Skip to main content

tv   The Ed Show  MSNBC  June 21, 2012 12:00am-1:00am PDT

12:00 am
difficult case less those with thank you for being with us. "the ed show" starts right now. >> good evening, americans. welcome to "the ed show" live from indianapolis. let's get to work. >> the committee meets today to consider reporting a resolution to the house of representatives. finding the attorney general, eric holder jr., in contempt of congress. >> darryl issa political hit job reaches an unprecedented level. they hold eric holder in contempt of congress. >> some might be forgiven for describing the proceedings today as akin to a kangaroo court. >> i am horrified that you are going forward with this contempt charge. >> tonight, congress woman carolyn maloney on the
12:01 am
republican witch hunt and jonathan alter with the latest from the hill. >> republicans are still scrambling after the president's immigration move. >> the biggest problem i have with it is he ignores the constitution of the congress and shoves it down our throat. >> javier becerra responds. >> 2% tim pawlenty is the new darling for the vp pick. i'll tell you why he's a perfect pick for mitt romney. and republicans are about to cut food stamps for the poor again. senator bernie sanders is fighting back and he's here tonight. good to have you with us tonight. thanks for watching. republicans are trying to take out president obama at any cost. today, the united states attorney general was collateral damage. it was a straight party line vote in the house oversight and government reform committee today. all 23 republicans on the committee voted to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt for an investigation into a
12:02 am
failed firearms sting operation in arizona. the program was inherited by the obama administration, and it was ended by attorney general eric holder. committee chairman darryl isis said he wanted to avoid the contempt vote. it would not have occurred had attorney general eric holder actually produced the subpoenas documented he said he would provide, but he pushed ahead with the contempt vote even after president obama asserted executive privilege over many of the documents in question. a president can invoke executive privilege to protect sensitive information. this is the first time president obama has used executive privilege. president george w. bush did it six times. president clinton used it 14 times. but republicans are making sinister allegations against attorney general eric holder and the president of the united states. >> there's no question in
12:03 am
anybodys mind that's been involved in this investigation that the attorney general has been stonewalling this committee. now the president of the united states has claimed executive privilege. that brings into question whether or not eric holder knew about it and how much did the president know about this? >> but republicans are refusing to ask anyone on the bush administration who knew about the operation and when it started to come forward and testify. the so-called gun walking program was started in 2006 as operation wide receiver. by 2009, it turned into operation fast and furious. arizona's bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and fire arms set up a program where illegal weapons were sold and then monitored as they were taken across the border in an attempt to track gun traffickers. in 2010, border patrol agent brian terry was killed in a shootout that guns involved were part of the fast and furious
12:04 am
operation. republicans are putting this at the feet of the obama administration. but congressman peter welch wanted to know why the committee did not question anyone who started the program. >> it would seem to me very reasonable in pursuit of a full investigation that we would want to have those folks in, ask what happened and get the complete picture, allow us then to have that as part of our investigation. >> it was attorney general michael murkazy who was in charge of the justice department at the type the program started, but he hasn't testified in the investigation. in fact, no members from the bush administration have been asked or subpoenas to testify. attorney general eric holder, he's been there nine separate times, and each time, the committee moved the goalpost on information they requested. sometimes, the republicans didn't even know that they were
12:05 am
asking holder to break the law. an earlier subpoena by issa requested grand jury transcripts and wiretap logs. it's against the law for holder to release these documents. these oversights are not accidental. they identified exactly why the hearings were taking place. >> we're brought to this moment to believe this is all about really a rogue attorney general who is uncooperative with this branch of government and he needs to be reined in and the ultimate penalty we have available, contempt, and we're going to demean him. we're going to tarnish his reputation because that's houtd we get to the president of the united states. >> the committee's ranking democrat said it would be extreme for a contempt vote to be brought up for the full congress. >> if mr. boehner takes this to the house, he will be seen as one of the most extreme speakers that ever took charge of a
12:06 am
house. >> but speaker boehner said congress will go through with a vote to make attorney general eric holder the first cabinet member held in contempt of congress in the united states history. he's said while we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the attorney general reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the house will vote to hold him in contempt next week. the republicans no doubt are circling the wagons. it's election year politics. they have no problem using the powers of congress to score political points against the president of the united states. it's a very complicated story, but it's one that needs to be told in every detail. it's about politics.
12:07 am
it's about washington politics. and i don't think the american people who are fair minded are going to believe this is a true investigation until everyone who has been involved in this operation wide receiver from its inception ends up in front of darryl issa's committee putting up their right hand, telling everything they know. they're hanging it on president obama because they don't want him in office, and eric holder is just the vehicle to get there. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, following the contempt charges against eric holder, what do you think republicans are more interested in? text a for the truth, text b for hurting the president. you can go to our blog. we'll bring you results later on in the show. joining me tonight is carolyn maloney of new york. congresswoman, appreciate your time tonight. a lot of detail to the story. no question about it. what is the end game for the republicans here? just what do they want if they don't want to bring everybody in who has been involved in the program to testify? what do they want? >> i think it's obvious, ed, that it's a witch hunt.
12:08 am
and a witch hunting season that won't be over until november. their actions are extreme, unprecedented and politically motivated. >> why haven't members of the bush administration been asked to testify? >> the republicans are in charge. we raise it every meeting. we raise it over and over again. that those that were in charge, the head of the aft, the head of the ag that initiated it under bush, they should come in and testify. if you're going to look at a problem, you have to look at it from the beginning, not just come in at the very end and try to wrap it around the attorney general who knew nothing about it, did not create it, and i think it's outrageous how they are bringing him with a contempt charge. he's done everything he possibly could. he's testified, he testified nine times, he released several thousand pages of documents.
12:09 am
he appointed an ig. he's bent over backwards to accommodate their demands. >> who is in charge of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms division in arizona when the program was started? and why haven't we heard from that person? >> we raised that today. i in fact put in an amendment that the head should come in and testify. and in internal documents, he did say he knew nothing about, that he knew nothing -- that holder knew nothing about it and the president knew nothing about it. yet they don't want to lack at anything that happened under the bush administration. this is the fourth program, there were three previous programs under the bush administration, and the contempt charge has nothing to do with fast and furious. it's very narrowly tailored going after internal communications in the justice department, that's where attorney general holder drew the line. the president came forward with his demands.
12:10 am
and i agree. i agree. he invoked his demands and i think that they're right. >> what will happen if the congress holds a contempt vote? >> i certainly hope it doesn't happen, and if speaker boehner does hold a contempt vote, he'll be more extreme than former speaker gingrich. gingrich did not bring a contempt vote on janet reno, and this is the first time that the president has come forward with an executive privilege. and i believe he's right, and if it gets to the point where you can't even communicate in an agency or all of your documents have to come to the public, it will be difficult for people to really express themselves. and he drew the line there, invoked his executive privilege, and he's right. it's the only time he's invoked it. it's totally political.
12:11 am
>> okay. congresswoman carolyn maloney, thank you for your time. i appreciate it very much. let's turn to jonathan alter. you were on the hill today, jonathan. you spent some time, you bet, you spent some time with nancy pelosi and her reaction, i thought, was very interesting. she said it doesn't serve our country, and it undermines the true purpose of contempt of congress. that's why i didn't arrest karl rove when i had the chance. what did she mean when she said that? >> well, you know, karl rove resisted a lot of efforts for him to testify on things like the firing of u.s. attorneys for political reasons during the bush administration, and they could have very easily voted with democratic control of the house, they could have held rove
12:12 am
in contempt, and as speaker pelosi, leader pelosi indicated today at this lunch she had with a few reporters, there's actually a prison in the capitol, and they could have hauled rove into the prison for refusing to testify. and indeed, john boehner will have the power if the vote goes through next week, and there's every expectation they will vote contempt, he can haul eric holder into that prison, that's what it was designed for. to give the congress the ability to do that going back a couple hundred years. does john boehner want to do that, to haul him in hand cuffs essentially? we'll see. you know, i saw another former speaker today, newt gingrich, and we also spoke about this. and he was basically licking his chops over this. he thinks it's very, very politically advantageous for the republicans with pro gun voters, a number of whom are democrats. they think they can score points in states like michigan which has a lot of second amendment supporters in it, swing state, so this is heavily politicized
12:13 am
right now. the question is, will the republican house go too far and get on the wrong side of public opinion? they're already disliked by the american public. if they actually follow through on what a contempt charge actually carries, and arrest eric holder, we'll see how the american public reacts. i don't think it would be positive. >> it would seem to me the american public, and i can only imagine how fair minded americans would be reacting, that they haven't even gotten testimony from all of the people and gotten all of the information about this program, but they're ready to hold a contempt vote. there's no doubt that mr. holder
12:14 am
is holding back the identity of informants that could be very damaging to a lot of things when it comes to national security. but here again, the bush administration, the bush administration started this. why haven't they been forced to come forward in full disclosure? >> that's a very good question which you have raised on the program. in terms of -- here's the thing that is different. the claims of executive privilege are very common. i think ronald reagan claimed it in the case of super fund investigation, you know, of pollution. and in three or four other cases. it was claimed a lot by bill clinton and by george w. bush. so that's common, and usually when the shoe is on the other foot, it's democrats who would complain about republican presidents trying to protect documents and claiming national security. so all that is politics as usual, right. what is different this time is
12:15 am
going nuclear with this contempt citation. executive privilege is common, contempt is not common. and so this is where we're going into real uncharted territory in terms of the extremism of this republican house. >> well, they're trying to make eric holder look like a crook. they're trying to make him look like he's hiding something from the american people, that there's a real underhanded operation for the obama administration, and they did nasty stuff and they're trying not to reveal any of it. i find it amazing. a story that going to go on long into next week. great to have you with us. remember to answer tonight's question at the bottom of the screen and share your thoughts on twitter. senator marco rubio said president obama is shoving his administration's immigration policy down our throats. senator, this isn't about you. this policy is overwhelmingly popular. congressman javier becerra joins me for the discussion. stay with us. [ male announcer ] if a phone rings at your car insurance company
12:16 am
and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes" [ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call.
12:17 am
12:18 am
coming up, marco rubio tries to make the president's acs on immigration all about him. we'll bring you the details. tim pawlenty is on everyone's short list to be mitt romney's running mate. we'll show you why it's a dream ticket. >> the republicans are on the verge of cutting food stamps for the poor again. bernie sanders is fighting back, and he'll join us. we're coming right back. [ male announcer ] most people tend to think more about how they brush than what they brush with. until i show them this. the new oral-b pro-health clinical brush. its pro-flex sides adjust to teeth and gums for a better clean. the new pro-health clinical brush from oral-b.
12:19 am
to get your feet moving to the beat. it's time to start gellin' with dr. scholl's and feel the energy from your feet up. thanks to the energizing support and cushioning of dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles, you'll want to get up and go. welcome back to "the ed show." the president's leadership on immigration has left the
12:20 am
republican party in disarray, and marco rubio of florida tried once again to vote to attack the president and feel sorry for himself rubio was more than happy to agree with the fox and friends crowd saying that the president had undercut rubio's watered down dream act. the president doesn't even try to strike a balance, but the biggest problem i have is that he ignores the constitution and congress and shoves it down our throat. >> the president shoving it down our throat. rubio didn't stop there. >> the problem is that with so many issues confronting the country, a lot of my colleagues would say, why don't we do this now, why can't this wait? i would argue because the young kids want to start school in september. now they're going to say, there is no urgency, it's being taken care of, and it poisons the well by injecting election year
12:21 am
politics into this issue, which should be a nonpolitical issue. it makes it harder to find the balanced bipartisan approach. he's doing this as an election year stunt. >> well, senator rubio, it's not about you. it was a leadership moment from the president of the united states when the time had reached a tipping point. that's why americans are in favor of this by a margin of 2 to 1. let's turn to javier becerra. great to have you with us. what is your reaction to senator rubio? he says the president is shoving this down our throats. what do you say to that and how would you characterize the republican reaction since this decision was made? >> ed, america had been waiting for solutions on immigration reform. everyone knows our system is broken, and desperately needs to have change. the president has been waiting to get change, and without congress willing to act, he decided it was time to do something. the president came up with a solution, and republicans so far
12:22 am
are coming up with excuses. good for the president, good for america, and good for all of the young women and men who want to serve in the military, who want to become the next scientists of america. >> rubio says, senator rubio said the president is circumventing the constitution, he's out of bounds on that. what do you say? >> i don't get it. the president is acting within his executive authority. he is doing what previous presidents have done. in fact, i'm surprised that senator rubio of cuban american descent would say this because this is similar to the action that was taken on behalf of cuban americans in the '60s to allow them to stay in the u.s. so i'm not sure. certainly, the constitution does not prohibit this. >> is this just a case where the republicans throw out anything that is going to stick for them? to point out the facts in 2010,
12:23 am
the dream act passed the house and was filibustered by senate republicans. let's not forget that, and this year, speaker john boehner of the house said that passing rubio's watered down version would be difficult at best, yet rubio claims this was an election year stunt. what do you make of it? >> we have been waiting for years to try to get somewhere. as you mentioned, in 2010, under a democratic majority, the house passed a bipartisan dream act. the senate had the votes to pass it and send that bill to the president for his signature in 2010 if it wouldn't have been for the procedural maneuvers engaged by republicans in the senate to keep a 55-vote bill out of senate by using the filibuster. we could have done this. when mitt romney a few days ago said the president could have done this a long time ago, he's waited years, he either misspoke or was intentionally misrepresenting the facts. he had to know that the president tried it with republicans who stopped immigration reform from moving forward.
12:24 am
>> it's very clear that this issue has caught the republicans flat footed on all fronts. mitch mcconnell doesn't know what to say about it. he's waiting for his candidate, leader of the party now, mitt romney to say something. he doesn't know what to say about it. has this really hurt the republicans and really exposed them for not really having a plan and certainly being unwilling to adjust to anything the president wants? >> i certainly think you have to ask the question, does mitt romney look presidential when he's dodging a question on something very important to americans? i don't care where you stand on immigration, this is very important. for him to rope adope and try to avoid having to answer doesn't seem very presidential to me. and for senator rubio who for months was talking about the possibility of doing something for the dreamers, the dream is that all of a sudden, it comes. it makes no sense.
12:25 am
>> i'm like senator rubio. he's been working with to hold a press conference, get some democrats you have been working with and hold a press conference and tell us how upset everybody is. it's 2 to 1 in favor. great to have you with us tonight. coming up, tim pawlenty could get picked as romney's running mate. find out why. let me tell you, find out why this would be a dream ticket for the democrats. and howard dean has a shocking prediction on the future of health care. the supreme court could open the door for what liberals real want in the country. yeah, it's called universal health care. we're right back.
12:26 am
12:27 am
12:28 am
12:29 am
welcome back to "the ed show." this is my favorite part of the show because this is the dream ticket for democrats. now, everyone from politico to the wall street journal says former governor tim pawlenty of minnesota is the favorite for vice president for mitt romney. remember, pawlenty had to give up his own bid for president well before the iowa caucus. he maxed out at 2% in the polls, trailing michele bachmann and donald trump. governor romney, let me help you vet this guy tonight. you see, when tim pawlenty was governor, the i-35 bridge suddenly collapsed during rush hour on august 1st, 2007. 8 lanes plunged into the mississippi river. investigators blamed structural problems. for years, governor pawlenty
12:30 am
refused to fund the inspections which could prevent accidents like the i-35 tragedy. he gutted transportation funding just four months before the bridge collapsed. at the time, the huffington post put it like this. tim pawlenty did not cause the bridge to collapse. he does however embody the conservative approach to government that did. pawlenty's spending cuts caused other problems for minnesota as well. by the end of his term, pawlenty left 9% of minnesotans without health insurance. property taxes had shot up all over the state. in eight years of a booming u.s. economy, he only added 6,200 jobs. that would be 6,200 jobs. worst of all, he stuck minnesota with a record breaking $5 billion deficit. so mitt, i think t-pawl would be the perfect fit for your campaign.
12:31 am
let's turn to mike hatch who ran against tim pawlenty and lost to him by just a few thousand votes. mike, good to have you on the program tonight. when you hear that tim pawlenty is on the hot list in being reported by the wall street journal and politico that hey, he could be the guy, what goes through your mind? is he ready to be vice president, maybe even president? >> well, i think there's two viewpoints, the political viewpoint is he doesn't make a lot of mistakes. maybe doesn't get more than 2%, but he doesn't make mistakes. the rubio moment you mentioned earlier, probably not something that a presidential candidate wants to see for a running mate. so listening to the rubio comment, pawlenty goes up the chart. having said that, the 1 thing in common between what i call a country club republican and tea party republicans is accountability with regard to finance. and it's certainly in minnesota during that eight-year term, the two terms, we had a lot of district tape going on in
12:32 am
minnesota, and property taxes went up, college tuition shot through the roof. people spending went down for students, for kids, and we were left with a $5.5 billion deficit as he left office. that's hard to reconcile that you have a balanced budget approach to anything. >> why would the romney camp want tim pawlenty? >> well, i can give a good reason, and that is simply balance. he is, you know, a governor from a blue state, as romney is. they're both governors from northern states. much like -- i'm telling it like it is, look at clinton and gore. they did have some common branding. most vice presidents, i don't think we have seen maybe one, lyndon johnson in the last 100 years, win a -- bring something to a presidential ticket, the
12:33 am
kennedy/johnson ticket in 1960s. other than that, vice presidents generally don't win. they can hurt you, but they don't generally win an election. tim pawlenty won't win an election, but the issue is will he hurt them. if the rule is do no harm, he probably fills that gap. in terms of criticism, he does not have -- >> go ahead. >> well, i was going to say, again, a fiscal responsibility is a key component of this election, the governor fails in that regard. >> is he a man of conviction? >> he is. he does what it takes to win the election. he does will that. he's a good campaigner. he's smart. i don't know what his conviction is. he's certainly -- you know, he's dealing with democratic legislature, so they did have their differences. i don't think leaving the state
12:34 am
with a $5.5 billion deficit is fiscally responsible. i so i think that underscores his conviction right there. >> mike hatch, good to have you with us tonight. there's a lot more coming up in the next half hour of "the ed show." stay tuned. >> i don't think american elections should be bank rolled by america's most powerful interests. or worse, by foreign enemies. they should be decided by the american people. >> the obama campaign filed a lawsuit demanding karl rove's super pac disclose its donors. the big panel weighs in on the money and the holder witch hunt. howard dean makes news with his prediction for a decision. details ahead. >> and the war on the poor is exploding in congress this week. >> it's beneath this body to cut food systems for those who are struggling the most among us. >> food stamps will be cut unless something is done. senator bernie sanders brings the fight to "the ed show" tonight.
12:35 am
12:36 am
12:37 am
12:38 am
all right, let's talk about the money. it was easy for karl rove to raise money, getting millionaires and billionaires to open up their check books. it isn't that tough when they know their identities are going to be protected. it's structured as a tax exempt organization. in fact, loopholes in the tax code call them a social welfare organization, but we all know karl rove isn't raising money to help the homeless. he's spending millions and millions of dollars to push an extreme right wing agenda. now an attorney for the obama campaign for president obama re-election team is challenging how cross roads does business. the "new york times" reports robert bower wants cross roads to disclose its donors. they argue that they can't be
12:39 am
shielded by the social welfare structure. he writes that crossroads seems to believe it can run out the clock and spend massive sums of money in this election without accounting for a trace of its funding. now a federal appellate court has issues a ruling that makes clear they're out of time. he sights a ruling that the government should decide the major purpose of groups like crossroads. you and i know it ain't about social welfare groups. let's bring in msnbc contributor crystal ball, mark simone with us, and also karen finny. great to have all of you with us. mark, we'll start with you first. why is karl rove so protective of his donors? >> you're always picking on karl rove. he's trying to start a nice welfare program. >> i just want to know who is giving to his welfare program. that's all. >> you can't blame the guy for trying. listen, i think the whole system is messed up.
12:40 am
we have to tear this all apart and start over. at first, it was the super pacs, and now this making it a social program, a way around the super pacs. think we should let everyone give any amount they want to any candidate as long as there's full disclosure. make it more direct. >> karen, what do you think? >> nice try, mark. >> i'm serious about that. just be open and honest. >> i agree on the disclosure problem. but here is what is going on in this specific case. they're a social welfare program. you're being unfair to millionaires and billionaires whose profits they're trying to protect. we saw last week some of the major donors say that they were intentionally going to use these loopholes and these shadow groups to give, and one of them, and i quote, said because it will be more under the radar. obviously, the obama campaign is trying to push the pressure on romney folks or crossroad, gps, excuse me, to know that they're going to have to disclose at
12:41 am
some point. nobody is buying this line that they're welfare groups. >> let me say this, i was going to say, to mark's point, having full disclosure of everything and direct giving to the candidates would be better than what we have now. but what would be even better is not to have massive amounts of money and influence. that's the part that's really troubling about this. what are these people getting for their money? what is it that they want? and that's the part that whether they're anonymous or they're fully disclosed, the people have no idea, and we feel very cut off from having influence with our own government because of these massive amounts of cash. >> if you want to donate money, make the same limits on super pacs, on everybody, or welcome it up to everybody. let it be transparent. >> we know that's not going to -- all of those things should happen, but we have to deal with the reality of what is happening in this election.
12:42 am
one of the things that add said to how disturbing this is we have also read reports that show that the romney campaign is actually attended fund-raisers for some of the super pacs as a featured guest. that's the way they're legally able to get around some of the restrictions, but then we don't know what mitt romney is meeting with because they're -- there's such a lack of disclosure on their side. so we don't know, does he have a private meeting and someone writes a $10 million check to crossroads? we don't know that. what are people getting for their money? we need to deal with it in the context of this election. >> and there's a bigger context. i don't know why this exists. a social welfare organization on the right or left should have to disclose their donors, but you also have c-3 organizations which not only don't have to disclose their donors, but you can get a tax deduction for contributing to them, and grouped like a.l.e.c. which has
12:43 am
had massive influence in state legislatures across the country is a 501-c-3, so you can give them a donation and get a tax write off. >> just simplify it. >> but mark, it's pretty easy for karl rove to go out and tell a multimillionaire, hey, look, give us a bunch of money. nobody is going to know who you are. we can work on stuff for you. people know, i don't want my name in the media. i'm ready to give $10 million, but i don't want my name out there, the dynamic changes a bit. i want to talk about eric holder. mark, what about the contempt vote. is it warranted knowing no republicans have testified? >> it's probably not warranted. i just don't think he's that confident, he's sloppy about this stuff. this is a mess, but you get
12:44 am
these crazy congressmen with a gavel and a tv camera and they go nuts. it's grandstanding. they play politics. and i understand the position obama is in. >> you're on our side on this. i like that. >> not exactly. >> but obama said when he was running it's wrong to use executive privilege in a case like this, and he's right, but i understand him. he's a long time ally and friend. >> mark, come on. you did not just make the nixon -- there's no comparison to nixon. no comparison to nixon. essentially, if president obama were to turn over the documents that we're talking about, he would be breaking the law. the president is not going to break the law just to make darryl issa happy. and be very clear about what this is about. if darryl issa really cared about getting guns off the street and really cared about giving some closure to the family, you would be subpoenas documents that had to do with what hap w w w w w woud n't
12:45 am
have eric holder taking the fall for mukasey. that's what is so outrageous about this. holder is guy who stopped this program. it's programs started under president bush. >> we'll leave it there. crystal, mark, and carob, great to have you with us. great discussion. thanks so much. howard dean says she hopes the affordable care act's individual mandate gets thrown out. i'll explain next. stay with us. [ male announcer ] if a phone rings at your car insurance company and no one's around to hear it,
12:46 am
does it make a sound? [ meows ] or if a tree falls on your car and no one's around to answer your call, do you make a sound? the answer is probably "yes" [ growling ] and "like a howler monkey." unless you're calling esurance. they have live humans on the phones to help 24/7. so you might make different sounds, like happy human sounds. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call. up next, find out why howard dean of vermont wants the senate to strike down the health care mandate, and the foreign bill will cost taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars and cut aid. how can democrats support this? bernie sanders will join me for the discussion. you can listen to my radio show monday through friday from noon to 3:00 p.m. follow me on twitter and like "the ed show" on facebook.
12:47 am
those little things still get you. for you, life's about her. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use
12:48 am
and a 30-tablet free trial.
12:49 am
we're going to take to the floor a bill that calls for the total repeal of obama care so we can start over and we can tell the american people we're on your side. >> oh, yeah. they're on your side. they're going to start over. republicans always say we're on your side when it comes to health care reform, right? but they're not offering any solutions whatsoever. the supreme court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the president passes health care law any day now. no matter what happens. it's a real opportunity for democrats to take control of the issue and work towards improving this nation's health care system. that's how i see it. so does howard dean as the washington examiner reports. howard dean of vermont told a grew of progressive activists there are many parts of the bill that should remain in tact, but i don't give a damn about the individual mandate, i think it was a foolish thing to do
12:50 am
anyway, but then i hope it does get thrown out. folks, this is all about messaging. this is a great opportunity for the democrats. americans know our health care system needs fixing. what we have is okay, it's a start. if the supreme court strikes down the affordable care act, 77% of americans want president obama and congress to go right back at it and try again. and come up with new legislation. only 19% of the american people in the country think the health care system is fine and leave it the way it is. congressman keith edalson said the supreme court ruling will give democrats the chance to push the single payer system, something liberals wanted from the start. i whole heartedly think if this individual mandate gets thrown out, it's an opportunity for us to organize right away. amen to that. this is a great opportunity for liberals to look at this as a positive if the supreme court strikes this down because we can go to the majority of what people want, which is single
12:51 am
payer. don't give up, liberals. singer payer is what we want and what the country wants. i asked you, following the contempt charges against eric holder, what do you think republicans are more interested in? 7 percent of you say the truth, 93% of you say hurting the president. coming up, the senate is expected to pass this mammoth trillion dollar farm bill that unfairly targets low income americans. vermont senator bernie sanders will weigh in next. stay with us.
12:52 am
[ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.
12:53 am
12:54 am
12:55 am
welcome back to "the ed show." big finish tonight, the senate is expected to pass a trillion dollar spending bill while cutting aid to the poor. they have reached this bipartisan agreement on a brand new farm bill. it's going to cost americans $969 billion in the next decade. the tea party has been ominously silent on spending. big business has lined the pockets on both sides of the aisle. mean, the massive spending bill cuts food stamps, aid for the poor in this country. joe brant has tried to stop the bill. the senate struck down her amendment with a 33-66 vote. this bill will now slash $4.5 billion in food stamps funding to the poorest americans. these cuts will amount to about
12:56 am
$90 a month for needy fans. the farm bill is expected to pass the senate later this week. there's a lot of hog here, folks. for more, let's turn to bernie sanders of vermont. great to have you with us. what is right and what is wrong about this bill? >> what's right about the bill, it ends some subsidies that go to big farmers and corporate agriculture who really don't need it. clearly, what is wrong about this bill is that at a time when poverty is increasing in america and half of the people on food stamps are either children or the elderly, it cuts $4 billion over a ten-year period. what i want to tell you is our republican friends in the house are planning on cutting not $4 billion in a ten-year period but over $130 billion over a ten-year period. they're really going to war against the very poorest children and senior citizens in
12:57 am
this country, and that's something we cannot allow to happen. >> so the house is saying that the cuts aren't tough enough here, yet they're willing to line the pockets of big business, and i think you can follow the money, you're going to see people in the senate and house that are advocating for this who are recipients of big dollars from big agra business, or do i have that wrong? bl you have it right, but what people have to understand is this is part and parcel of the republican vicious attack against middle income and low income people. this is not unrelated. these are taxes that we're going to see from the republicans in massive cuts in food stamps is directly related to the attacks you're going to see on social security, medicare, medicaid, and education. what the republicans are about are huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country, huge corporate
12:58 am
loopholes for -- that make billions in profits, then you go every the elderly, the children, the sick, and poor. this is where we're moving as a country if we don't stop it. an oligarchy where a poom people have incredible wealth and power and they're going to war against millions and millions of people who are trying to hang on by their fingernails. >> where is the tea party on this farm bill? why aren't they screaming about this? this is the biggest piece of legislation financially we have seen when you compare it to the automobile loan, the health care bill, the stimulus package, this is the mother load here, and they're silent about them getting what they want out of the senate? >> you're going to see the tea party silent about tax breaks to people who don't need it. they're silent to the subsidies that go to the oil companies and coal companies. what you have in the tea party are people who represent the wealthiest, the most powerful people in the country.
12:59 am
i will tell you right now we have more people living in poverty today than in any time in the modern history of this country. you have many seniors who are facing hunger, an increase in hunger among seniors. we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. it's both immoral to my mind not to mention bad economic policy to go after the weak and vulnerable at the same time you're giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country. >> this is where i have to call out some democrats on this. how in the world can they support the cut in food stamps when we have got economic conditions for the lower tier income earners in the country like you have stated. i don't get it, but it's going to happen. it's bought and paid for in many respects. senator bernie sanders, thanks. that's "the ed show." the "rachel maddow" show starts right now.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on