to.
Your group is saying no. So you‘ve taken it to the president on the airwaves.
Are you helping the president or are you hurting the president?
GREEN: Look, again, Bob Shrum, he may be revered in Washington, D.C., he may be revered among a class of loser consultants, but he is not a good consultant. He advises Democrats how to lose. And he‘s essentially telling President Obama that on an issue where he‘s fighting for 98 percent of the people, and the Republicans are fighting for the wealthiest two percent of the people, that he should cave and cut either a 50/50 compromise, or, more likely, worse, something that would give the Republicans everything that they want.
SCHULTZ: But if you‘ve got 42 Republicans that will not let the middle class get a—the break that they‘re looking for, what other move does the president have?
GREEN: I‘m glad that you asked that question.
So, tomorrow‘s there‘s going to be a very important vote in the Senate. And that‘s a great first step, good for Harry Reid. But it‘s only a first step.
What we need is for him to schedule vote after vote in the next couple of weeks, and for the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other Democratic Party arms, as well as groups like ours, to then hold Republicans accountable between votes. And there no excuse for someone like Olympia Snowe from Maine or Scott Brown from Massachusetts for getting a free ride on this.
They need to feel pain back home. We will be helping to deliver that pain, and hopefully the Democratic Party will too, and then they will cave.
SCHULTZ: You want the president to go in their back yard and put pressure on them?
GREEN: Absolutely. I mean, if you would like me to, I will challenge the president right now to fly to Maine, fly to Boston, hold campaign rallies, rally their constituents against them, and then there won‘t be 42 Republican votes against you anymore. There will be less than 40 if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Scott Brown all cave, which they would if he applied pressure.
SCHULTZ: OK. But the vote in the House yesterday, really good for the American people, no question about it. The political football is now is that—how does the White House respond to that? Well, they‘re going to have some votes in the Senate tomorrow, but the White House is still outsourcing it to Timothy Geithner.
How do you feel about that? Should the president be personally involved in this?
GREEN: Look, this was one of President Obama‘s core campaign promises. He needs to take some ownership over this, and he needs to actually fight for it.
Tim Geithner is a creature of Wall Street. But even worse, what we saw out of the White House yesterday was that after the House passed this amazing bill and had a great victory on taxes, the White House essentially said, congratulations, but since the Republicans have made clear almost their exact words, the Republicans are not going to pass middle class tax cuts without tax cuts for the wealthy, we‘re going to keep going for a deal.
Well, that is horrible, incompetent negotiation practices. They need to say we have the momentum at our back, we have the people on our side, and we will hold any Republican accountable who votes against tax cuts for the middle class and for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
SCHULTZ: Adam Green, you do not back down. Great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time on THE ED SHOW.
GREEN: Good to be here.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, Limbaugh thinks starving Americans should not have the right to vote? That sends him right to “The Zone.” We‘re going to eat him alive next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in “Psycho Talk” tonight, “The Drugster” punched his ticket into “The Zone” by attacking people who receive government assistance. He called it his “Media Tweak of the Day,” which he thinks eliminates the need for him to take responsibility for what he says.
I‘ll let you folks at home be the judge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Here‘s the “Media Teak of the Day.” Sternly pay attention.
“Media Tweak of the Day”: If people cannot even feed and clothes themselves, should they be allowed to vote? Should they be voting?
If people who are receiving government assistance—that is, taxpayer assistance—if they were to be allowed to vote, can you imagine the difference in the political makeup in this country? Can you imagine that.
It‘s just a think piece. I‘m just putting it out there for you to ponder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: Well, let me put something else your way for you to ponder here, Drugster. Maybe if we didn‘t let fat former pill-popping druggies who are three times divorced, multimillionaires, talk show hosts, and their minions vote, maybe if we didn‘t let them do that the country would look a hell of a lot different too, don‘t you think?
Can you imagine that, Drugster? Consider yourself tweaked. For you to even think about not letting folks on government assistance vote is really un-American “Psycho Talk.”
Coming up, the network of millionaire righty talkers, well, they‘re using their power to fill their wallets with more cash. Congressman Alan Grayson showed us how in a way nobody else can. The man himself, Alan Grayson, joins me next in “The Battleground” story.
Palin wannabe Christine O‘Donnell is going from witch to revolutionary. She thinks her book will be a catalyst for the country?
Not much to break down, but we‘ll break it down in “The Playbook.”
Plus, Hillary says she‘s done with politics; “The Tan Man” is installing some toilets on Capitol Hill—so constructive there—and “The Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead tells us who Charles Manson has been texting as of late, believe it or not.
You‘re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. The “Battleground” story tonight, the greed machine, pretty much is out of control, don‘t you think? The conservative media is on a crusade to protect the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent. Their motive is obvious. It‘s money in their pockets. My friend, Alan Grayson got after it on the House floor last night. He called all of them out and showed the American people the bottom line. It was another Grayson classic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: The man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn‘t he look happy? According to “Newsweek” he makes $58.7 million a year and extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will mean that he‘ll have another $2.7 million mega dittos, Rush, and mega money. Here‘s Glenn Beck, according to “Newsweek,” Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit and extending the Bush tax cuts means a cool $1.5 million for Glenn Beck‘s ongoing night-by-night imitation of Howard Beale. Sean Hannity, this man of the people, makes $22 million a year from his act on FOX. And that means that the Bush tax cuts mean an extra $1 million, $1 million for Sean Hannity. Maybe he can go now and afford some anger management. Sarah Palin has made $14 million this year from cashing in on her fame. In fact, she‘s done a better job of turning fame into cash than anyone in American history, $14 million. So she wants the Bush tax cuts extended so that she can make an extra cool $638,000.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCHULTZ: And Congressman Alan Grayson joins us tonight. Congressman, good to have you with us. Why did you do that? It was very entertaining, but what was the mission there?
GRAYSON: Because when you listen to these people talk about tax cuts for the rich and how it‘s going to benefit the economy and create jobs, you have to realize it‘s a lie. It‘s just not true. They have a hidden agenda. They have a hidden motivation and that‘s tax cuts for themselves.
SCHULTZ: It‘s, I think, well known at anybody at this level of broadcasting certainly isn‘t going to starve, but do you really think that if the microphone was in the hands of the people that we‘d be hearing something different. Do you think that the money is really where it‘s all at with those broadcasters?
GRAYSON: I think they should confess. They should confess that the reason why they keep pushing tax breaks for the rich is because they want a tax cut. It‘s that simple. And it is shocking to realize when you look at all of these FOX personalities that some the best-paying jobs in the country are lying to the gullible. That‘s how they make their money. But that‘s not the point. The point is that they keep pushing tax cuts for the rich because they want it themselves. That‘s the point.
SCHULTZ: Let‘s talk about the president, if we can. What do you think he should do with this juncture? There‘s going to be some votes in the Senate tomorrow. There‘s a piece of paper with 42 republican senator‘s names on it saying that they are going to stand together. There‘s no way they‘re going to get 60 votes. What should the president do? You saw the CBS poll earlier tonight on this program. Showing that the majority of Americans want the tax cuts to expire from the top two percent. But of course, the president, and the White House are negotiating that. What do you make of it?
GRAYSON: He should hold firm. He was elected promising that there would be no more tax cuts for the rich. That the tax cuts would go to the middle class, and to the people who really need it. That‘s what he ran on. That‘s what he was elected on. He got 10 million more votes than the other fellow who wanted to extend the tax cuts for the rich. And in addition to that, we—he‘s promised as president, that that would be his position. So he should hang tough. He should say, I have a pen. I can either sign the bill or not sign the bill. The pen stays in my pocket if we‘re going to be wasting more money for the tax cut for the rich when the country is running a $1.7 trillion deficit. We can‘t afford these tax cuts for the rich anymore if in fact we ever could.
SCHULTZ: And you‘re convinced that that position is a political winner for the Democrats?
GRAYSON: Absolutely. You know they‘re holding middle—the Republicans are holding middle-class tax cuts hostage so they can get tax cuts for themselves. And that‘s an untenable position. People will see through that.
SCHULTZ: Alan, great to have you with us, Congressman Grayson. We love the classics. Keep throwing them out there, my friend.
(LAUGHTER)
GRAYSON: Thank you, Ed.
SCHULTZ: You bet.
Now let‘s get some rapid-fire response from our panel on these stories. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not running for president again. She says, her current job will be her last in public office.
An anti-immigration conservatives are going berserk over the Dream Act which offers a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought here as children and are now attending college or serving in the military.
With us tonight, Joe Madison, XM Satellite radio talk show host. And Tom Tancredo, former republican congressman. Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. Tom, I‘ll go to you first. Why are you against the Dream Act? What does the Dream Act do that would hurt this country?
TOM TANCREDO, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: Creates an amnesty. And it‘s much more than amnesty than it‘s got anything to do with issues of higher education for people who are here illegally or even joining the military. It is an amnesty because of course the way in which it‘s produced—it‘s kind of like you‘d like to see something that demands truth in advertising for—for bills, for legislative bills, calling this a bill dealing with just a proposal for people going to—seeking higher education is not true. It goes from—it makes eligible people from 16 to 34 years old. You can enroll in a two-year college program, claim the amnesty, go after the amnesty, never finish college. You don‘t have any kind of way of identifying—or actually verifying the people who say they‘re going to—that they‘re here and that have been here all of this time. It could be for anybody. And by the way, once they get the amnesty, they can, then, get amnesty for their entire family. That‘s exactly what has happened time and time again.
SCHULTZ: Joe, is it an amnesty?
JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, any bill has to be tweaked and Tom understands that better than anybody else. But it‘s interesting that he only refers to the college aspect of it. The people who serve in the military, I think, have proven that they in fact deserve citizenship. I think it should be part, Ed, of a comprehensive immigration plan. That‘s really what is needed in this country. But this Dream Act, some of these young people who are in this country, quite candidly, are as American as the three of us. They‘ve gone to college. They‘re ready to work. They speak the language. They‘re contributing to this. They‘re paying taxes. Does it need tweaking? I would agree with that but I wouldn‘t throw this out totally, absolutely not.
SCHULTZ: Tom, what‘s wrong with the level of amnesty? Some level of it. We have to have some concessions, do we not?
TANCREDO: Ed, here‘s the biggest problem with any amnesty plan, and I just don‘t know how to square this circle. If people have come here the right way and really, millions upon millions, we have a million and a quarter people coming every year the right way. We‘re the most liberal country in the world for people to come here as immigrants. We have them go through a process. It is sometimes challenging. It‘s true. And it sometimes takes time, money, brain damage, I know. But people do it. And then when they come here, what do we tell them? That if in fact you‘ve come the wrong way, if you‘ve come into this country illegally, we will still give you.
SCHULTZ: I understand what you‘re saying.
TANCREDO: .all of the benefits.
MADISON: But we‘re talking about children here.
TANCREDO: It‘s just that you can‘t—but no matter—I understand that. But why would you make it easier, why would you do anything that would attract more people into this country by saying here‘s more that we‘ll give you. You can come here, you can work, nobody is going to throw you out. You can get into college.
MADISON: But, Tom, you know what attracts—you know what attracts illegal—you know who they really should be throwing around? They should be throwing around people.
TANCREDO: Employers.
MADISON: Thank you. We do agree on that. You‘re absolutely right.
TANCREDO: Absolutely.
MADISON: OK. You put them in jail and trust me.
TANCREDO: I totally agree.
(CROSSTALK)
MADISON: OK, you solve the immigration problem.
SCHULTZ: But if you‘ve got kids in this country who are here, that have been brought here by their parents.
MADISON: Yes, you‘re right.
SCHULTZ: And they have done no wrong and they don‘t know any better. All that they know is America and why not allow that—make that part of the solution, Tom?
TANCREDO: Especially because it‘s enticement.
MADISON: The military.
TANCREDO: Now, the military, let‘s talk about that, because, you know, I think that‘s an intriguing aspect of this to tell you the truth and I‘ll tell you why. The military although I don‘t know why the military is asking for this. Do they say that they can‘t reach their quotas and they want more people? I‘m not sure but even if that‘s not part of the equation whether the military wants them or not, at least what you‘re talking about there is—is undertaking something that is difficult, a challenge, and maybe it can even be seen as sort of in a way a penalty. You have to serve in the military. You know that can be seen in a way.
SCHULTZ: What about that, Joe?
TANCREDO: And having doing something that you would not otherwise do, I can understand that but a college education?
MADISON: Yes, but hold. I think you insult military people who volunteer. This is not a draft.
SCHULTZ: People who served in the military loves the country.
MADISON: These are honored, these are people who are honored and they are honored to serve their country. We don‘t have a draft. What we have are volunteers who go there, and you‘re right, the army—and I‘m sorry, the military needs all the help they can get.
SCHULTZ: All right, Hillary Clinton says, she‘s done with politics—let‘s go to the next subject. Hillary Clinton says, she‘s done with politics. She says, I think I‘ll serve as Secretary of State as my last public position and then probably go back to advocacy work, I‘ve had a fascinating and rewarding public career. Tom, do you believe that this is it for Hillary Clinton being secretary of state and then it‘s over?
TANCREDO: Yes. I think that it‘s a statement that you could hold her to, but then on the other hand, let me tell you, how many politicians have you ever heard say to you, I‘m not running again?
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, if she‘s right, if she‘s being honest, that‘s fine with me and she may be at this point in time think and believe that that‘s the case.
SCHULTZ: Joe?
TANCREDO: But you know what, I still wouldn‘t say, if years to come she said, I‘d changed my mind, I wouldn‘t be too surprised.
MADISON: Well, my wife is probably sitting at home agreeing with Tom. Because I think somewhere in the statement, Ed, you might see the word “I think,” this might be my last.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHULTZ: Joe Madison. Tom Tancredo, great to have both you guys with us tonight. Thanks so much.
MADISON: OK.
SCHULTZ: Coming up, Dick Cheney‘s got an African country gunning for him. An arrest warrant for an alleged bribery scheme could come at any moment. The one and only Lionel takes on Ron Christie, Cheney‘s former special assistant. Next in my “Playbook.” You won‘t want to miss it. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: It‘s not too late to let us know what you think. Tonight‘s text survey question is, do you want President Obama to give tax breaks to rich people? Text A for yes, text B for no to 622-639. Results coming up, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: And in my “Playbook” tonight, well I don‘t think that liberals can just get enough for this Dick Cheney story, especially me. Last time on this program, I told you that Nigeria may be planning to put out an arrest warrant for the former Vice President for his alleged role in a bribery scandal while he was CEO of Halliburton. It could be big.
For more let‘s bring in Lionel of Lionel Media, he is also a New York Pix 11 news commentary. And Ron Christie, special former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Now, for the record, the Department of Justice here in this country said that there was no wrongdoing but that of course was under the Bush administration. Ron, is—is the former vice president on safe territory here? Is this a witch-hunt?
RON CHRISTIE, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DICK CHENEY: I think it‘s a witch-hunt. I look at this as a very serious matter when a foreign country tries to subject U.S. citizens to their jurisdiction under corruption. Particularly when you‘re talking about Nigeria. I looked this afternoon in the transparency index, Nigeria is ruled as being one of the most corrupt nations in the world. So when you have one of the most corrupt nations in the world seeking to bring a private U.S. citizen in for their jurisdiction who also happens to be the former vice president of the United States, I start to question and think that this is more politically motivated than in fact in basis on truth or fact or law.
LIONEL, NEW YORK PIX 11 NEWS COMMENTARY: Oh, please. Ed, if they‘re so corrupt, why was Halliburton dealing with them? First of all, do you get the irony of Nigeria? Nigeria as in the Nigerian banks. I just got the e-mail by the way from a prince who wants me to put a quarter of a million of dollars into an account today. Look Ron, you and I agree. There is not that Dick Cheney is going to be arrested for anything but to suggest how dare Nigeria think that they can tell us, we have the foreign corrupt practices act, when we want somebody, we‘ll find them wherever they are in the world.
We even want to treat, get this, we‘re digging about prosecuting Julian Assange for treason when he‘s not an American citizen but here‘s the funny part. Do you think Dick Cheney applies to the rules? That‘s like people who say, they‘re going to indict the pope. Dick Cheney‘s in the parallel universe. He‘s untouchable. So I‘m with you, Ron, Dick Cheney has nothing to worry about. He‘s untouchable.
CHRISTIE: Well, speaking of parallel universe, sir, for someone who I don‘t know, I would politely suggest that rather than making this a political discussion, I‘m making it as a point and fact as a lawyer and as a lawyer.
LIONEL: You just said that it was political. As a lawyer, you said that they were acting politically. So, you‘re violating.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTIE: Oh, please. Let me tell you something. Excuse me, sir, please, this is a television program. I allowed you the chance to speak.
LIONEL: It is.
CHRISTIE: Show me a little respect as I‘ve shown yours.
LIONEL: Oh, you have Cheney‘s shelf for God‘s sake. He was not going to be indicted. It‘s political you are right.
CHRISTIE: So, the point of the matter, Ed, Ed, Ed.
SCHULTZ: All right. Let him finish, Lionel. Let him go.
CHRISTIE: Excuse me, without—whatever. The point of the matter is that I worry about American citizens being brought in front of foreign courts. I think that‘s the real issue here. There are those who seek political motivations because Dick Cheney is something that liberals.
SCHULTZ: What would be the political motivation of Nigeria?
CHRISTIE: Well, the political motivation of Nigeria, Ed and I think this gives him great...
LIONEL: Corruption.
CHRISTIE: .frankly, it gives them notoriety. They can say, oh, look we‘re going to bring Dick Cheney in.
LIONEL: Hey, Christie, how come Halliburton.
CHRISTIE: Excuse me, I don‘t refer to you by your last name.
LIONEL: I don‘t have much time.
CHRISTIE: There‘s a good reason that you don‘t have much time because you need to learn a little manners and respect.
LIONEL: There‘s bribery here. Listen, Dick Cheney is not going to be its political. They have elections, what in April? I agree with that. This isn‘t a lawyerly treat, that you‘re giving, this is about politics.
This is all for show.
CHRISTIE: Well, speaking for show, I hope this is one you never come on again until you learn how to treat people with respect and actually engage in political discourse that‘s polite. My only point here, Ed—I‘m done with you, sir. My only point here, Ed, is that I think it‘s a very interesting case, there‘s so many things going on around the world and the Nigerians want to indict Cheney, really? If they were going to do something more constructive I think that they should, frankly try to engage with the United States.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: OK. Let me ask you this. Ron.
CHRISTIE: They should try to engage with the United States and those who are trying to persecute us.
SCHULTZ: Ron, are you saying tonight that the Nigerians are not on solid legal ground, that they could not indict Dick Cheney?
CHRISTIE: Well, I‘m sure under their jurisdiction and under their laws, they can do whatever they want. What I‘m saying is as you‘ve pointed out that the S.E.C. and the United States Department of Justice have looked at this and determined that Halliburton‘s behavior.
SCHULTZ: Well, that was the Bush Department of Justice.
LIONEL: Oh, it‘s the Bush Department of Justice.
(TALKING OVER EACH OTHER)
CHRISTIE: Then in all fairness and then let another.
LIONEL: Do you think that DOJ is going to issue an opinion say that
Dick Cheney is—listen, listen, pal, we‘re on the same page. But don‘t -
don‘t obfuscate the truth. You know he‘s not going to be indicted. We understand this. But why did Halliburton pay those incredible fines if there was no bribery in the past?
SCHULTZ: Gentlemen.
LIONEL: I‘m not suggesting he‘s libel.
SCHULTZ: Lionel, we‘ve got to run.
CHRISTIE: What a joke, I hope I never see you again. Ed, it‘s always a pleasure to see you tonight.
SCHULTZ: Gentlemen, good to have you with us tonight. I thought that it was great.
CHRISTIE: Well, I‘m sure we did.
SCHULTZ: A couple of final pages in my “Playbook” tonight. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said that he‘s heartsick over news that a sex offender, he pardoned two years ago is facing new allegations of sexually abusing his own daughter. Pawlenty admitted that the pardon was probably not a good idea. He said if the new information was available at the time of the pardon request it would not had been granted.
And Christine O‘Donnell‘s extending her 15 minutes of fame, she‘s writing a book about her experience during this year‘s election. I think we could write a book, too. She says it was the beginning of a revolution and she plans on making the book a catalyst to the revolution. So there you go. She can ad author to her doctorate resume. Or should I say doctored resume?
And finally, John chicken crap Boehner plans to build a women‘s bathroom off the House floor, but it‘s going to cost taxpayers $200,000. I want to know where the Tea Parties are on this one. I guess the tan man has no problem flushing your money down the toilet.
Coming up, Charles Manson and Brett Favre have exactly one thing in common, wow. Well, someone needs to permanently confiscate their cell phones. “Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead gives us the gory details in “Club Ed.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. If it‘s Friday, that means it is time for “Club Ed” with “The Daily Show” co-creator Lizz Winstead. Lizz, got a lot of news out there this week, a lot of talk about tax cuts but let‘s talk, Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell. And where is John McCain on this issue?
LIZZ WINSTEAD, “DAILY SHOW” CO-CREATOR: Well, apparently he‘s stuck somewhere back when he was 22. The guy had arrested development of any kind of growth apparently since that point in his life. I don‘t really understand. It took—they‘re actually debating Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell longer than they actually debated going to war in the first place. It‘s absurd at this point. I mean literally do straight guys go through this much scrutiny when they‘re trying to break into Musical Theater? Come on, it‘s awful.
(LAUGHTER)
SCHULTZ: Musical Theater. No stereotyping there, Lizz.
WINSTEAD: No, never with me.
SCHULTZ: All right. The debt commission is getting a lot of attention now. You know we‘ve got to take care of this terrible finance situation that we‘ve got in this country. What was your take on the debt commission and some of the recommendations?
WINSTEAD: Well, the recommendations, when you‘re leaving off you know the cost of wars and you know the tax cut for the rich, again, and you‘re going into diving into you know, cutting Medicare and stuff, it‘s crazy but what do you expect? You have Alan Simpson who is Wyoming‘s version of a Gollum heading up the charge. It‘s really incredible. That they institute this kind of—this kind of, really, Jonathan Swift in modest proposal kind of, you know bill, where it‘s basically, they left out, eat the poor. That‘s what they left out. I‘m surprised that wasn‘t part of it.
SCHULTZ: Charles Manson has a cell phone? What is happening here?
WINSTEAD: Well, apparently—I mean, first of all, if you‘re in a cell, aren‘t all phones, cellphones, technically. But more importantly, when Charles Manson is texting, I think finally, we‘ve realized who is actually doing the tweeting for Sarah Palin.
SCHULTZ: Christine O‘Donnell says that she‘s going to write a book.
What do you make of that?
WINSTEAD: Well, I think first she should learn how to read one. And then she should learn how to write one but I don‘t really—I mean, it‘s going to be fantasy fiction obviously. But what does she have to offer into the dialogue, she wants to be part of the revolution? The revolution number nine, I think is the revolution that she wants to be part of.
SCHULTZ: And finally, the big story in a big decision coming up for the president is the tax cuts. The liberals are mad at him because he‘s not fighting hard enough. Is the president a fighter? I don‘t know, he took some stitches in lip in a basketball game. Can we count on this guy?
WINSTEAD: Dude, if he caves anymore, we‘re going to need that Chilean tube to go into the ground to get him out. It‘s unbelievable.
SCHULTZ: Lizz Winstead, always a pleasure, great to have you with us on this Friday edition of THE ED SHOW.
WINSTEAD: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: And of course, folks, you can check out Lizz‘s annual year in review show at the Parkway Theater in Minneapolis. Tickets and information are at lizzwinstead.com.
That‘s THE ED SHOW. Tonight, of course, we had the survey question, I asked you, do you want President Obama to give tax breaks to the rich? Twenty percent of you watching said yes. Eighty percent of you said no. That‘s THE ED SHOW. I‘m Ed Schultz. For more information on THE ED SHOW, go to ed.msnbc.com or check out our radio website at wegoted.com. I‘m on XM 167 noon to 3:00 Monday through Friday. Back with you Monday here in New York. “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews starts right now on the place for politics, MSNBC. Have a great weekend.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copyright 2010 CQ-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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE