of you and your generosity. on behalf of this show, my help and staff, and the national association of free clinics, i want to thank you so much for all of your support and hopefully we can do it again and change some lives. and ask yourself the question tonight, folks, if you had cancer, would you want to know? lives were changed on monday in new orleans because of your donations. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. obama loses. boehner loses. who wins? let's play some "hardball." good evening. i'm michael smerconish in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, political football. let's agree there were no

winners in yesterday's foolish you're a jerk, no, you're a jerk debate over the timing of the president's jobs speech, but in washington, when no one wins, the president often loses. republicans have to be thrilled they stuck another thumb in the president's eye and mr. obama supporters are holding their heads in their hands over what appears to be another cave-in by the white house. the speech will air before the opening of the nfl season but the larger lesson seems to be if the president and john boehner can't agree on scheduling. what makes anyone think they'll be able to work together in creating jobs? every concession, every bad poll that comes out seems to make president obama's re-election less likely, but the white house is looking to two former presidents who won despite terrible economic times for inspiration.ç can fdr and ronald reagan offer a blueprint for victory next year? and ten years after 9/11, are we really safer from terrorist attacks? a lot of experts say, no. also, they're in, they're out. they can't decide. what was behind yesterday's

other scheduling circus? this one involving sarah palin and christine o'donnell. and, finally, let me finish before i don't believe either what either the white house or the speaker's office said during yesterday's childish spat and what that says we can expect from them in the future. we start with the timing of the president's jobs speech. clarence page, a chicago tribune columnist, and sam stein with "the huffington post." welcome to both of you. i'm not buying any of it, sam. i believe the white house selected that initial date specifically because it was the gop debate, and i don't buy what the speaker said either. perfunctory votes getting in the way or a security clearance sweep that's needed to be done in the house. what do you make of it? >> i agree on both points. i think the white house wanted a contrast. a direct contrast with the republican presidential field that nice where the president could lay out his vision and republicans squabble amongst themselves how bad it was and no one's answered the question.

why couldn't boehner called back congress on tuesday? why call them back on wednesday? clearly the speaker could have accommodated. he said no and the president gave in and said, sure, i'll do it on thursday. >> clarence, all bad staff work? i ask because white house communications director dan pfeiffer went on "the daily rundown" with chuck todd and tried to clean it up. >> so did speaker boehner -- we reported, did he tell bill, yes, september 7, 8:00, i'll make it work? >> they raised no objections to the date or time.ç >> what does that mean, raise no objection? what does that mean? meaning he said, boehner saying, ah -- all right, bill. >> no reason to believe actually in the conversation there was any reason wednesday could not work for logistical or other reasons for the speaker. >> sounds like a lot of hummina, hummina. what do you make of it? >> i don't know why they would want to be on the same night as

republican candidates. compare, contrast, okay. you're stepping on your message, and i've seen president obama do that several times during his administration which is remarkable for a man who was so effective at messaging during his campaign. i think this is going to take a little while. i just hope whatever method he's going to deliver next week is going to be worth it. >> sam, my view, they're all now so pre-conditioned to be in opposition to whatever the other guy wants. because when you think through boehner's response politically, i don't think it makes sense. why wouldn't john boehner want that debate to take place for the good of his party immediately after the president? because you'd have so many more eyeballs then tuning in? >> let me push back against one premise of that, which is, i don't think the white house is preconditioned to say no to the republicans. i think the preponderance of evidence shows republicans said no to basically whatever the white house puts out. there is some benefit to going

right after the president. the white house likes the contrast. they like the idea of the president speaking down to the chamber of commerce, accusing them of -- sorry. speaking down to congress accusing them of doing nothing on the job. they like the idea of the republican field raising their hands saying they will reject $10 in spending cuts for $1 in taxes. they like the idea of obama coming out like an adult. i think they wanted it.ç >> contrarian view to that i'll call it reasonable ground. in the end, independents are the ones who are going to call the shot in this. another argument out there says the base is now so offended with what they perceive to be his caving in, some may not be as motivated? >> that's the thing. this whole argument over the speech is a trivial superficial argument. no one will remember in a week. however it reinforced the narrative that existed a lot longer than this. obama will not fight for even

minute matters. he looks liked adult in the room, but a depressed base doesn't like to see the president cave in on even these things. >> clarence, reason in your mind to believe the president will change course as a result of a kerfuffle like this? >> let me put up one thing, michael. again, i think obama would look much more like the adult if he comes on the next night after the republican candidates are squabbling with each other and looks like the adult in the room, because he is. he's the president, for pete's sake. and why step in your own news cycle? schedule yourself to go on right before another big news event, unless you aren't that confident about what you have to deliver in your own speech. i think in the long run, that boehner did obama a favor pushing him on to his night because he ought to have his own night. let me show you what james carville weighed in this morning on "good morning america."

let's listen. >> the last thing that the white house needed was to appear to cave in to the speaker, and that's what happened. the last thing the congress needed and the white house, was to have a spat that looks like they couldn't resolve anything. i do think this is a really big debate, and i think the white house was out of bounds in ç suggesting -- in trying to schedule the speech during the debate. i know -- given a choice between watching the debate and the speech, i'll watch the debate and i'm not even a republican. >> i think it is a significant debate. there are going to be many to come, but many want to see rick perry for the first time on that stage. it is the reagan library. what's this guy all about? and can he sustain whatever comes from the questions? >> yeah, but also see the saints versus the packers on a thursday night. let's not downplay that. the opening night of the nfl season is a big draw. i don't think the white house wants to go against that. they're trying to plan around that, telling that in his own right, viewers will be drawn to football.

i just happen to disagree with both of you on this one. they've always looked good when contrasted with republicans. even republicans going right at them. back to the famous baltimore area town hall event they does when obama was in the lion's den. comes out always looking like the adult in this one. i imagine he has as much proposals that are unveiled in the jobs plan very much in line with what republicans suggested in the past. i think he wants to put it out there and see them oppose their own ideas. >> isn't the big -- >> enjoy the game, sam. >> isn't the takeaway from this that if they can't get their schedules together, if this is the sort of b.s. they're going to bicker about, there's really no prospect, no matter what the president proposes, they're going to stand in opposition to it? isn't that the takeaway? >> maybe. i'm affected by the fact i was out in the real world, back in middletown, ohio, which happens to be in john boehner's district, heavily republican area. ohio's in crisis. they need jobs. reindustrialized and see the

party squabbling over what nighç to have the speech on. that's like the vietnam peace talks arguing over the shape of the table. silly. >> as i said in my preamble, i believe when all of perceived at losers, he loses more. people don't like congress but they like their member of congress. it catches up with him if this is the way the public perceives it? >> but remember the beginning rich dust-up deal? president won. people tend 0 to see the others as obstructionists and that's the way obama ought to play it now. >> a recent data point. the debt ceiling fight for all of its problems, both parties were blamed but republicans according to the polls were blamed much more than the president. i don't think the white house is distancing itself from a fight but actually have to engage first. >> james downey wrote a column for "the washington post" last attempt to make republicans look unreasonable in almost every

conceivable way it failed spectacularly. a preview of obama's re-election campaign, democrats should be very worried. sam, you're not buying into that? >> we have an infinite ability to forget the last cycle. with this issue, the actual substance of the speech i have to believe will trump this one-day story whether or not it was scheduled on a wednesday or thursday. i can't imagine anything else. >> clarence what will be mood be like in the joint session? a member of the tea party, a congressman member of the tea party tweeting saying he won't be in attendance. i'm thinking joe wilson shouting out "you lied." has this process become so politicized the speech is taking on a tone it would not have otherwise had? >> that shout-out wasn't the gop's most fine hour. if i was obama i would have had irst night.ama i would have had you don't want to show up, that's on you. let the cameras pan around to the empty seats and see what kind of message that sends to the public. but that's me. not obama.

i sometimes wonder why he's not more of a chicago-style politician. his old role model would have done that and he would have won. >> sam, you know, it's all about expectations. i think the expectations keep rising now because of all of this attention, all of this -- >> exactly. >> -- going into the speech. >> totally agree. i think if he doesn't go big there's going to be disappoint. severe disappointment among the base. he needs to set a vision what the economy will look like in two, three years. a prominent democratic pollster says the toughest thing tell people suffering things will get better or they are getting better. it's a big lift for obama. he has to go big. >> thank you all. appreciate your time. reminder, the republican presidential debate, the reagan library right here on msnbc next wednesday, 8:00 p.m., and join us thursday, 7:00 eastern, for the president's big jobs speech. coming up, no doubt president obama has an uphill

path to re-election, but the white house is looking to two former presidents who won despite awful economic times. fdr and ronald reagan. that's ahead. you're watching "hardball." only on msnbc. [ female announcer ] it's a pad like no other. always infinity. while most pads contain fluff, always infinity is made with a revolutionary material, infinicel, that forms to your body and absorbs up to 60% more than kotex regular ultra thin. always infinity. when you switch your car insurance to esurance. i could save 'em 522 smackers. you talkin' dough? bread. benjamins? scratch. greenbacks.

moolah. cheddar... simoleons! don't try to out-save me. [ female announcer ] any way you say it, $522 is the average amount saved by people who switched to esurance. 522 bucks! [ female announcer ] to find out how much you'll save, call 1-800-esurance or visit esurance.com right now. that's 1-800-esurance or go to esurance.com. former republican senator chuck hagel of nebraska had harsh words about his own party. listen to what he told the financial times about the republican party's handling of the debt ceiling fight. >> the irresponsible actions of my party, the republican party, over this was astounding. i'd never seen anything like it in my lifetime. i think about some of the presidents we've had on my side of the aisle. ronald reagan and george bush sr. and eisenhower. they would be stunned, i think. >> hagel said they've moved too

far to the right and too captive to the ideologues of the tea party movement. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." 14 months away from the pedal election it's looking like a grim picture for president obama with unemployment numbers hovering over 9% and opinion polls at all-time lows.ç what does he need to do to stand a chance next year? looking to two former presidents who scored similarly during rough economic time. franklin roosevelt and ronald reagan. fdr and reagan argued the country though in plain was improving and opponents anchored in past failures would make things worse. white house aides intended to believe their fortunes are improving and plan to persuade the people that republican a

in the white house would be a step backward. but the strategy would take no drama obama hasn't been comfortable, partisan fighter. does he have it in him? we're joined by susan page and msnbc political analyst and huffington post senior political editor howard feinman. does that strategy make sense to you, susan? >> another thing obama needs do, if he is going to get re-elected make the economy better. people live the economy every day. you need a sense the economy is picking up, unemployment coming down. it's natural he would choose, say, ronald reagan's re-election in 1984 as his template. you don't want to choose jimmy carter's re-election template in 1980. at that point jimmy carter got the opponent from the republicans. ronald reagan, too old. an actor, too extreme, too right wing. people were so unhappy with the economy and the state of the nation we will willing to take a leap of faith. that would be the nightmare scenario. >> i was taken with this "time" magazine piece. the idea of michael beschloss behind closed doors advising

bill daly of the senior staff -ç >> i'd be mad for citing the excellence of "time." now that i'm at "the huffington post" it doesn't matter. it's preposterous to suggest that ronald reagan's re-election campaign is going to be a template. ronald reagan's central message in the campaign was encapsulated in a tv ad called "it's morning in america." >> as a matter of fact, we have it. i'd be remiss if i didn't cue it up now for you. >> do it now and then we'll talk afterwards. >> play the tape. >> okay. >> this afternoon 6500 young men and women will be married and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago they can look forward with confidence to the future. it's morning again in america. and under the leadership of president reagan, our country is

prouder and stronger and better. why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago. >> i remember it being unveiled. i was in dallas that year. what's the point you take away from that? >> the point i take away from that is at least now and projecting forward, a dangerous thing to do, projecting forward to next year, it's hard for me to imagine an ad like that being accepted by the american people next year. i don't think the numbers are going to be good enough, and i don't think the temper of the country is going to be good enough, which is why when i talk to democrats outside and inside the white house as i did today what i heard was a slightly different message. it's not going to be a morning in america campaign. it's going to be a darkness at midnight campaign about the republicans. it's going to be about the fact that the republicans in congresç pushed paul ryan's bill on medicare, pushed cap, cut and

balance, how republicans wanted to dismantle wall street reform. how the republican presidential candidates have embraced the tea party. those are going to be the two central messages of a campaign that's mostly going to be about attack. i think this is just as 2008 was in some respects an uplifting campaign from both sides, this one is going to be down and dirty from the beginning from both sides. >> i have a difficult time seeing the president in that role. maybe he wouldn't play the position of the hatchet -- >> he wouldn't do it hems. >> susan, do you see it the same way? >> i do not. i don't think you can win a presidential campaign way totally negative message about the other side. agreed. barack obama will not have the kind of feeling of economic optimism that ronald reagan had in '84, even though unemployment was still pretty high in 1984. still above 8. you need to say to americans, things may be bad now but i have a plan that will make things better if you give me another chance.

give me second term. >> isn't the response to the american people and to what extent we think the plan will be carried out? i'm the least optimistic about the result from the speech coming next week. >> here's the problem that he's got, michael. i think he campaigned on change. don't forget. it was very simple. it was, we are the change. we can believe in. change you can believe in. change, change, change. so far for the most part, to the extent that there has been change, it hasn't necessarily been for the better. so i think it's going to be very hard for the president to argue, you know, look at my plan. look at the future that i've sketched, because so far for the most part it hasn't come true. >> according to your script, according to your -- your battleground plan, which of theç gop field members best suits it? it seems to me based on what i've heard you say it's probably rick perry? >> either rick perry or michele bachmann i would say at this point. leave ron paul out of it. probably those other two, and i

i think it's going to be, my sense a rough and nasty campaign in which one side, the democrats are going to be accusing the republicans of being literally irrational of not accepting modern science and you know, modern education, and the theory of evolution, et cetera, against republicans who are going to essentially accuse barack obama and the democrats of being unholy, ungodly and completely and utterly ineffective. and it's going to be nasty. >> susan, if howard is right, then it means that those democrats who right now are saying draw a line of your own in the sand, and stop pursuing the reasonable ground, are not going to get what they're looking for, because i think what he's described is a strategy that demands the president continue to be the one who's the conciliator? >> i disagree with him. i think what we'll hear from thursday night, here's my big plan.

whether or not it gets passed into law. republicans have no incentive to cooperate with barack obama and disagree on the prescriptions he has for making the economy better. he might as well lay out a big plan and say this is my plan what i would do. if i can't do it now, put me back into office and give me, give democrats another chance. >> was suggesting not inconsistent with what susan was just saying peep agree, just looking at it from the sidelines. the president might as well lay out whatever plan he's got. >> because he's not getting anything anyway. >> well, yeah. exactly. and he's going to say, this is a sober, rational way to approach the future.ç that these people in their zeal are rejecting. it's going to be -- but my point is, it's going to be more about the republicans refusal to be logical, at least according to barack obama, as it's going to be about the virtues of this great sweeping vision that the president has. i think people are impatient now with the idea that this is a

president who can sketch out let alone sell a big vision, because he's pretty much been unable to listen to one of his most famous speeches, 1936 a democratic rally right here in madison square garden. >> powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that government is best which is most indifferent to mankind. for nearly four years now you have had an administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves.

never before in all of our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. they are unanimous in their hate for me, and i welcome their hatred. >> i'm smiling because i know chris would be thrilled we played a historic reference like that. >> that was great. >> what relevance to this cominç campaign? >> what a great speech. you can say fdr, that's great. maybe a better precedent would be harry truman. you can hear obama talking about a do-nothing congress. they won't do anything. washington's gridlocked and setting himself up that way, which turns the failure to get a lot of things done perhaps into an asset because it is a detriment to the other side. >> susan and i are destined to disagree on everything today, but i don't think that will

work, because i think too many people also blame the president. including his own camp. people on the democratic side to some extent blame the president for gridlock. that's too technical an argument and too procedural an arguments. he's going to go -- doesn't matter what i think. i think he's going to go in the direction of franklin roosevelt in '36. an apocalyptic thing. roosevelt saying these people are out to strangle our way of life, and i have stood there and taken it, but i've stood in the way of the evil people doing what they want to do. >> got it. thank you both very much. up next, the other big scheduling snafu, this one involving sarah palin and christine o'donnell. you have heard? that's next in the "sideshow." you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

welcome back to "hardball." now for the "sideshow." first up, as we said earlier, now that the silly season fight is over, president obama's jobs speech will not be conflicting with the gop debate. the scheduling kerfuffle took up pr obama moves on jobs, and obama blks on jobs speech. and there were many more where that came from. still, though, no primetime competition between the president and the 2012 gop-ers. he has another to face off with. summing it up, obama's speech up against packers. that's right. the president's speech will now air directly before the opening game of the nfl season. that's between the green bay packers and new orleans saints. so instead of sharing the stage with eight republican candidates, president obama will be competing for attention with the last two super bowl winners. next up, that's not the only scheduling nightmare that erupted yesterday.ç the sarah palin-christine o'donnell tilt is tougher to

follow. so pay attention. a few weeks ago sarah palin was scheduled to make an appearance at a tea party rally that will take place in iowa this weekend. days later, failed 2010 senate candidate christine o'donnell of delaware also invited. so far so good. then the tea partiers got angry and sent letters protesting o'donnell's appearance. she was uninvited. news spread she'd been booted. voices raised. suddenly o'donnell, back in. well, turns out the palin camp didn't want her to share the stage with o'donnell. yesterday palin's plans to attend were put on hold. no sarah palin if o'donnell is there? that's not acceptable to tea partiers. christine o'donnell, you're out. a sigh of relief. palin is back in. to sum up -- in, then out, then in, christine o'donnell is out. sarah palin is in. the show will go on. stay tuned. the smartest way to invest your money, purchasing a new york city taxi medallion at the

top of the list? probably not. think again. as it turns out their increase in value over the years is surprisingly large outpacing the growth in the price of oil, home prices and even gold. how much has the price of a big apple taxi medallion increased since 1980? 1,000%. the going rate throws to $700,000. how that for a smart investment? 1,000% is tonight's big number. up next, as we come upon the anniversary of the 9/11 attack, one big question on everybody's mind. are we safer now? you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. i

here is what is happening.ç texas is battling wildfires by the worst draught in years. hopefully it brings them much-needed rains. joran van der sloot is charged with murder. you will remember he was cred the prime suspect in the disappearance of natalee holloway in 2005. now back to "hardball."

we are not yet in the place in this country where the first responders can talk with one another. ten years after 9/11 we are not yet at the place where we know who's in charge at the site of a disaster. welcome back to "hardball." that's the 9/11 co-chairman on responding to a terror attack that exists a decade after the 9/11 attacks. of the 41 recommendations, the u.s. falls short on nine of them and they range from things as basic as first responders able to communicate with one another to ambiguous authority for the director of national intelligence. evan coleman and roger cressey are nbc terrorism analysts. roger, what's the problem? why can't first responders communicate with one another? >> the biggest problem, when congress gave money to the administration and, for

instance, the bush administration, then dhs pushed it down to state and local authorities they didn't put in requirements or framework around it. they said, you know best. you spend the money. buy the communications equipment you want, instead of making surç there were rules and requirements to ensure that interoperability. making sure it worked across all federal requirements. >> i don't want people's eyes to glaze over does it have to do with whether the bandwidth is used for a public or private purpose? >> that's why the bill hasn't been passed. the fact they haven't decided whether to allocate the space directly to emergency services or have it done through commercial provider. does that really matter? is that really the basis for which we're holding up this entire process? does that make any sense at all? this is a matter of life and death. >> i remember this as being a

pretty significant finding of the 9/11 commission. i remember interviewing secretary john layman, a naval secretary and member of the commission how with the twin towers, nypd and the fire department could not communicate. the prospect that's not resolved is frightening. >> unconscionable. look ats the faces of the firefighters and policemen that walked a certain death they walked up the trade center. imagine 11 years later these men still don't have the tools to do their jobs? what would happen if we sent a s.e.a.l. team in to capture bin laden with bb guns and a team of poodles? >> you heard hamilton talk about the lack of hierarchy who's in control at a particular site? >> believing there's a level of miscommunication and lack of coordination at federal, state and local when it comes to disasters.

actually i think we've done well relative to a few years ago. look at hurricane irene.ç dhs has come a long way. at the destination? absolutely not. the level of command going on on the ground is much better. katrina was a central event. katrina force the washington bureaucracy to realize dhs has a counterterrorism legacy but other things ignored. it's still a journey. we're not at the destination. >> i don't want to give al qaeda a playbook, what areas of vulnerability are you most concerned about? >> the same ones we've been facing the last decade. we still don't have a reliable method to make sure weapons aren't smuggled on to an airplane? >> you would have thought that would be something we would do right after 9/11. >> full body scanners don't get it done? >> we had a guy who boarded a flight, the father told the state department he was a suspected terrorist. he was able to board a flight to the united states.

the only reason the bomb didn't go off was a trick of science. it had nothing to do with our detection abilities. that should be scary, that should be frightening. that should be a wake-up call, and instead the response of the department of homeland security is, the system works. how does the system work and what has it done since then? as much as roger said, progress has been made, it's not enough. think about cyber security. 14-year-old kids now are breaching america's top cyber security and we're powerless to stop it. if al qaeda goes down that road and starts launching cyber attacks on our infrastructure, what are we going to do about it? i don't any we're prepared for anything. i don't think we're prepared for another 9/11. i don't think we're prepared for the next attack. >> allow me to show you what a portion of the report said on emerging terrorist threats. it's reads, most troubling we have seen a pattern of ç increasing terrorist recruitment of american citizens and residents to act at lone wolves. self-radicalization poses a serious emerging threat in the

united states. comment on that. >> ten years ago, al qaeda the organization, then affiliates then the self-starters. now, in fact, it's order is reversed. the challenge, these individuals don't appear in anyone's database. as long as terrorists travel and talk we have a great chance at intercepting them. when they cease doing that we have a problem. the lone wolf scenarios in the united states speaks directly to that. the way we solve that is not giving greater money to one particular agency. it's community policing. the greatest way to deal with a lone wolf is for the community itself to identify that individual. correctly speaking of cyber security being a huge priority. he's right. it comes to understanding what individuals are doing to radicalize themselves. we need people at the community level helping out as well. >> to what extent are you concerned political correctness poses a peril in and of itself ten years removed from september 11th? >> not political correctness. politics in general. people are focused and partisan

objectives and have forgotten the bigger issue. >> even in this area? >> definitely this area. if it wasn't a problem, why isn't there a national broadband service for first responders -- >> i think all of these issues unfortunately have lost their intensity. i just think that -- you know, the -- i don't know. the momentum is what i want to say, to get things passed and covered has been extinguished. it's a sad commentary. >> the only time it comes up again is when there's a terrorist attack. someone tries blowing up an airplane or a car bomb in times square and two months later it's forgotten. not a good way of following ç through counterterrorism strategy and not a good way of following an enemy like al qaeda constantly evolving and changing and trying to match what we're doing. that's the point is that al qaeda right now is not talking about launching attacks on airplanes. they're talking about launching cyber attacks and devastating u.s. infrastructure, and we're doing very little about that.

>> evan coleman, thanks. roger cressey, appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> you bet. up next what does big labor want to hear about jobs when president obama addresses congress next week? teamsters president james hoffa joins us next. this is "hardball," only on msnbc.

dick cheney's ngt!making friends with his latest memoir. condoleezza rice is firing back for what she calls, an attack on my integrity in cheney's book, suggesting rice misled president bush during nuclear negotiations with korea. a charge rice vehemently denied. like her predecessor, rice says cheney's book takes cheap shots as members of the bush administration. we'll be right back. if you've recently signed up for medicare

or will soon, you're starting a whole new journey. and, like many people, you're probably wondering, where do i go from here? consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. call now for a free information kit and guide to medicare to get started. basically, medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. a medicare supplement insurance plan helps cover some of those expenses. and that can save you up to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket costs. plus, you can keep any doctor who accepts medicare patients. together with medicare, an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan could be the kind of coverage you're looking for.

in fact, it could make a world of difference. call now for your free medicare guide and information kit about aarp medicare supplement insurance plans, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. we're back. next week the president will lay out his jobs plan in a speech before a joint session of congress. president obama has come under fire for his handling of the unemployment crisis and the criticism is even coming from his base. union leaders put the president on notice. fight for jobs and stand up to republicans. listen to the advice afl-cio president trumka had when the president spoke at a christian science monitor breakfast just last week. >> if you only propose what you think they'll accept, they control the agenda. i urged limb to propose what was necessary to solve the problem. and i hope he does that. and if he doesn't, if he falls into the nibbling around the

edge, we will judge him that way, and working people will judge him that way. >> jimmy hoffa, do you agree with what you just heard? >> i agree the president la to do more than what he's been doing and i think he's going to do that on this coming date, on thursday, when he announces all this. i agree with most of the things. i think what trumka is saying, the president has to be bold. go don't for what basically will be satisfied by the right wing in congress. come up with something that will solve the problem, put people back to work. jobs, jobs, jobs. that's what he wants. that's what people will rally behind, and he's got to get back on that footing saying this is a program that will work. infrastructure, putting people back to work, jobs training, get it done and let the american people judge that, and take that to congress. take that to congress. if the right wingers in the house turn it down, they're the

ones who will have turned it down. >> sounds as if you think he's been too conciliatory thus far? >> i do. i've mentioned it before. he's got to draw a line in the sand. a difficult time with unemployment, with the recent debacle with regard to the debt ceiling. we can't have more of this. people support him and wanted him to do things. they want him to get the government involved and solve problems. i hope he comes up with an aggressive program big enough to solve the problem and let's start doing it. if they don't go along with it and try and stop it, let's start pointing fingers and who stopped it last time and who is stopping it now. >> can he win without labor? labor's had a number of setbacks. i saw some data. it talks about the decline of percentage of americans affiliated with labor in 1953. here it is. let's look at the numbers of american workers who are union ç members now as compared to the

number some 50 years ago. according to the bureau of labor statistics, about 12% of american workers were union members in 2010 compared to nearly 27% back in 1953. >> we had a hundred thousand people demonstrate in wisconsin. the labor movement, organized labor and people of wisconsin recalled two wisconsin senators. that's major accomplishment. we have over a million signatures in ohio to recall sb 5 which is a bill that took away collective bargaining from republican employees. we are doing a heck of a job. the right wing introduced right to work in 14 states and we were able to beat it back in every state. we are alive and well and fate fighting for every worker. >> this is not whether the union vote will be sufficiently motivated to come out and play a role.

>> that's his job. >> so what do you want to hear? what specifically do you want to hear? >> well, i want it hear his plan, obviously. i don't know what his plan is. but it's got to be something that involves getting this country moving again. it's got to be infrastructure. we just watched what happened with irene. we're with watching television about bridges being washed out, roads being washed out. this is a tremendous job to be done there. we need training grams. he has a job on big business. we have apple computers sitting on $76 billion and they don't build anything in this country. they are sending jobs oversees. building a billion dollar plant, they will build it in mexico. why isn't somebody calling them up and saying, hey, build it in the united states.ç you know, i don't know if -- he should do that. you got this jeff elma, ceo of ge, tell him it make the calls. >> there was a piece in the washington post talking about

steve jobs and how he could secure be i think he has a tremendous legacy but a leg by by doing what you just said which is to try and turn some of that manufacturing back to the united states. and immediately someone called my radio program and said, if they do that, the slate should be wiped clean and there should be concessioes from unions to make that more affordable for apple. >> that's ridiculous. look at the plants bill here right now. other companies are building plants. general motors, ford and chrysler are thriving. they are all unionized. that doesn't work. that just won't work. we basically have good jobs here. we have to start employing people here. the president should be job owning. people are sitting on record amounts of money. they've got it here. they've got it in their coffers. pfizer, general motors, caterpillar. tell them to start bringing that back here and put americans back it work. that should be the message that we do. >> all right.

teamsters union president. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> i don't believe what the white house or john boehner said in the scheduling kerfuffle what it says about la we can expect going forward. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.

yesterday's scheduling flap between the white house and the house was a stark reminder of the dysfunction in washington. and if they'd fight about that,

it doesn't bode well for the next 15 months. i get that this coming weekend, labor day weekend, marks the unofficial end of summer and that tuesday is back to work and school for many adults and children. i also understand that congress comes back to work on wednesday evening, and that therefore ç superficially the white house can argue that wednesday was the natural date, the first date, in which the president could reasonably expect to go to the capitol and speak to congress about jobs. but surely they knew wednesday is the gop debate. and yes, it's one of about 20 to unfold, but it's going to include rick perry for the first time and occur at the fabled reagan library. just as there are no tears in baseball, there's no coincidence in politics. i suspect the white house picked that date because it was the night of the debate, and not in spite of it. and i also think the idea was to offer america a stark contrast between whatever the president intends to say about jobs and the responses that will be offered by the republican hopefuls. so i can't buy the explanation of jay carney, who when asked about whether the date was

picked because of the debate said no, of course not. nor, however, do i buy john boehner's response, which was to talk about conflict with some perfunctory votes and the needed time for a security sweep and so forth. i wish the white house had simply said the date selected did take into account the gop debate, and boehner responded terrific, come on over. we all would have benefited seeing each of the candidates running for president on that same stage. and it would have added some interest to the debate. the debate could have started the moment president obama finished, and the first question from brian williams could have been to ask each republican hopeful to respond to the substance of what the president had offered. instead, the entire tit for tat exchange is a reminder of the gridlock in washington, the petty politics that divide us, and stand perhaps in the way of a recovery. they all come off looking out of touch. if any of them had their finger on the pulse of the people, they would have realized thatex