and all of this terrible, dishonest history. if anyone should apologize to america, it's the neocons who wrote romney's speech. that's "hardball" for now. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. good evening, americans. welcome to the edshow. i'm michael eric dyson in for ed schultz. tonight, i'll ask a reasonable republican to explain why republicans are being so unreasonable. this is "the ed show," and as ed would say, let's get to work. oh beautiful for spacious skies for amber waves of grain >> a brand new poll from nbc news and the wall street journal says going negative is going well for the president. his lead jumps nationally to six points. eight points in the swing states, and there is new evidence that the bain attacks are working. >> i had no role whatsoever in the management of bain capital after february of 1999.

>> howard fineman will break down all of the numbers. >> voter id, which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> protests erupt in pennsylvania where activists are fighting a modern day poll tax, and the state now admits there's no voter fraud. >> and mike huckabee squares off over equal rights with the muppets. the big panel weighs in on chick-fil-a and the fight for gay civil rights. >> what do you think? >> it's 105 days until the presidential election. and the political silly season is in full swing. as if gets even worse, you may have noticed something more than ever before. the republican party has changed over the last several decades, and particularly the last several years, into a party that now rejects many of its own policy proposals, many of which have been passed into law by congress and signed by president obama. the list is not short, but most notably infrastructure spending was always a bipartisan idea

until republicans turned against it under president obama. even the dreaded individual mandate came from the conservative heritage foundation, and was the republican answer to hillary clinton's health care proposal. the most recent head scratching example is the republican effort to stop defense cuts. the sequester road show will be a coordinated effort by republicans to barn storm swing states and one of their prime arguments will be how many jobs will be lost. but wait. weren't republicans the ones who said government doesn't create jobs? >> economic growth is not a government program. economic growth isn't in the program unless it's a program to fund defense. when they create the loss of jobs for teachers, firefighters, and police, we hear this. >> it doesn't create jobs. >> here's a short list of things

republicans were for until they were against them, particularly when the democratic president took office. health care man dades, tarp, the auto bailout, financial disclosure, minimum wage, the economic development administration, infrastructure spending, the federal reserve, deficit spending, the nuclear start treaty, the dream act, gun control, public education, environmental protection. did all republicans support all of these things all the time? of course not. but enough of them did, up until recently to have a credible conversation about policy. and again, we should underline infrastructure spending which republicans traditionally supported and which creates jobs. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question, will republicans return to supporting republican ideas if they defeat president obama? text a for yes, text b for no. to 622639. or go to our blog at ed.msnbc. ed.msnbc.com.

i'll bring you the results later in the show. joining us is former governor of new york, george pataki. welcome to the show. >> nice being with you. it was wonderful to hear that objective, neutral introduction to the segment. >> of course. you know that we try our best to please you, sir. but look, in all honesty, i'm going to present a series of questions to you that are meant honestly, you and i have known each other for years. >> right. >> you sat and listened to one of my sermons. >> a terrific sermon. >> you're a good man, but i'm just here, those of us on "the ed show" and in the audience are trying to figure out the sense of contradiction and conflict. we're not trying to be nasty, but we want to ask questions and you're a smart guy and you can answer them. i want to play the boehner sound once more. >> okay. >> government doesn't create jobs. >> now, governor, he's not alone. in september of 2009, senator

jon kyl of arizona said, i had hoped that president obama by now would understand that even more government spending doesn't create jobs. but just recently, kyl said this about defense spending cuts. the whole point here, staving off the sequester, is trootie to get some economic growth, job creation, to get it out of the recession. is it credible when some in the party are trying to have it both ways. saying on the one hand government doesn't create jobs and on the other hand t does create jobs. >> i don't think it's inconsistent at all. i meanwhile, that comment obviously is ridiculous. but we understand republicans, and i think americans, that the private sector is the force that drives our economy. and it's not the government. the government can create a climate, can create a confidence in the future where the private sector invests, but that's where the jobs come from. it's the private sector jobs, the taxes they pay, the taxes that work for them that are paid

by the workers that fund all of the government programs. there is a difference between giving a check to a union -- >> right. >> and investing in things such as military hardware to defend our country and defend our allies. i see a dramatic distinction in that. >> you know people wisay, look, giving a check to a union is one thing, giving a check to that is another. >> i agree with that. >> all of the conservative interests that said pay your own way, until they needed to be boot strapped up. it creates jobs that help you out that are conveniently within the purview of the political i ideology of sector. >> the government can create the climate where the private sector can thrive. there's a role for the government and infrastructure is one of those places and of course, defenses. you're not going to have the

private sector defending the united states of america. that's the government's role, and by the way, michael, in the sequester, we're devastating our defense cape ability bility. there's no correlation between what will happen in entitlements where there will be a less than 10% cut and what is proposed in defense where we will be emasculated our ability to defend ourselves. >> let me jump back to something first. when you talk about the government not creating jobs, i'm thinking about all of the people, and you're old enough even though you're handsome and articulate, old enough to remember a time where the private sector was biased. they depended on the government, the post office, being a fireman or a policeman, those are jobs that enable team people to have the middle class. >> of course, there are things the government should do like the postal sector. my father, by the way, was a

mailman all his life, and the government, as i said, has to create the right climate. >> but your party is attacking it it. >> we're not u attacking that at all. we're attacking the massive growth of entitlements. i'll mention wisconsin. the fact we have given unions unsustainable contracts where between the pension costs, the health care costs and the cost of the public employees, we're are bankrupting the future of the state and local government. >> it's not why. it's because the government gave away these contracts to public employee unions and the exchange got their support in a way that was unsustainable and unfair to the working middle class american who is out there in the private sector trying to do their job, trying to keep their job, and paying their taxes. >> by the way, the unions s s are comprised of people in the middle class, not the elites. so the people benefitting from that are middle class. >> i would draw a distinction

between public and private sector. >> let me ask you another. just a week ago, bill frist said this about the health care laws exchanges. originally a republican idea, the state insurance exchanges mandated under the affordable care act will offer a menu of private insurance plans to pick and choose from. they represent a distinctly american opportunity to improve our local communities and in the same time help our nation averta major crisis. how is it credible when so many republicans now pretend exchanges were not a republican idea, to the point they refuse to implement the exchanges which means the federal government will do it for them. how is that credible? you're making the argument about exchanges and when a democratic president comes along, all of a sudden, it disappears.

i understand what you're saying, and in and of itself, it makes sense. you have to look at it in the context of obama care. it wasn't just the states are going to create exchanges. we now have unfortunately this individual mandate that is going to tax tens of thousands, millions of middle class americans when they don't want to be taxed. there was a medicaid increase requirement that was declared unconstitutional. i think if we have the idea of exchanges s s put out there independent of this, republican governors, as some do now, would have embraced it, and given the context, and by the way, given the fact that the states have a laboratory of democracy, we shnlt have a one size fits all. we should allow states to experiment and try different things as we did in new york. i think exchanges are a wonderful idea. one other point, forgive me for talking. >> that's all right. >> since president obama has taken office, we have seen the number of employees covered by employer provided health care decline by over8 million.

part of it is the loss of jobs, part of it is the employer saying given the new system and the new costs obama care is impoising, we're going to drop coverage. you have to take a look at the fact -- >> they haven't been implement implemented. >> that's rights, this is without it. my fear is you're going to have thousands of employers going, here is a $1,000 voucher. good luck on the exchange. >> you know as well as i do when we talk about the beginning of many of the programs, medicaid, and the like, social security and the like, that they started off one way but it allowed the government allowed it to exist long enough for the changes to take place, and for the kinks to be worked out. it seems to me that the republican ideas don't benefit the long term strategy of allowing the programs to develop over time and space. and let me say this. this is like saying, i pledge before i got married to be married. now i'm in the marriage, i find there are things that are problematic, republicans say they don't want to be married, but then they're not faithful because they don't like the woman. >> it's a wonderful analogy.

it's very inaccurate. let me just go back a second. you talk about things like the creation of medicaid, and made care and social security. those were all done on a bipartisan way. >> your party won't allow president obama to dethings in a bipartisan way. >> that's not true. look at the budget. >> he was inaugerated saying we're going to stand against him, governor. they're not reasonable. i am nostalgic for george pataki. i wish you could come back a million times over. you were a reasonable person who was willing to debate an issue and you had common sense and common ground. these republicans have no sense of that. >> i totally disagree. take a look at the budged. paul rye an comes out with a plan. but before he did, president obama said, if someone proposes entitlement reform, someone proposes how to deal with the budget kries, the last thing we should do is demonize them for political benefit. the first thing president obama

does is demonize him for political benefit and add the dnc running ads talking about pushing your mother in a wheelchair off a cliff. by the way, when you talk about bipartisan -- >> and republicans worried about death panels. >> i understand. >> right. >> you sit down and negotiate. but look at the budget. >> where is the negotiation with the republicans? >> how can you negotiate when for over three years, harry reid and the senate majority has refused to consider a budget? when i was governor, i would look at the way they would reach an agreement in congress. the house would pass a bill, the senate would pass a bill, have a conference committee and work it out. they have passed budget after budget for the first time in history. they have ignored it. how do you negotiate? when the other side doesn't do anything. >> i want to continue this conversation. you're a reasonable republican. i wish there were more of you. thank you for your time tonight. remember to answer tonight's question at the bottom of the

screen. share your thoughts on twitter at "the ed show" and on facebook. we want to know what you think. coming up, negative campaigning takes its toll on mitt romney. we survey the damage next. stay tuned, you're watching "the

in the last segment, we misidentified senator rubio as governor rubio. we apologize for the error. coming up, new poll numbers show the effective negative campaigning for both candidates. we discuss the latest from the campaign trail. pennsylvania has become the new ground zero in the fight to end modern day poll taxes. the state is now admitting they have nose evidence of voter fraud. and the star of batman goes to aurora to console victims as gun sales in colorado shoot through the roof. and the legendary journalist is calling out the nra. we'll bring you the latest in the wake of the colorado massacre. share you thoughts with us on facebook and on twitter using the hash tag ed show. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "the ed show." with the presidential campaign back in full swing, the question now is is the political mud mudslinging working. the newest poll shows the president leading romney. in swing states, the president's numbers are better. 49% to romney's 41%, but the negative campaign has taken a toll as well. 43% of voters view the president negatively. his second worst rating since taking office. and with a negative rating of 40%, mitt romney scored his worst rating yet. he's got a higher negative rating than john mccain at this time in 2008, john kerry in 2004

and bob dole in 1996, and a 14 point likability gap puts him at a major disability. negative ads like this one may not be doing romney any favors. romney has picked up on remarks the president made about small business and taken them out of context. take a look. >> if you have been successful, you didn't get there on your own. if you have a business, you didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. >> my father's hands didn't build this company, my hands didn't build this company? through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. why are you demonizing us for it? it's time we had somebody who believes in us. someone who believes that achievement should be rewarded, not punished. we nee somebody who believes in america. >> i'm mitt romney and i approve this message. >> the star of the ad did get some help from the government, he got help. the new hampshire leader reports he has taken over $1 million in government loans and taxes and

bonds over the years to help pull himself up by his boot straps. the irony appears to be lost on mr. gilchrist. i'm not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government. i'm not stupid. i'm not going to say no. let's bring in howard fineman, editorial director of the huffington post. welcome to the show. >> good evening, professor. >> sir, romney seems to have found some traction in taking the president's remarks on small business out of context. here's the president's push back in an ad. >> those ads taking my words about small business out of context, they're flat out wrong. of course, americans build their own businesses. every day, hard working people sacrifice to meet a pay roll, create jobs, and make our economy run. and what i said was we need to stand behind them as america always has. >> to you, mr. fineman, is this proof that romney's attack on the president is working, that he has to make an ad responding

to that particular criticism? >> i think so. i think that however out of context the ad might have been in terms of segmenting the one quote, i think the idea of attacking small business and the idea that the president doesn't understand or have high regard for small business is a tricky and dangerous one for the president. that's why they responded. the nbc news poll that you were talking about earlier shows that mitt romney's ahead among independent voters. and a lot of those people are small business people. the president can't afford to lose that constituency. the point he was making is that we're all in this together. and that whether it's education or interstate highways or tax credits or whatever, the government is there to serve the creation of business. and it is a partnership. the republicans took it out of context. where think they scored minor points with it for shoe. >> isn't it competing interests

that is defined as a conservative one. that is to say on the one hand, there's an acknowledgment that people build their own businesses and the like, but at the same time, the recognition we're in this as a community. one hand washes the other, one hand pats the other on the back. isn't that a conservative idea with pulling together and by coming together as a community, we can overcome some of the odds that are against us? the seems to be a competition among conservative values except when a democrat demonstrates those values? >> the conservatives will say we like the idea of community. we don't want government to be the transmission belt for it. it should be charity, individual effort and so forth, but what's happened, what has happed in the last 20, 30 years is the idea of community, the conservatives also assessmented and even glorify glorified, has been pulled apart and pulled down by a new conservative attack on that very idea. and i think what mitt romney has done is to move away from the

tradition of his own family, to move away from the tradition of the republican party that used to exist, to this kind of idea that everybody makes it entirely on their own without any assistance from everyone. that's not the case, abd knows that, and that's one reason why even though the economic numbers are terrible, that the president still leads in the new nbc poll. >> the john wayne mythology of self created individualism runs up against the reality that all people have help. the obama campaign goal is to define romney. they have taken a hit, but will it pay off? is it a good strategy? >> the key thing here is that -- is that mitt romney really should be ten points ahead. the economy is in terrible shape. the recent downturn has depressed the markets and depressed people personally.

there's terrible turmoil in europe. the president made a lot of promises and set a lot of targets he hasn't been able to reach. by all rights and by all history, he should be 10, twefrbl points behind. he's not, and the reason is number one, people like him. they think his intentions are good. they think thee hasn't always executed -- he hasn't always executed well, but they still have big doubts about romney. they think he's got economic expertise. they're not sure he has the heart. and until he shows he has the heart, he's not going to have a chance to win this election. >> champions are often defined by the heart they possess and not necessarily the talent or skill alone. so that may be the determining factor. howard fineman, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> coming up, the fight against the modern day poll tax. republicans s s make a stunning admission about voter fraud. we'll reveal their biggest lie next. and the chick fil -fil-a chain is catching heat for their

anti-gay beliefs. their owner will weigh in. stay tuned.

many of those woud ids would have to travel great distances to get them. and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. we call those poll taxes. >> welcome back.

that was eric holder, the united states attorney general, calling voter id laws in texas poll taxes. today, the department of justice launched an investigation into pennsylvania's voter id laws, too. republicans who passed these laws insist they just want a fair election. but now we have learned the attorneys defending pennsylvania's voter id rules have admitted there's. no voter fraud. the state signed a stipulation saying there have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in pennsylvania. the state says there's no voter fraud. they don't even know of any cases in other states, either. not one single case, but tomorrow, they're going to trial to defend rules that could keep more than 758,000 people from voting. that's more than 9% of pennsylvania's voters. the rules hit urban areas even harder. 18% of people in philadelphia don't have state ids. so if there's no voter fraud, why keep these americans from voting?

one of the state's most powerful republicans explained his support of voter id. >> voter id, which is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> it just don't get no clearer than that. they're trying to keep this from happening again. president obama won pennsylvania by about 650,000 votes. keeping 750,000 people from voting won't stop non-existent fraud, but it could really help mitt romney on election night. i'm joined by hilary shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy and the director of the washington bureau of naacp, and e.j. dionne dionne, the arthur of "our divided political heart." are voter id laws a modern day poll tax as attorney general holder suggested? >> absolutely. as a matter of fact, if we look at how poll taxes were used in the past, we know that poll taxes were used as obstacles to prevent poor voters from being able to participate.

let's switch to today's voting processes. under these photo id lays, you now have to get a birthday certificate, usually a certified one with a raised seal. that's $10 to $25. you have to get to the motor vehicle office and get your official state id, the driver's license or state id in which case you're paying another $20 to $35. you're paying a price, a dollar figure, to be able to participate in the electoral process. it's indeed a poll tax. >> e.j. dionne, the pennsylvania voter rights case could become a national test case. the plaintiff is a great grandmother whose purse was stolen. she's african-american and she's 93 years old. she can't get a copy of her birth certificate in time for the election. she marched with dr. king and has voted in every election since kennedy. do you think the courts will side with her and let her vote? >> i hope the kourtsdz do, and i think one of the problems here

is this is so blatantly political that the story is often covered in a political frame. it's good for the republicans and bad for the democrats. that's true. but that leaves out the fact that i think it's fair to say that this voter suppression across all of these states is the biggest roll-back of access to the ballots since the voting rights act of '65 and the repeal of the abolition of the poll tax. you're talking here about the full monty of voter suppression. it's not just the voter id laws. in some states, you have had restrictions on voter registration. other states, you limited early voting, which is disproportionately benefitted lower income people who don't have an easy time getting time off on election day. i hope the laws are exposed for what they are. if you live in the suburbs like i do, most people have to get ids because you have to drive a car. a lot of people in the inner

city do not drive cars and do noroutinely get driver's licenses, which is the common form of identification in the country. that's not fair. >> hillary, let's pick up with the point e.j. was making. lot of people go, i don't get it. $35. big deal. people should pony it up and vote. extremely poor people or people who are not urban or rural, will have a an extremely difficult time, so explain to us why these prohibitions, so to speak, in these voting id laws will turn negative against disproportionate numbers of poor people, working people, and african-americans as well. >> you're talking about people on fixed incomes. i call it in many ways the katrina effect. when hurricane katrina hit, most people assumed that people would be able to hop in their cars and drive north. what they didn't realize is 50% of all those people that lived in new orleans didn't have a driver's license and didn't have a car either.

as we talk about these issues, the prezumpsure is because most middle class people have cars and driver'sliances, doesn't everybody else? the short number is no. 25% of african-americans in this country of voting age don't have the requisite id to vote in this election. that is voter suppression at its highest level. >> in the last year, 18 states have passed or have pending voter regulations. why is this happening right now? is there some happenstance, some deeper ration ail and lodgeal to why it's going on now? >> part is you have republicans taking full control in a lot of states, and a much more idealogical and aggressive republican party right now. and they have also been laying the groundwork for this.

republicans have been trying to make a case that there is massive voter fraud all over the country for the last decade. they haven't made the case. it's very hard to come up with more than a handful of cases. but they have just repeated it and repeated it and repeated it, and the repetition now serves as arationale for laws we don't need and suppress some people's votes, minorities, young people, and poor people. i'm struck with the unfairness inherent in some. in texas, you can use a concealed carry personality, but you can't yeez a student id. they suggest all lower income people be armed so they can go to the polls? there's something peculiar about that. >> very peculiar indeed, it has its devastating conkwnlss on us now. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> there's a lot more coming up in the next half hour on "the ed show." stay tuned. >> chicky, spring chicky. >> the muppets are joining the mayor of boston in protesting the chick fill aye view of gay rights. >> and backlash against the nra

grows in the wake of the aurora shooting. >> the nra is the enabler of death. paranoid, delusional. as venomous as a scorpion. >> the story of how it went from a sportsman organization that supported gun control to the militant political group it is now.

welcome back. the chick fill -fil-a restaurant chain is known for serving up chicken and christian values. the president made controversial statements in opposition to gay marriage. he stood by chick-fil-a's support of the traditional family saying guilty as charged. we're very much supportive of the family, the biblical definition of the family unit. we're a family-owned business, a

family-led business, and we're married to our first wives. he also said this in another interview. >> we're abiding god's judgment in our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. and i pray god's mercy on our generation. >> on top of that, equality matters reporters suggested that chick-fil-a donated lm $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2010. meanwhile, the backlash has started. the jim henson company was producing toys for the kids meals. after the controversial remarks, they ended the deal saying on their facebook page, they will, quote, donate the payment they received from chick-fil-a to g.l.a.d.d. they declared august 1st chick-fil-a appreciation day. let's turn to keith boykin,

joann reed, and michael medvd. i tell you, that threw me off playing this colossal game of chicken. i play chicken with a mack truck. the rest of you would have been moved. i think of jay-z. do you think chick-fil-a is promoting institutional bigotry? >> no, not at all. i think the bigotry that is being shown is the bigotry against chick-fil-a. the president of the company has only said he supports traditional marriage. he supports biblical marriage. have we got toon a point in this country where it's considered acceptable to boycott a company because they identify as christian? and that's what chick-fil-a is doing. you talked about them contributing to anti-gay groups. they didn't. they contributed to christian groups that support a traditional definition of marriage. >> exodus international? exodus international is a group that believes in reparative therapy for gays and lesbians. that's an anti-gay group. >> a missionary group. >> the republicans don't have --

conservatives don't have a problem when they want to boy boycott an organization they don't agree with, but they don't like the idea of liberals spike s spooeking up. the right of free speech means everybody has the right to speak up, michael, not just conservatives. >> i have always opposed them, by the way. and i oppose the boycott of disney. i oppose the boycott of starbucks because they have expressed a position in favor of gay marriage. let star bucks have their position and chick-fil-a have their argument. >> let's bring in joann. i'm not going to tump that. let's bring in joann reed and tell us, look, boston mayor thomas menino is promising to block chick-fil-a from opening a store in boston. chick-fil-a doesn't belong in boston. you can't have a business in the city of boston that diskrminates against a population. do you think it's okay for a mayor to block an opening?

>> here is the thing, as someone who has taken my traditional to chick fill -fil-a when we lived in florida too, do a west on his words, you invite the consumers and muppets' judgment when you put your position out there. the guy from domino's pizza has these conservative view points. you have a right to express your views and consumers have a right to make a judgment about your company and choose not to shop there, and you don't have a constitutional right to have franchises in boston. at the end of the day when you put your politics out there, you have to take the consequences in a free society. >> what about that, michael medved? there's a political -- >> i agree with that completely. >> the argument about institution of marriage from a christian perspective. jump in. >> i agree with what she said completely. i think people have a right. you have a perfect right not to go to chick-fil-a not to go to starbucks, to go where you want

to go. >> and to boycott them. >> however, mayor menino crossed the line because there's a difference between expressing rhetorical support for traditional marriage and actually discriminating against employees or customers. there's no evidence that i have seen that chick-fil-a has discriminated in employment or service to gay people or anyone else. >> but keith, what about this, the argument that michael makes about rhetorical? hasn't been the rhetorical been the arena in which has been expressed enormouss bigotry that has been impactful on policy or perception? >> words matter. words have a tremendous impact. especially when those words are backed by millions of dollars given bioon organization, a business contributing to organizations that are fighting and funding an anti-gay agenda.

i used to live in atlanta, georgia. i used to eat at chick-fil-a. it was one of my favorite restaurants to go to, until i heard about their anti-gay policies. i won't go to chick-fil-a anymore because thooft. people in this country have their right to make the decision. we have a right not to go to a place, a right to speak out against those policies. there's nothing wrong with mayor of boston doing the same thing. >> boycotts are free speech. >> what the mayor of boston is doing is trying to use government. that's inappropriate. i think -- i completely agree. you have a right not to go to chick-fil-a. i have never been to chick-fil-a. they're not kosher. i don't eat there. >> they also sell sausage, egg, and bacon biscuits at chick-fil-a even though they talk about being biblically based. we don't need to have businesses deciding and dictating religious beliefs for everybody else as a consumer. let people make their own choices. this is the kind of country we want to live in. >> that's the problem with mayor

menino. >> i don't want to be a chicken, but we have to end the conversation. i just hope pop eye's doesn't come out because that would hurt me. >> coming up, the dark knight rises star christian bale visits those injured in the aurora shooting. we'll bring you the latest from colorado next. [ alarm buzzes ] [ female announcer ] wake up time, but not for your eyes. they're still so tired looking. with olay challenge that, with regenerist anti-aging eye roller. its hydrating formula with caffeine conditioning complex, perks up the look of eyes. it works in the blink of an eye. perks up the look of eyes. to find you a great deal, even if it's not with us. [ ding ] oh, that's helpful! well, our company does that, too. actually, we invented that. it's like a sauna in here. helping you save, even if it's not with us -- now, that's progressive! call or click today.

no mas pantalones! idide? you're not my dad ahh!! hey honey, back feels better, little dancing tonight, you and me? dr. scholl's pro inserts relieve different types of lower body pain by treating at the source so you're a whole new you. go pro with dr. scholl's. coming up, gun sales are way up in colorado in the wake of friday's massacre. and a veteran journalist says the nra has blood on their hands. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "the ed show." 20 people are still hospitalized in colorado after friday's shooting. the aurora community is still in shock, but they're getting help from hollywood. the dark knight rises star christian bale visited victims in the hospital today. they posted pictures of bale visiting on his facebook page. he released a statement saying i

cannot begin to truly understand the pain and grief of the victims and their loved ones but my heart goes out to them. it's also reported that warner brothers pictures donated a large but undisclosed amount of money to the victims relief fund. the fund was nearing $2 million as of this morning. meanwhile, russell pierce is apologizing for his insensitive remarks related to the shooting. on saturday, he wrote a facebook post blaming the victims of the theater to not have enough courage to stop the shooter. today, he wrote, for those who were offended by my post regarding the shootings in aurora, please accept my apologies. tonight unour survey, i asked will republicans return to supporting republican ideas if they defeat president obama? 66% say yes. 34% say no. coming up, the overwhelming majority of nra members support some type of gun control measures. so why is the nra's leadership so out of touch? stay tuned.

[ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar

car insurance companies say they'll save you by switching, you'd have like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or, "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology, and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save. hassle, time, paperwork, hair-tearing-out, and yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call. with the weak kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the national rifle institution has turned the second amendment of the constitution into a cruel hoax, a cruel and deadly hoax. >> that was journalist bill moyers of pbs commenting on friday's deadly rampage in colorado. in recent years, the nra's

intense lobbying effort have made it next to impossible to pass any kind of gun control measures through the halls of congress. but the nra was not always such a mill tnlt group of right-wing idelogs as adam winkler writes in his 2011 book "gun fight" for most of its history, they promoted reasonable gun control laws. it wasn't until the 1977 nra meeting that a radical faction turned the nra into the fierce anti-gun control lobbying machine it is today. as the "new york times" wrote of the reporting in the case of nra hardliners, they succeeded in pushing the group to the right, riding the wave of conservatism that helps bring ronald reagan to the white house lrb since then, the gun lobby has become even more militant to the point that which many members not only reflexively oppose any attempt to regulate guns as leading to a sliply slope to involuntary

disarmament, but also attack those who advocate for gun control, including police chiefs and heads of associations. joining me is mark. welcome to the show. >> thanks for having me. >> your group founded nra members, actually support measures, so why are they so out of step with what seems to be a broader understanding of the necessity of gun control? >> i think there's a couple reasons. one thing you can't escape and that is really the story waiting to be told is that the gun industry has been in a slow and steady decline from the early 1970s, as the population becoming more urban and less rural, fewer and fewer households are buying guns. as a result, the gun industry is forced to rely on selling more and more gus to a smaller and smaller pool of people to maintain their profit margeage. it's hard to do that unless the

gun lobby becomes the trade association for the firearms industry and operates on a business model of fear and paranoia which has what they have done. >> they ratchet things up in ord toor have a commercial bottom line be met? >> you have to look at what they have been saying about president obama. for those of us who want reasonable restrictions after things like the tucson shooting, he has been a disappointment, but to the nra, he's the guy just waiting to take your gun rights away after the next election. bear in mind in three-plus years in office, he has signed two bills into law that expanded gun rights. it's the nra doing what they need to do to whip people into a frinzy to buy more guns and vote the way they want them to vote. >> carolyn mccarthy said her colleagues lack a spine when it comes to the nra. do you agree with that assessment? >> some of them do and some of them don't. places like virginia which are pretty tough and right down the middle politically, governor kaine has stood up to the nra

and won and perhaps will continue to win this time around. in places like new mexico and colorado, lots of folks in difficult states who kind of co-sponsor bills that are kind of right down the middle that respect the second amendment but also would do much more to keep guns out of the wrong hands. most elected officials are rational actors untheir own self interests, which means they know people in their own districts of their state want reasonable controls including most nra members, but they know if they co-sponsor the wrong thing or vote for the wrong thing, they're going to lose a few votes. they're going to have a guy show up at their town hall meeting with a gun in their waistband, they may get an orange postcard that the nra sends out. we know that the nra's big ilesion is that it defeats incumbents, it rarely does. when members of congress can't turn the folks on our side of the issue for political support, for demonstrable grass roots support, they find themselves

doing the wrong thing when they know better. >> since friday, gun sales are up in colorado. are you surprised by that? in 30s seconds, tell me. >> you often see this after a mass shooting. frankly, it's because people are afraid. they may go out and buy a gun, they may go out and get a conceal and carry permit. some may be that the nra continues to whip up a frenzy. when there's a mass shooting, folks in the nra become concerned there's. go to be a renewed attempt to promote what they call gun control, but it rarely happens. >> that's "the ed show." i'm michael eric dyson in for ed schultz. the "rachel maddow show" show starts now. ezra klein is filling in again for rachel tonight. good evening. >> how are you doing? >> fine, my friend. how are you? >> i'm all right. thank you very much, and thank you to you at home for sticking around for the next hour. rachel has the night off, but we