weekend. hatch has been on this show saying he'd push to ban it. the law says it has, since the '70s, under a democratic congress, no federal money pays for abortions. it has been the law of the land, now they're trying to change it. >> whatever the merits are, this is as ruben said and you're saying now, this is just a fight that president obama does not need. there are other problems with the health care bill, first of all, what it's going to look like, is there going to be a true public option, how are you going to pay for this trillion-dollar program. you don't need to add in a hot-button issue like abortion. to most americans, abortion is a settled issue. >> the rights to abortion. >> don't bother us about it. >> he goes over to see the pope and says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, the same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? you can't do that. >> i think last week is a week the white house would like to have back. he has certain responsibilities. he did moscow, rome, ghana. at the same time he's saying, i want to have this health care

bill by august. it's mid-july. >> i think he's got to drop all unnecessary features and go with the substance. rahm emanuel, take from it here. the rahm emanuel role is only one he cannot accept defeat here. he can't afford the trappings like abortion and paying for abortion as something a critical health iressue. >> the strategy is as rahm emanuel would say, don't accept defeat, we're going to get this done, be very definitive and positive in your remarks. bush made that mistake with regard to immigration. he treated it like it was a done deal. people don't like hearing that. it takes congress and says, we don't care, we're going to get this done regardless. like bush had a policemen with members of his party on immigration, likewise obama on health care. they've got to be positive but they've got to understand and be respectful of congress. stop saying it's on done deal, it's not a done deal.

>> thank you, ruben simon. join us again tomorrow night at 5:00 and 7:00 eastern for more "hardball." right now it's time for "the ed show" with ed schultz. i'm ed schultz. this is "the ed show." good evening, americans. live from 30 rock in new york, it's "the ed show" on msnbc. well, dick cheney back in the news. broke the law. now the pr war has started with chairwoman liz cheney in charge of the pr. she's throwing sand in our eyes saying democrats are dangerous to america. congressional hearings are on the way. we'll talk about it. sonia sotomayor admits she made a bad choice of words eight years ago on the stage but republicans just won't let it go. a top committee member will join us tonight on the program at the bottom of the hour.

the house says, yes, we can get health care done this year. they rolled out a historic plan today. president obama gives it a thumbs up. chairman george miller's going to be joining me on the program coming up in the next hour. plus "psycho talk." we've got a place panel coming up. i want you to get your phone out. we really want to know what you think about cheney and what's unfolding. >> first, tonight's "op ed." i think this could be the tip of the iceberg, folks. congressional hearings are on the way. documents are being gathered. and the pr war has already started. we do know tonight there will be house intelligence committee hearings concerning the secret cia programs that congress was never briefed on. documents are being collected from the cia and the past administration. the american people will find out if laws were broken and why the congress was kept in the dark. in the meantime, liz cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, has started this pr campaign.

she did it here this morning on msnbc. she claims daddy didn't do anything wrong and no laws were broken. while admitting she doesn't know anything about what he did or didn't do. try to follow this, folks. >> did your father prevent any information on anything from going to congress? did he authorize that, did he tell anyone to keep information from congress? >> well, he -- this is clearly a classified program, and he doesn't talk about classified programs and won't comment on it. so i want to be clear that i'm not here to speak for him. if guidelines or laws were broken, do you think that it should be looked into and that people should be prosecuted? >> laws were not broken. >> if your father did not urge the cia to withhold information from congress, wouldn't this go away? if he could just come out and say that? >> it really clearly looks like, you know, it's an effort to sort of filibuster here. you know, i think speaker pelosi knows that she made a mistake when she stood up in her press

conference and suggested that the cia has been lying to the congress for years. there is absolutely, you know, nothing at this point that i think frankly anybody could say that would give get the democrats off of this passth path of we're going to politicize intelligence, we're going to have investigations, we're going to put the nation in the situation where the cia is more focused on responding to congressional, political investigations than on defending the nation going forward. and that's dangerous. and the responsibility for that is going to be on the hands of the democrats. >> you know, her answers almost qualify her for "the gong show." don't you have to have a lot of information to make an absolute statement that there were no laws broken? now, beyond that, she claims this is all about political cover for nancy pelosi, speaker of the house? she's not under any political heat or any fire here. liz cheney, in my opinion, is dazed and very confused. on one hand, she says she can't

confirm her dad withheld information from the congress. but she's sure no laws were broken. liz cheney has zero credibility at this point. once again, here we have a righty playing on the fears and the emotions of the american people. and who really doesn't know what to make of all of this. let me ask you this. who doesn't want to take out al qaeda leaders? who doesn't want to fight terrorists? they're trying to make the case the democrats don't. this is about alleged law-breaking and secret government operations, and that has the attention of a few americans. joining me now is house intelligence committee chairman sylvester reyes. good to have you with us tonight. i want to know when these hearings are going to start. what wheels are in motion? i was told today by jan chakowski who sits on your committee you're already collecting documents from the cia and the bush administration. give us an update. what's going on here? >> well, first of all, we

haven't made a decision yet. we're in the early stages of gathering documentations. we sent a letter to director panetta, who by the way has been very cooperative in this whole process. but this week, i intend to sit down and consult with the ranking member, peter hoekstra, from michigan. then we'll decide a way forward on this. >> do you think there will be hearings? i'm getting somewhat mixed messages here. i heard from the congresswoman from chicago that there will be hearings. what's happening here? >> well, ed, there's a lot of speculation about whether or not hearings will be held. the truth of the matter is, we have not made a decision yet. that decision i anticipate will be made sometime this week. it's still early in the process. and we're following the committee process. >> now, your house intelligence committee as other committees have subpoena power when you

hold these hearings. would it be your intention to call dick cheney in and get him under oath and find out what was going on and find out why your committee and over on the senate side, why they were held in the dark? >> well, certainly -- first thing we have to do is make a decision to go forward. second, we need to formulate a plan of the process that we're going to use to conduct these hearings. but it's premature to speculate at this point who we would want to talk to and whether or not we were going to be using subpoenas. i think i'll leave that speculation to others and just tell you that as soon as we follow the process of the committee we'll make that decision, those decisions. >> can you tell us, do you personally think there should be hearings? >> i'm going to reserve my opinion, because i'm the chairman of the committee and i really need to follow the consultation process with the ranking members.

>> well, i commend you, chairman reyes. because if this was all about politics, you would have just told me, absolutely, ed, we've got to have these hearings, we've got to move forward. so you're telling our audience tonight that you are doing the due diligence before these hearings take place, and you're not ready to commit right now. but that's where this is all headed. >> that's correct. we want to make sure we have the facts before we make those decisions. >> all right. chairman reyes, good to have you with us tonight here on the program. >> nice to be with you, ed. >> i think the american people can pretty much deduce where this is all going. joining me now is former cia counterterrorism chief vincent canastero, a 27-year cia veteran who has served in the middle east, africa and europe. he was also the director for intelligence programs at the national security council under president reagan. i want to make it very clear, vincent, i'm not asking you to come on here tonight to make any kind of political statement or

take any kind of political position on this. i just want to talk about operations of a secret program. unless i'm missing something, i thought we have these drones out there over afghanistan that are taking out al qaeda operatives all the time. we're taking shots at people all the time, are we not? what constitutes a secret program? >> of course. we're trying to kill al qaeda leaders around the world, particularly in northern pakistan and southern afghanistan. that's been going on since 9/11. when president bush declared war on the enemy that attacked us first. so when people talk about an assassination squad, it's misleading. because it's not assassination if it takes place within the context of a war scenario. so what we're talking about is how do you get at the enemy target? and if that's al qaeda, can you drop them with a bomb? yes. can you shoot them with a gun? yes. it's the same thing.

>> so what kind of program would be held in secret, in your opinion? give sinus options here. >> the program that was held in secret was not a program. the problem was, it was peripheral planning that never took actuality. in fact, married went on at the pentagon under special forces under secretary of defense rumsfeld, and that operation was misbegotten and it had some very bad results. there were a couple of operations taking place by military special forces, going to places and going after terrorist targets. in one case, the cia was not told, the american ambassador in the country in particular was not told. and the person that was killed was the wrong person. so that showed -- >> mr. cannistera, could you tell us, would it be possible that maybe american citizens might have been targeted in this

program? >> no, i don't believe american targets were targeted by the program. as i said, the program never actually reached the point of being activated. >> should the congress have been briefed? should the congress have been briefed on it? >> only when it reaches a certain level. basically, if you're just talking about the possibility and speculating on it, but you haven't actualized the program, there's nothing to brief yet. so were the brokens briefed? of course they were. were actual operations briefed? yes, they were. was a possible operation that didn't take place get briefed? at what level do you do it? what stage do you do it? in my judgment, it hadn't reached the first stage for briefing. >> okay, thank you for joining us here on "the ed show." joining me is katrina van den hoof, editor of "the nation." where do the american people stand on this? i think the american people want hearings and i think they want full disclosure.

this is tip of the iceberg? >> i think it is the tip of the iceberg. if dick cheney ordered the cia to deceive the congress, this is a violation of law, he violated his oath of office. the american people deserve a system that works. for eight year, dick cheney and his lawless lawyers battered our constitution and checks and balances. those sound like process words but it's the core of our system. it's not democratic or republican. the bush/cheney administration violated so many laws that it is the tip of the iceberg. we need in my view a 9/12 commission to go back and look at the systemic use of torture, to look at the warrantless wiretapping which a recent inspector general's report pointed out was ineffective. if we're going to fix our system and ensure that the american people get some oversight by a congress that needs to reassert itself, yeah, i think the american people are on board. but it can't be perceived as politics. and it isn't. it's about restoring our democratic system, which if

falling apart is going to make us less safe. >> what do you make of the comments the democrats are doing this because they want to give political cover to nancy pelosi? i guess my response to that, and i want yours obviously, what would motivate leon panetta to tell the house and senate intel committees, by the way there were programs going on you didn't know about, to cover something for nancy pelosi? >> there's a long history of the cia and then of the bush/cheney administration misleading congress. what's the core of this is torture. and i believe that the republicans and the legacy of -- you've got the cheney family tour out there. they're trying to distract and deflect from abuses of law. and we need the facts, ed. we need the facts and that's why we need here -- until 1976 the church commission, people should go back and look at, that tried to fix a broken system. that's what we have now. we need to rein in an executive, whoever it is, republican or democratic, and restore the system of checks and balances. >> how much pressure do you think the white house will get

to make sure these hearings take place? i mean -- >> we need to bring the pressure. because -- listen. there are -- it would be great to see former military -- they call them jags, the lawyers. those inside the cia who understand that their system has been deformed and that the integrity of an intelligence system or a military, if it's politicized as it was so heavily under the bush administration, makes us all less secure. but americans deserve the truth. it is not politics. it is about fixing a broken system. and it is as important as the 9/11 commission. but we need to do it and get the information that we didn't get under 9/11 commission. for example, revelations, ed. four former intelligence officials have said that dick cheney ordered waterboarding to elicit false information from an iraqi official to justify the iraq/al qaeda connection, which never existed. so the cancer is also the iraq war, which the bush

administration, you remember joe wilson. defamed joe wilson because they wanted to take down anyone who stood in their way, and the torture and all this brutality -- >> it goes to other policies as well. the energy policy. the secret meetings that took place in the summer of 2001. cooking the books on energy policy. we deserve to know about that. >> i think the obama administration came to office and said, accountability. do we want to be the country that wants the 11 vleviathan wrd in secrecy that cheney gave sinus. >> and so crucial for our history and our country going forward. >> thanks character trina of "the nation." get your phones out. i want to know what you think. will dick cheney face prosecution? text "a" for yes, "b" for no. the number on your screen, 622639, we'll bring you the

results. next up, the house unveiled its health care bill today. chairman george miller joins me next on "the ed show" to tell us, okay, how the rich are going to pay for it. rich folks, better watch your wallet. it's coming up next on "the ed show." has the fastest serve in the history of professional tennis. so i've come to this court to challenge his speed. ...on the internet. i'll be using the 3g at&t laptopconnect card. he won't. so i can book travel plans faster, check my account balances faster. all on the go. i'm bill kurtis and i'm faster than andy roddick. (announcer) "switch to the nations fastest 3g network" "and get the at&t laptopconnect card for free". women who drink crystal light drink 20% more water. crystal light. make a delicious change.

it's what doctors recommend most for headaches. for arthritis pain... in your hands... knees... and back. for little bodies with fevers.. and big bodies on high blood pressure medicine. tylenol works with your body... in a way other pain relievers don't... so you feel better... knowing doctors recommend tylenol...

more than any other brand of pain reliever. who can give you the you have questions. who can give you the financial advice you need? where will you find the stability and resources to keep you ahead of this rapidly evolving world? these are tough questions. that's why we brought together two of the most powerful names in the industry. introducing morgan stanley smith barney. here to rethink wealth management. here to answer... your questions. morgan stanley smith barney. a new wealth management firm

trying to scare you saying we can't change the health care system. we have no choice but to change the health care system. because right now, it's broken for too many americans. >> that was president obama on the road today speaking to folks in the great state of michigan. and house democrats rolled out their health care bill today, and president obama as you heard gave ate thumbs up. the president has put the pressure on congress to get a health care bill to his desk this year. speaker nancy pelosi assured the president that the house was on track. >> inaction is not an option for us. that is why we're still on schedule to do what we have planned, to vote on this legislation before we leave for the august recess. >> ahead of the announcement, speaker pelosi said the bill won't be the final product. leaders are willing to make changes to get democrats like the blue dogs on board. time is of the essence for the

democrats both in the house and senate. joining us is one of the house leaders in this effort, congressman george miller of california. he is the chairman of the education and labor committee who has worked countless hours on this, i know. george, tell us, is this a good deal for the american people tonight? >> it's a very, very good deal for the american people. it's what they said they wanted during the campaign. it's what they asked the president to bring to the congress. he charged us with getting us a plan that would hold down costs, that would let people keep the plans, if they like what they have they can keep it, to get rid of pre-existing conditions that tear away insurance for so many american families exactly at the time they need it, and to make sure that never again would americans be without health insurance. >> and what kind of concessions, chairman miller, did you have to make to get the blue dogs on board? they've been toeing a tough line here. what did you have to do to appease them? >> we've had ongoing discussions with not just the blue dogs but

many in our caucus because of the unfairness and the manner in which medicare now reimburses various hospitals and localities and doctors for medical procedures and practices that take place. and so we put in a provision to change that, to do a study, to make sure that we're taking into account modern medicine, that we're not still reimbursing people based upon the medicine of the 1950s and the 1970s, as opposed to what we now know can be done to drive down costs. because the goal of the president was that we would drive down costs, we would slow down the increases that have been taking place and been crushing businesses and crushing families. >> yeah. well, you know, i'm reading now that the congressional budget office is saying tonight that this is going to cost just over $1 trillion. and it's going to leave 17 million americans uninsured. what about that? >> well, it's going to -- i think the cbo number is right around $1 trillion. that was the goal for this. over half of that, over $500 billion, will be from internal

savings of waste, fraud, abuse, and bad medical practices that are taking place every day, costing businesses and families a lot of money. the other will be from revenues that will be raised in the ways and means committee in the next few days. i think the senate's looking at a similar type of approach. this is the cost of reform. but what this will do is slow down the growth in medical cost, it will slow it down for families, slow it down for businesses, make it more affordable, and make sure that everybody has -- we think 97% of the american people will be covered by this plan so they'll never again have to go without insurance. >> let's talk about the money and where the american people are. one poll out there, a "usa today"/gallup poll, paying for health care, require employees to pay, 61% of the american people want that. 58% say tax the wealthy. 52% say tax sugary soft drinks. there will be a tax increase, will there not. >> there will be. there will be a tax increase. revenues have to be provided.

we're adding 50 million people to the system and we're making reforms wind the system. so that's necessary. >> the rich folks are going to have to bite the bullet, the plus 250 grand a year crowd, is that right? >> i think it may be the people plus 350,000 a year per individual, and $500,000. you're really talking about a tax on millionaire families. >> congressman, when are we going to see action on this in the house? is this on the fast track? this week, next week? what do you think? >> the education and labor committee will start tomorrow. i believe the energy and commerce and ways and means will start on thursday. and we hope to be finished before the weekend, or during the weekend if we have to stay to complete it. >> okay. a giant step here today in health care coverage. thank you, congressman miller, appreciate your time tonight. next up on "the ed show," "psycho talk." why karl rove thinks informing the congress is dangerous. it's next in "psycho talk." he won't disappoint you. g b

for me to keep my bones strong but even with calcium, vitamin d, and exercise, i still got osteoporosis. i never thought i could do more than stop my bone loss. then my doctor told me i could, with once-monthly boniva. boniva works with your body to help stop and reverse bone loss. studies show, after one year on boniva, nine out of ten women stopped and reversed their bone loss. i know i did. (announcer) don't take boniva if you have low blood calcium, severe kidney disease or can't sit or stand for at least one hour. follow dosing instructions carefully. stop taking boniva and tell your doctor if you have difficult or painful swallowing, chest pain or severe or continuing heartburn, as these may be signs of serious upper digestive problems. if jaw problems or severe bone, joint, and/or muscle pain develop, tell your doctor. i've got this one body, and this one life, so i wanted to stop my bone loss. but i did more. i reversed it with boniva. ask your doctor if boniva can help you stop losing, and start reversing. (announcer) for a free trial offer, call 1-800-4-boniva.

♪ ♪ which one's me - for a cool convertible or an suv? ♪ ♪ too bad i didn't know my credit was whack ♪ ♪ 'cause now i'm driving off the lot in a used sub-compact. ♪ ♪ f-r-e-e, that spells free credit report dot com, baby. ♪ ♪ saw their ads on my tv ♪ thought about going but was too lazy ♪ ♪ now instead of looking fly and rollin' phat ♪ ♪ my legs are sticking to the vinyl ♪ ♪ and my posse's getting laughed at. ♪ ♪ f-r-e-e, that spells free- credit report dot com, baby. ♪

welcome back to "the ed show." it's another edition of "psycho talk" and we've got the all-american blossom himself front and center tonight. karl rove. he's talking from the same playbook as liz cheney. rove appeared on fox news as he always does. he was asked about cheney allegedly ordered the cia to keep congress in the dark about a program to kill or capture al

qaeda operatives. rove came out with this dandy. >> the cia briefed congress to this i guess in june and congress immediately leaks it. that in itself is a violation i think of several statutes. and indicative of why it is so dangerous to give congress information. so congress is saying, we want you to brief us, we the left wing in congress want you to brief us on ideas you have, not necessarily on programs. >> let's be clear. this was not an idea. this was a plan. the "wall street journal" reports the civity a spent money on planning and possibly some training. it's also the law. the law states that congress has to be briefed on any activities within the cia. we're talking about concealing information from the congress? we've seen what happens when there isn't proper oversight. waterboarding, torture, just to name a few. my favorite comment through all of this has got to be, it's dangerous to give congress information. now, i guess we should kind of understand what's going on here,

because rove continually ignored subpoenas to testify before congress. i guess we should just trust people like cheney with the knowledge of these programs. i'll give you one thing, rove. you are the authority when it comes to leaks. that's "psycho talk." when you're on a diet hungry just won't quit. but you can outsmart him with weight watchers online. it's weight watchers, but it's completely online. customizable tools give you structure to make healthier choices while restaurant guides, recipes, and mobile access give you flexibility

to live life and lose weight. sign up now and get two weeks free. go to weightwatchers.com/2weeksfree. hurry offer ends august 4th weight watchers online. stop dieting. start living. and it lets you do some pretty incredible things. you can copy a phone number... and paste it in a text. you can copy an article...

and paste it in an e-mail. or you can copy a map... and well, you get the idea. copy and paste, on the iphone 3gs.

short nominee sonia sotomayor faced her first round of questioning in the senate today. the republicans did exactly what i expected. they kept harping on her about a comment about being a wise latina woman, a comment she made in a speech back in 2001. but the judge stayed cool under fire and gave a classy, reasonable response. >> people have read these speeches and have concluded that you believe that gender and ethnicity are an appropriate way for judges to make decisions in

cases. >> the words i chose, taking the rhetorical flourish, is a bad idea. if you look at my history on the bench, you will know that i do not believe that any ethnic, gender, or race group has an advantage in sound judging. you noted that my speech actually said that. and i also believe that every person, regardless of their background and life experiences, can be good and wise judges. >> joining me now is nbc's kelly o'donne o'donnell. kelly, that of course i thought made a lot of news today and a lot of folks commenting on that. also the questions of temperament came up later on this afternoon. how do the supporters of the judge feel she fared through all of that? >> there are two very different ways of looking at the day's events. supporters of judge sonia sotomayor feel they didn't lay a glove on her.

that was a phrase from one senior administration official. meaning the republicans did not draw the blood that perhaps they had hoped to. also, i think widely viewed that she composed herself well, she was prepared. it was a grueling day by anyone's standards. i think anyone can feel a sense of sympathy for her, to be under those hot lights and facing tough questions all day long. it was difficult in that there were repeated questions about the remarks, the wise latina remarks that have gotten so much attention. she did use that kind of idea several times over several speeches in ten years and the republicans were chipping away, trying to find out if she believed that could influence what you could do on the bench. she tried in a number of cases to say she could separate to be what she believed is the richness of experience from the rule of law. she also distanced herself from president obama, who had said he wanted a judge with empathy. empathy was never a word sonia sotomayor used, that was the

president's word. she said she disagreed, that she didn't believe that was in a judge's heart, which was another phrase president obama used when he was a senator, she didn't believe that was appropriate in looking at cases. so she had a rigorous day. it's always intended to be that when you have a confirmation hearing. more of it coming up tomorrow. but when democratic senators were questioning her, she had a little bit more breathing room, because of course they were pointing out a number of the things that they believe are more flattering and more enlightening about her record on the bench. ed? >> and this, of course, kelly, is a big story across the country with independents and really conservatives. and that is the second amendment. how do supporters of the judge feel like she fared through that early this morning? >> well, that was a contentious point. she, according to those who back her, say that she handled it well. that she was very clear about following the law. and that is one of those issues that really is a dividing line. one of the cultural touchstones in the country. so is abortion. she was asked about that in the sense that she was asked about

the right to privacy, which is often code getting you to the subject of abortion. she said she believes the constitution does provide a right to privacy and that roe versus wade is settled law. that's an answer very similar to what justices alito and roberts also said a few years ago when they were appearing before the senate judiciary too. on some of those key issues that are often really the crux of a confirmation hearing, those made fewer headlines than the issues about ethnicity, ethnic pride, and personal experiences and how those might overlap into making decisions. that was really the emphasis today. and sonia sotomayor had to say it many times. and in fact, ed, she got down to really simple language, saying it fell flat, it was a big mistake, really simple words to try to retract what she had called an attempt to inspire young people, especially young attorneys, in those speeches several years ago. >> thank you, kelly o'donnell. thanks for joining us tonight here on "the ed show."

nbc's kelly o'donnell with us. joining me is senator ben cardin, member of the senate judiciary committee. day one is down to the questioning, senator. how do you think judge sonia sotomayor, how do you think she fared today? >> ed, i think she did very well. she answered all the questions rather thoroughly. it's interesting that they are picking on a statement she made in the speech, and they can't find anything in the cases that she decided to quibble with. in fact, it was senator graham who pointed out that her decisions fall wind the mainstream. and i think that's what we ultimately will judge her is by her record. >> were you surprised that senator graham brought up the point made by anonymous sources about her temperament? how did you view that moment? >> well, he quoted from an al-may almanac that lawyers respond to. that almanac also had favor an things to say about judge sotomayor. she is known as being a

well-prepared judge that questions the attorneys that are before her, who is engaged in the cases to make sure there's thorough debate and discussion. that's the characteristics that you want on the bench. then we looked at the way that she handled herself before the united states senate judiciary committee today. it's that type of demeanor that i think will serve her well on the supreme court of the united states. >> you think the republicans are being easy on her? or -- i mean, it just seems like this whole process the last couple of days has been so newsless. if that's -- i know that's not even a word. but there just hasn't been any real big developments through all of this. so it brings me to the question, this is a slam dunk? >> well, i think the judiciary committee has handled itself very professionally. both democrats and republicans. i think they've reflected the -- what the process should be about. and that is asking their questions, there have been tough questions asked, there's to question about it. i think there's been serious questions raised. i agree with you. when you look at her background,

she has the most experience in any nominee in 100 years. she has trial court experience. she has appellate court experience. she's a state prosecutor -- >> you just said it's a slam dunk, i thought you'd say that. >> i think she's going to be confirmed. absent something coming out of these hearings, what senator graham said, absent a meltdown, she'll be confirmed. i think she'll be confirmed. >> senator ben cardin, thanks for joining us tonight. for more, let's turn to our panel. bill press, jack rice, former cia officer, and susan molinari. susan, let's start with you tonight. are the republicans going easy on the judge? what do you think? >> i think the republicans -- excuse my voice, i'm getting over a cold -- the republicans are doing what the republicans set out to do. this was a woman who has a great story to tell. she has a great record. she has by and large made decisions in the mainstream. she has said some things that

have caused some question. particularly in light of the recent reversal -- in connecticut, reverse discrimination suit. i think there may be -- i think they're being respectful. i think they're asking the questions that need to be asked. i think you're right, i think it's a slam dunk. >> bill press, if there was a kitchen sink in this, i think it was thrown today. talking about her term permanent and harping on this comment of eight years ago. if they've got to go back eight years on a personal comment, which she called a youtube moment. if you look at the youtube, you know, you come to an company conclusion. if you look at the whole speech, it's something else. is the worst over? >> you know, absolutely. first of all, i've got to say i think if you're looking for somebody with judicial temperament, boy did we see it on display today. i mean, i don't know -- ed, i know you pretty well. you and i would have been in their face. >> i'd have been over the desk. there's no doubt about that. >> i would have been punching them out. she was calm. she was thoughtful. she was collected. she was respectful. and i disagree with some of the

other comments that have been made, i thought the republicans today came across as mean, as nasty, as ugly, and personal attacks on sonia sotomayor. they did not hurt her, but i think they hurt themselves today. they never talked about the cases except the one new haven case. it was all about lines in speeches that she had given. what have they been doing? i thought they were studying her cases for the last few weeks. excuse me, bill press. that is something that senator obama raised when he was in the united states senate. when he looked at judicial activism. he went back, i think it was in justice robert's case, and said, looking back at your former speeches, it seems that perhaps your judicial activism philosophy does not agree. they were just copying president obama. >> i sense she's had 3,000 decisions, 3,000 cases, they never talked about that. >> you know what, bill -- >> let me get jack rice in here. jack, i think you come from a profession where keeping your cool is pretty important. did she pass the test today?

>> yeah. i'm with you, actually. i'm kind of shocked she didn't jump up off the table and land on half the people on the bench. it's shocking here. i really think that the republicans are making a mistake here. they're going to lose this fight. they know they're going to lose this fight. this is clearly about one thing. it's about scoring political points right now. if what they're doing is pandering to rush limbaugh, sessions may have won. if he's trying to convince the rest of america he's mainstream, he may have a very serious problem. >> let's get the response from the panel tonight of the comment senator jeff sessions, the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee, said today about a ruling. here it is. >> you voted not to reconsider the prior case. you voted to stay with the decision of the circuit. and in fact, your vote was the devote. had you voted with judge cabranas, also of puerto rican an sisterty, had you voted with

him, you could have changed that case. >> bill press, because judge cabranas is a puerto rican, what does that have to do with anything? >> let me say something, ed. i want to be careful here. jeff sessions is the last one who should be talking to a latina about racism, or even raising it. to put the southern white senator who called the naacp unamerican, right, one time. i mean, come on. >> jack rice, your response to that comment? >> i think jeff sessions should keep his head down and try not to get it blown off. >> susan, is that a defendable comment? that comment about -- she say puerto rican ancestor? >> i'm not really sure where he was going with that. i think it's a legitimate question to ask about this decision. but the ancestry of anyone making that decision isn't really pertinent. >> susan, we're all rooting for you tonight with the problems

you've got with your voice. >> it's probably a good night to have laryngitis. >> that's right. i tell you, having lived in the coal country for 30 years, i can give you a quick medical tip at no charge. how about some tea and honey later tonight. that will help you out a lot. panel, stay with us. we're going to be coming back. coming up, i'm starting to think that we didn't learn anything from the financial crisis. a bailed-out bank is back in the black with your tax dollars? and taking almost as much risk at it did during the you're era. summer clearance is here,

and it's the best time to get some of the best deals. get in now and get the chrysler town & country with a generous cash allowance, or 0% financing for 60 months. the trail rated jeep grand cherokee also comes with a cash allowance or 0% financing for 60 months. or choose a hard working all new dodge ram truck with a cash allowance that's tough to beat. all with our best in the business lifetime powertrain warranty. so hurry come see the deals we've built for you at the dodge chrysler and jeep summer clearance.

chef's meal with pommes frites perhaps a night at the theater with extra special seats additional hotel night, our treat your world in perfect harmony: priceless look for world on your mastercard to get rewards and offers that matter to you.

look for world on your mastercard announcer: here's ryan getting ready to make his approach... to the men's room. second announcer: looks like he needs to go urgently. true. and there's casey, about to drive... also to the men's room. he has been going over and over. they ought to see their doctors. could be male urinary symptoms due to bph, an enlarged prostate. for many guys, prescription flomax reduces their urinary symptoms due to bph in one week. and if their doctors do prescribe flomax, they could get up to $40 off new or refill prescriptions. so guys already on flomax can also save. only your doctor can tell if you have bph, not a more serious condition like prostate cancer. avoid driving or hazardous tasks for 12 hours after your first dose or increase in dose, as a sudden drop in blood pressure may occur, rarely resulting in fainting. if considering cataract surgery, tell your eye surgeon you've taken flomax. common side effects are runny nose, dizziness and decrease in semen. ask your doctor if flomax is right for you. and call 877-4-flomax for more information and to see if you qualify for up to $40 off new or refill prescriptions. for many men, flomax can make a difference in one week.

in my "playbook" tonight, we're talking about goldman sachs. boy did they hit it right. goldmanmade a lot of money the last quarter. more than any analyst expected that they would make. we're talking billions. $3.4 billion, to be exact. now you know where i stand on all of this. there's nothing wrong with making money. i mean, it's a good thing. we need companies to make money to keep the economy going. here's my concern. that's the risk. goldman's quarterly report shows it's taking more risk. it was risky practices that got us into this economic crisis and this mess in the first place. joining me now is contributing editor of "rolling stone," matt taibbi. he has a story in the current edition, goldman sachs, titled "the inside great american bubble machine." how do they manage this? you've been on this all along.

how do they manage this? >> this is really just a big government subsidy, really. even apart from the money goldman got, the billions they got through the aig bailout, when goldman converted to holding status last year that made them eligible to issue about $28 billion in government-backed debt. basically, the government gave goldman a ton of cheap money and they lent it back out to the economy at higher rates and that's why they're making all this money. it's really just a handout from the government. >> matt, this is the double standard that we've been talking about on this program. why is it, and this is kind of out of the realm of the story, but why is it that the government is so quick to play with our tax dollars on wall street, yet they're so tight with the dollar when it comes to giving money to small businesses? >> that's the problem. i mean, this was the political decision we all made last fall. we gave all these banks, not just goldman, a ton of money. and ostensibly so that they would kick start the academy and create jobs. but instead, as we've seen, they just decided to keep it and turn it into bonuses. that's where we are right now.

>> okay. but doesn't this give some on wall street ammunition to come back to the congress and say, see? we're honest brokers and honest players. you gave us a break, we cleaned it up, we don't need any oversight. where's that going? >> well, i mean, it's absurd. they're just making money on a straight subsaid did it rye now. they're going to try to claim they're free and clear because they paid back the t.a.r.p. money but that was only a tiny slice of the government patronage they're getting. these massive profits is money we gave them, not money they earned, it's important to keep that in mind. coming up, dick cheney's daughter is back out defending him. liz cheney tells the democrats to quit picking on her dad. she can't stop herself from beating up nancy pelosi and the rest of the democrats. our panel will weigh in on that next right here on "the ed show." ♪

(announcer) transform your water. women who drink crystal light drink 20% more water. crystal light. make a delicious change. introducing the all new chevy equinox. with an epa estimated 32 miles per gallon. and up to 600 miles between fill ups. it's the most fuel efficient crossover on the highway. better than honda cr-v, toyota rav4 and even the ford escape hybrid.

the all new chevy equinox. denise! you've lost weight! it's just all these giant things make me look small. i eat this fiber one yogurt. (mr. mehta) it has five grams of fiber, zero fat, and fifty calories. please, this is too creamy and delicious.

the cheney road show is back on tv. this time liz out defending her dad. he says she's sure dick cheney didn't tell the cia to withhold information from congress. i don't buy that for a minute. let's bring in our panel of jack rice, bill press, susan molinari tonight. i've got to play this sound bite. she in my opinion is trying to hoodwink the country, saying that the democrats are dangerous when it comes to national security. here she is. >> the american people need to understand the very serious and

grave damage this is doing to our intelligence ability. this is dangerous. we've been there before. it didn't work and it makes the country less safe. i think the american people really do have a serious question to ask and are beginning to wonder, are the democrats up to handling national security issues? >> bill press, your response to that? >> first of all, i have to say i admire any any daughter that defends her dad. dick cheney should stop hiding behind his daughter. what's dangerous is engaging in torture, which is an illegal act. what's dangerous is engaging in warrantless wiretapping, which is an illegal act. what's dangerous is keeping congress in the dark about an assassination attempt offal wide deleaders. i've got no problem with trying to sass nasal qaeda leaders. i thought that's what we were all about. but they've got a legal obligation to inform the congress of everything they're doing. they did not, under orders from dick cheney. >> susan molinari, this appears to be coming right out of the old playbook, attack where you're weak. what do you make of her actions

and how aggressive she's been, not only talking about pelosi but lumping the democrats in as far as security is concerned? >> well, look. liz cheney is a friend of mine and i think she's a terrific woman and absolutely will make a great candidate someday, and hopefully someday soon. i think liz cheney is just doing what she thinks is right in terms of being an influencer and opinionmaker. i think this whole thing -- you want to have a debate, bill press agrees with the opinions. we heard it from chairman reyes today. i think the democrats are going to get into some very dangerous territory if they decide they want to take up the issue as to whether assassins should be trying to kill people who are trying to kill americans -- >> jack price? >> that's not the issue. >> i totally agree. >> let's go to jack rice on this. jack, what do you see as the issue on this? >> without question, this is not the question of whether or not we should be assassinating al qae qaeda. it never was. this is about what the law said. 1947 national security act says if you're going to conduct an

operation, you need to be transparent with congress. you must brief them. and if the vice president thinks that he's the smartest guy in the room, i'm sorry, that's not good enough. if we don't like that, fine. let's change that law. but as it is right now, it does exist. by the way, one last piece here. congressman hoekstra said more than $1 million was spent on this operation. those were his words, not mine. if these were just a half dozen guys drinking cappuccinos and never doing anything beyond the planning stages, that's a lot of drinking. >> that is a lot of drinking. clearly they had something in mind to do something. but the key here is, susan, how do you defend the bush administration if they're breaking the law and not informing congress? here you've got cia director leann panetta going over there, telling the house and senate intel folks, you know there's a program that's been in place and you have vaent known about it. how are they supposed to respond to that? >> look, i do believe that if it is in fact a real thriving problem, there is an obligation