crowded, we'll be on our way. ninth, it will soon be christmas card season. cards and postage are expensive. many have stopped sending them. if this year's postage is heavy with seasons greetings, that will be a good sign. if the office holiday party is at a restaurant instead of the comedy lunch room, that's a good sign as well. that's "hardball" for now. good evening, americans. and welcome to "the ed show." tonight from new york, these stories are hitting my hot buttons at this hour. they're rich, and they're selfish. republicans. they just decided to cutoff unemployment benefits for thousands of desperate american families. what they did today is un-american and shameful. my commentary on that, plus reaction from the democrat who sponsored the bill, congressman jim mcdermott in just a moment. well, fox news president roger ales says npr is nothing but a nazi outfit and the

republicans in congress, well they're carrying his water. i'll take on ales' head first tonight in "the playbook." lefties are telling president obama to do just that, go left. billionaire democratic donor george soros says, it might be time to look elsewhere? what's that mean? is he talking about 2012? that's a heck of a statement. we'll get into it. we'll tackle that one in tonight's "battleground" story purchase. and i was wondering where in the heck was the directingster today, he wasn't on the radio, he wasn't around to respond to reverend al sharpton's comments of being kind of smacked up for the the racist things he's been saying on the air lately. but this is the story that has me fired up tonight. as we head into the holiday season, special time for americans, should point out that millions of americans in need just got stiffed by the republicans in congress. a bill to extend unemployment benefits fell short of the two-thirds' margin needed to pass the house. the vote today was 258-154. now what this means is that at

least 2 million more americans will join the ranks of the 99ers by the end of 2010. the white house pounce said on the republicans for sticking it to the unemployed, while they fight to let millionaires have more tax cuts. robert gibbs, rightfully, put this way. i don't think that we want to leave here having fought for tax cuts for millionaires and against unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs. makes pretty much common sense, doesn't it? well, republicans love to talk about what the american people want. but they really don't have a clue operationally, do they? incoming speaker, mr. boehner, i think you ought to down that glass of merlot and pay attention to this one. according to a new poll from the national employment law project, 73% of voters, 73% of americans, that the republicans like to quote, say it's too early to cut back was about for the unemployed in america.

overall, 60% support an extension versus 37%. who are opposed. now, the american people clearly want to help their neighbors in need, but republicans, do you think they're listening? hell no. today they voted for the 4% of americans who think that the national debt is the most important issue out there. that's how they voted. elected republicans have absolutely no idea what it's like to go hungry or to go without a roof over your head. so just who are these rich folks that don't care? the average weekly unemployment benefit is just 310 bucks a week. pretty much chump change to the suits in washington, isn't it? because according to the center for responsive politics, let's see, the tan man, the guy who's leading the charge on this, well he's worth $3.6 million.

ooh, cantor he's up there at $4.9 million. mitch mcconnell is at $19.9 million in the senate. that's what he's worth. and my buddy, darrell issa, he's worth a cool $303 million. these are the people who are making the decisions on the unemployed in this country. are they selfish? you make the call. the selfish lawmakers in my opinion the republican party they couldn't have picked a worst time to turn their backs on fellow americans. one week from tonight, americans will be enjoying thanksgiving, it's a special time of year, and the republican party's just given million of jobless americans very little to be thankful for. you know, i've said it before, they're heartless, they're clueless, but now they are really cruel. self-centered and un-american to treat unemployed americans like road kill. so i guess what i have said on this program in the 20 months of being here on msnbc with "the ed show," i guess we could say it's been validated tonight. do you than we have never done this? we have never had unemployment this high in america and denied benefits to unemployed people.

this is new territory for america. this is your heartless lawmakers at work. you know the republicans, you know what they could have done? they could have said, we've got the holiday season coming up and there's going to be a lot of people out there who weren't going to have a very good holiday season. we'll extend this into the new year, but we're giving you a warning we're going to cut it off from there. no, they couldn't do that. they couldn't do it. there's a new poll out quinnipiac poll out today saying that for the first time the majority of americans are against the afghan war. where's the republican party on that? they can't get enough of war. but when it comes to unemployed americans, when it comes to americans who are on the verge of getting together as family, as we go to the holiday season, where are they? they're nowhere to be found for

their neighbor. they are heartless and they are cruel. and they are fighting at the same hour for tax cuts for the top 2%. and we have an income disparity in this country. that has never been this great since the great depression. the graphics that have been shown on rachel's show are pretty compelling. so where do you stand as an american tonight? how do you feel about this? is this fair? these people pay insurance, it's unemployment insurance, these are economic times that we haven't seen since the great depression. can we find it in our heart and in our soul to say, well, let's make an exception. let's go just maybe another eight or ten weeks. let's make a special provision here. they can't do it. they wouldn't do it. so 2 million more americans are going to be sitting at the dinner table with nothing on it. you see, this is a kitchen table

issue that the republicans don't care about because now that they've had the supreme court rule in their favor when it comes to unlimited corporate money into their back pockets and into their special interest groups to nail people that they don't like politically, hell they don't care about the unemployed. these folks don't give to campaigns. they're not going to help any republican get re-elected. there's no sense in helping these folks out. we know they're americans. and we know they used to is a job and they used to pay taxes, but hell, they don't matter now. we have to worry about the deficit because you know there's 4% of the american people that are really concerned about that. this is political grandstanding at the expense of a lot of americans who are going to be hurting. political grandstanding from the standpoint that, hey, we want to be the party of fiscal responsibility so let's stick it to the americans who've lost their jobs. you know the people that we outsourced? they are cruel and they are heartless and i can't say it enough. and you millionaires in the congress, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

you are un-american. tell me what you think in our telephone survey tonight. the number to dial is 1-877-ed-msnbc. my question tonight is, does today's vote against extending unemployment benefits disgust you? press the number one for yes. press the number two for no. and i'll bring you the results later on in the show. now, the 99ers are upset with our next guest. congressman jim mcdermott. he is the chairman of the house ways and means subcommittee on income security and family support. he introduced the bill to extend unemployment benefits. and also tonight, we have breaking news, that the house ethics committee has just rendered its suggestive sanction for congressman charles rangel. there was a 9-1 vote to censure rangel and call for him to pay restitution. and of course, we will ask the congressman about that as well. congressman jim mcdermott joins us tonight. congressman, i had to get that

breaking news in. if you can comment on that first, if we could. the discipline that is facing your old friend charlie rangel, you've served in the congress with him for a long time. how do you feel about this? does this go far enough? and what restitution do you have in mind? >> well, it's a sad day when a member of congress comes before the ethics committee and gets a censure. and i feel that charlie knows, in fact he admitted, that there were some reasons why this -- why this is a reasonable thing for them do. i don't know, i haven't had any chance to read what they're talking about with censures so i'd have to look at that before i could make a comment on that part of it. >> has he been wronged in your opinion? >> no, you know, i think that congress people sometimes get going so fast they don't pay attention to the rules. charlie made the point he was not personally enriched by any of this. he was careless and didn't pay attention to the rules.

and did things that rules say you shouldn't do. but it wasn't for a personal enrichment kind of thing. when he's raising money for a college using congressional stationary that's against the rules. you're not supposed to use government things do that. well, that's clearly breaking the rules but it wasn't for his pockets and so i think that every once in awhile somebody just needs to be brought up and people who need to be -- to be made to look at rules so other members see that there are rules around here and you just can't do whatever you want. >> speaker nancy pelosi said that she wanted to drain the swamp. does this go far enough in your opinion? is this drang the swamp and being clean -- ethics? and also, do you want charlie

rangel to stay in the congress? >> i think the people of his district have re-elected him. they know what the issues are. i don't -- and i don't think there's any feeling on the committee to try to expel him and i don't think that would be the right thing do. >> okay? a lot of people have had censures or whatever sanctions and have gone on to good careers so i don't think that this is not the end, but it is bringing him up short and charlie will respond to that. >> congressman jim mcdermott, back to the unemployment story that we started with tonight. you know my passion for it. i've been hard on the republicans, and now it's been absolutely validated, this is who they are. we have never done this in the history of this country with the unemployment this high to deny americans and do it on the verge of the holiday season. what's your response to the vote today. >> well, you're absolutely right. in the 75-year history of unemployment insurance since the act of 1935, we have never denied benefits to people when unemployment was at this level. and your commentary said it all, really. i don't understand how people can say no to unemployment

benefits and turn around in a week or so and be crying and winging around on the floor and saying that we have to give these tax cuts to people who make more than $250,000 a year. i mean it is absolutely insane if you're going to have a just society that the people on the top keep getting more and the people on the bottom you say, hey, too bad. you've been out two years, we paid you two years in benefits. you're done. that's simple not the american way. we have never treated in this society that way. >> and this -- and this vote today definitely tells the 99ers that there's no hope for them because if there's not going to be another vote on this and you're going to have the house -- is going to be controlled by the republicans who voted like this, this pretty much permanently slams the door on the longtime unemployed, doesn't it? >> well, you know, ed, i'm not quite sure because i think those people who are watching your

show and watching the news tonight and the senate is going to be saying, hey, maybe we should do something. and i think what will be the most awful thing is they're going to slap it together with a tax cuts. and say, well we'll extend the tax cuts but we'll also give some unemployment benefits. >> would you be in favor that. >> no if you're going to give $700 billion to people on the top and you're going to give $14 billion to the people on the bottom, that just simply makes it more unfair. and that's exactly what's been going on for the last ten years. to do more of it today would make no sense at all. >> congressman jim mcdermott. great to have you with us tonight. i appreciate your time. thanks so much. coming up, caribou barbie thinks that she can win the presidency, but president obama's biggest threat, politically, might actually be coming from the lefties. "huffington post" co-founder roy sekoff sounds off on tonight's battleground story on that. my crusade against the drugster's disgusting race rants

is picking up steam. reverend al sharpton is calling for the fcc to put the hammer down. joe madison ramps up the heat against limbaugh late on tonight on "the ed show." and fox news propaganda. ales calls public broadcasters nazis. donald trump is talking smack and little old eddie, that would be me, i found out last night that george clooney watches this show. that's pretty cool.

coming up -- one of the biggest businessman in the world just said that china is laughing at the united states and calling us a bunch of fools. this has kind of got a lot of folk's blood boiling including mine. i guess i'm kind of sick and tired of china cheating all of the time and we doing nothing about it. scott paul, the head of the alliance of american manufacturing is fighting the

fight. he's up next.

i have many people from china that i do business with. they laugh at us. they feel we're fools. you know they're getting, away with absolute murder. they're making the products that we used to make in this country, they're making them in china. the donald, he gets it. it's time to tell china, you're fired. china is eating our lunch and they're doing it by cheating. they've cheated created, i should say, an unfair playing field for american workers and american companies and now let me be very clear here. china poses a major threat to this country's economy. and the american people, bottom

line, they're starting to get it. this story's picking up steam. a new poll shows 58% of americans say china's economic power is a threat to the united states. just 35% say china's economic power is an opportunity. now that is a sea change from back in the 1990s, when more americans viewed china as an economic opportunity. for more let's bring in scott paul, executive director of the alliance for american manufacturing. mr. paul, good to have you with us tonight. that interview, of course, got a lot of attention, because donald trump said that he was thinking about running for president. but what caught my attention was that he said things that i haven't heard politicians say. is he saying what has to be said? >> yeah, i think he is and i think we need to say to politicians that don't stand up to china, you're fired as well. that's one of the challenges here, is that it's not that china's taking these jobs, ed.

we're giving them away. and it's been a problem that we've had for the last decade and we haven't seen an administration or a congress willing to stand up to china and we need to do that. and it's not about us being really protectionists. it's about a level playing field. i mean, mr. trump understands that. he was a businessman. and that's what we're asking for as well. and i think it's a real problem when we don't have people in washington that are willing to stand up and say what donald trump is saying. >> well, we don't have elected officials talking the way that trump is talking and what's interesting about this is that it's well documented, that he is a big-time free trader. and donald trump is saying, what, if he's a free trader he doesn't want any level of protectionism. how do you interpret that? what does he want? >> well, he wants what's called rules-base trade, which is where you have reciprocity. it's kind of the golden rule and we don't have that with china right now. we have record trade deficits. we have china cheating on their currency. we have a lot of subsidies. i mean, the house of representatives voted in october to punish china for its currency

manipulation, overwhelmingly. even 99 republicans supported this bill. it's something that the lame duck senate should do. it would pass over overwhelmingly if mitch mcconnell brought it up. i know that sherrod brown wants to do it. and even senator graeme from south carolina wants to do it. which is, you're fired unless you play by the rules and that's what we need people to say. >> so, with the landscape here in america is, we have the anti-union, union-busted mentality, we have the top 2% outsourcing jobs looking for more tax cuts. we have china working us over on a trade deficit that is almost insurmountable that the point and now we've got conservative politicians saying, you know, they're laughing at us. if this doesn't wake up the american people, what will? >> i tell you what, it should. and another -- some public opinion research earlier in year also showed that as many people thought that china the strongest economy in the world, as thought the united states had the strongest economy, which is

again a sea change, ed, from where things were in the '90s. but this is an issue. and trust me, we've been out there talking about this and i know that you have as well. this is an issue where union households, democrats, independents, republicans, and tea party voters all think that we're getting a raw deal from china. the only set that doesn't seem to understand it is the inside the belt way set that's part of both parties and that's kind of what we have to breakthrough there. we have an opportunity with the china currency vote. i hope the senate will take it. the obama administration has the chance to penalize -- >> when is that currency vote? >> well, we're hoping to get it into the lame duck but you know mitch mcconnell and the chamber of commerce and folks like that may be standing in the way, but i tell you what, ed, if that came to a vote it would get at least 70 votes in the senate. there's no doubt about it, and president obama can make a decision on clean energy goods with china, put some tariffs on those. he'll have do that by january but again another opportunity to say that you have to play by the rules. >> you just mentioned the most undercovered story in the media, 70 votes would unleash a real

opportunity for the president to do something in this lame-duck session. that's -- it's big stuff and it relates right to jobs. scott, good to have you with us tonight. thanks so much. >> thanks, ed. coming up, i'll, first to tell you that the beckster slant head and the rest of that crowd over there they're a bunch of blow bag, but freedom of speech. makes america great. a psycho lefty wants them and msnbc to be muzzled? it pains me to do it, but i've got to tell it like it is.

[ female announcer ] olay professional pro-x. sold out online in 17 minutes. beauty editors are raving. the clinical results are astounding. olay professional pro-x. read all about it at olayprofessional.com.

and in "psycho talk" tonight, my friend from west virginia senator jay rockefeller i hope that he's my friend after that but have to call it like i see it. it's unfortunate to throw a left in the "psycho talk" tank, but senator rockefeller this your day. the senator from west virginia dropped this bombshell in the middle of a senate commerce committee hearing. >> i'm tired of the right and the left. there's a whole bug inside of me which wants to get the fcc to say to fox and to -- and to msnbc, out, off, end, good-bye. a big favor to political discourse, our building to do our work here in congress. and to the american people to be able to talk to each other and have some say in their government and in their, more importantly in their future. >> senator, you can't do your work because of what we say?

ever listen to right-wing radio? senator, i think you need to see a doctor to get that bug out of you. first of all, you are dead wrong to compare what we at msnbc do to what those folks across the street do at fox. but ultimately, this really boils down to freedom of speech, doesn't it? all views must be heard, even beck and hannity have a right to speak their mind. it is an archaic attitude and it's archaic thinking, to want to shutdown the editorial process in america. this set we're devoted to hours to cover the mine disaster in your state, senator that killed 29 of your constituents. we covered how the mine owner cut corners on safety and shined a light on the biggest story in west virginia this year. in detail on cable. do you really want to shut that kind of coverage down or do you want to tell us what to say or do you want to pull the plug on free speech altogether because you don't like the way we cover the single payor folks and the health care debate and why they

didn't get a seat at the table during the health care debate? senator rockefeller, the rocks go with the farm. you know that. for you to advocate pulling the plug on free speech to make it easier for you to do your job is shocking "psycho talk." coming up -- let the 2012 circus begin. caribou barbie believes that she'll send president obama packing and trump goes on the stump but what might surprise you is that a lefty is throwing even bigger daggers politically. roy sekoff, "huffington post"co-founder, handicaps the horse race in tonight's "battleground" story. president obama spike the the ball on those righties today. general motors went public and wrong track to get off. money back to the government. that would be a loan, not a bailout. we've got rapid-fire response on that. plus, roger ailes takes a queue from the beckster. tiger spills his guts and i'll tell you about my night with

george clooney. we kind of rubbed elbows and he said, hey, ed. career highlight. you go next ifa

hoveround power chair?

welcome back to "the ed show." the "battleground" story tonight. sarah palin says, she's in. donald trump is weighing a presidential run, and george soros may be looking around for, i guess you could say, a better bet? i think we're in for a wild ride for 2012, don't you? the landscape has changed dram atuckly for president obama. billionaire democratic donor george soros says it might be time for progressives to look elsewhere? what's that mean? in a recent speech at the democracy alliance in washington in week, a meeting of major democratic donors, soros reportedly said, we've just lost this election. we need to draw a line. and if this president can't do what we need, it's time to start looking somewhere else. soros also reportedly said that he is, quote, used to fighting losing battling but he doesn't like to lose without fighting. whether does this all mean? one of soros' advisers was dwoik say that the billionaire is not looking for another candidate in

2012. mr. soros fully supportless the president as the leader of the democratic party. and vachon went on to say that he's not suggesting that we seek another candidate for 2012. he was stressing the importance of progressives being heard by elected officials. the democracy alliance meeting was closed to the media, but "huffington post" got the story from sources inside of the room. i spoke with some of them today and it was very clear that george soros was not happy with the white house, president obama, and the strategy being used and the lack of communication and the lack of fight. so where are we? roy sekoff, founding editor of "the huffington post." take all of that in, buddy. what do you make of it? >> well, you said the right thing, what he was upset about was the lack of fight. he wasn't looking for another candidate, ed. what he was saying was you know we have to be more aggressive, democrats and progressives need to be more aggressive countering this phony narrative that the

republicans keep putting out. and what he's saying is that if the white house is not going to do it, which they haven't seemed really willing do is that money the money should go to the institutions that would. >> roy, what is, look elsewhere mean? >> i mean, look elsewhere. look elsewhere to other organizations? look elsewhere to other leadership? what does look elsewhere mean to? >> look elsewhere to other organizations that are going to be willing to be putting up that fight. ed, we saw in 2010 the midterms the big money came back taken came back on the other side. >> yeah. >> with nease outside parties. you know with karl rove and how he's able to raise the money.

you know, citizens united, that was sort of the demon spawn of citizens united ruling was the 2010 race and i think what soros is saying we need some of that ourselves, you know? don't forget back in 2008, remember, obama said i don't want any of those outside groups. give all of your money to me. funnel it all through me and the message will be clear but now he's more open to it because he saw what happened so he's saying, well, maybe you can give it to those groups whole throw a few bombs and a few haymakers, at the white house seems reluctant to throw. >> roy, when it comes to the political image business, soros is painted by everybody on the right is being as a matter of fact godfather of lefty media. i want to be very clear, don't know the man. i've never met him. i've never been financially connected to him. but when he speaks about looking elsewhere, when he talks about being somewhat disgruntled about the way things are going in the white house, it's like everybody else is supposed to get in line. but i can say independently that some of the things that they said in that meeting are exactly

some of the voices that have been on this show including mine for months on end. so -- >> ed, when you get, as the president said, a shellacking like happened a couple of weeks ago, you've got to do something. you know? >> okay. >> if it's broke you've grot fix it. >> so -- >> so i think that's what you're feeling among the progressives in that group. >> so is the line, imaginary line in the sand being drawn when it comes to the tax cuts for the top 2%, when they just voted today to deny unemployment benefits. i mean, isn't this somewhat of a defining moment for the white house on where they're going to stand and maybe in a sense answer to what mr. soros is talking about. >> you would hope so, right? i mean, i don't think it's the final line in the sand for progressives. i think you know we'll pull together and say, well, you know what needs to be done? however -- >> but for the white house strategy is what i'm talking about? i'm talking about the white house strategy. i mean, if the white house caves to the top 2% and comes up with some compromise, i think it's really going to support exactly what i think mr. soros was trying to get across and all these lefty donors at this alliance meeting. >> i don't think there is any doubt but i would say that i don't think that you're going to see the hard line being drawn by

the white house on this. i think that they're going to try to find a way to fudge it, we'll there the go for a while. maybe we'll have some kind of means test, that depending on if more jobs are created, you know and then it will expire -- and that we won't expier but i don't think that they will draw the hard line in the sand in this one, unfortunately. >> roy sekoff always a pleasure to have you on "the ed show." >> good to see you me friend. rapid fire response these stories tonight. republican, well they changed their tune on counterterrorism, didn't they? counterterrorism efforts at our nation's airports. they won't stop complaining about those screenings and personal private violations. president obama has scored a major victory with general motors. here here. the american auto company made a triumphant return to the stock market today and taxpayers are on track to recoup their full loan and investment. and senate republicans are not doing it for the gipper. they're turning against reagan's nuclear reduction plan. all in the name of making president obama fail. this afternoon, senator jon kyl said that there's no chance of a vote in the lame-duck session. joining us tonight jack rice, former cia officer. and ron christie, republican

strategist. gentlemen, always a pleasure. good to have you with us. >> good evening. >> all right let's go to the airport picture that has everybody's attention that was on "the huffington post" today. now, this is what it's come to. we're getting felt up in airports and americans are getting uptight about it. jack, you're a cia guy. do we have to do this? >> yeah, the real problem is we haven't seen just how good these machines are. in fact, the italians had so many problems, they actually turned them off. the brits at the same time saw limitations in them and they had problems with them, too. and so you start looking at just how far you take the fourth amendments, the search and seizure concept, and then you have the questionable system that's incredibly expensive, but you know here's the final line with it, which is fascinating. what i saw from the gop under president bush is, whatever it is that president bush wanted we should do it, but all of a sudden now, it's an outrage when it's under a democratic president. i find that kind of interesting. >> ron, what do you think.

>> intellectually dishonest. >> well, i'm not get into the bush and the obama thing. i'm looking at it more from the fourth amendment perspective as jack just said. i'm very concerned about the evasive nature of these machines. i want to make sure that tsa and the homeland security department that they have these expensive machines, they're there to do what they claim they're there to do. if they're not, ed, it seems to me mighty invasive and really, really intrusive. and i don't like the aspect of what we've seen thus far from their initial rollout. >> i have to tell you i don't want this to happen to me. i don't want this to happen to my wife at the airport. >> no. >> and i don't think employees, for the tsa, should be subjected to doing these kinds of things in that photo that we saw. i mean the next thing he's going to is ask you to turn your head and cough. i mean -- how up close and personal do they have to get? put me in the machine. i mean, what's wrong with going into a machine? what do you guys think of that. >> well, ed, if we think about this it's only yesterday i believe it was that they finally said, well, if you're under 12, we won't do it to you. i've got four little kids and if i took my 4 -- if i take the

6-year-old and the 8-year-old will i put them through the machine? really? are we really going do that? but that's the kind of problem that we have to have, and because of what we've seen, the inability of these machines to do what it is that they were claiming and the incredible cost to actually do this and then these fourth amendment issues they think that ron and i actually agree on in which scares me a little bit, ron, i admit, that i think under those circumstances we really have to be careful here. >> well, that and let me just say this, ed, the thing my wife didn't like going through these procedures either. and before hand the tsa folks used to use the back of their hands when they were in these evasive areas and now they're using the front their hand. i mean, really? do you really want to start feeling people up before the holidays? >> i don't like the looks of this one bit. >> all right, let's go to the next story. president obama, i guess you could say, came out and spiked the ball today and i think rightfully so, actually i think that they're a little bit late on it. but of course, general motors is a success story.

here's the president. >> today, one of the toughest tales of the recession took another big step towards becoming a success story. general motors relaunched itself as a public company. cutting the government's stake in the company by nearly half. once more, american taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested. >> it was not a bailout. it was a loan. ron christie, isn't a victory for america, to save over a million jobs? >> of course it is. i mean i was thrilled. i thought the ceo of gm was very emotional on brews that i saw yesterday and i thought he looked pretty good this morning, ringing the bell at the new york stock exchange. >> but republicans were against it, ron. they just -- you know they called it a bailout. they said that it was government motors. they said that president obama wanted to take over the car industry. now what are they saying? >> well, well i can only speak for myself, ed. you remember, i came on here and i said, for goodness sakes, government's getting in way of everything. this is one of those cases where it looks like the government loan, government intervention worked. and it's a story that is a good one i'm pleased with this. you don't always have to look at

things from a partisan perspective, good for gm. >> what do you think, jack? i mean, government has a place in helping business. >> of course it does. this is an investment in america. not just in business but in all of those employees and all those other companies that are support companies and satellite companies that are tied to gm. the success of this is something that i think all should acknowledge, sadly we see this sort of left and right dichotomy when this isn't that. this is a pro-american story, and everybody involved has benefited, including the american taxpayer, and that's something we should all be proud of 'i think that something that we should remember in the broader sense. >> ron christie, why isn't -- why aren't the republicans in favor in new treaty with the russians, when the reduction in the stockpiles' far or less than what other republican president his when it was signed. what about that? >> well i think it's a question of the time frame, ed. i think that the constitution provides fortunate president to submit a treaty for the ratification and the senate and their due deliberate course to ratify it or reject it.

we need have this treaty ratified in a lame duck whether it ends this week or next week i think that causes a little bit of concern for republican. let's look at the merits of the treaty. let's make sure it's in the best interest of the united states. >> well they, did that. >> not arbitrary -- i know but let's not put an arbitrary date on it. explain it meet compelling national security interest why next week. >> because the russians are ready to sign. they're expecting it. the administration's put a lot of time and effort into this. your thoughts, jack? >> well, this is an outrage, frankly. i mean this is a perfect example where you see politics actually stepping in the place of national security. we've seen this so many times. you can see the president, just today, he had republican and democratic secretaries of state including kissinger and others, baker was up there too. you saw this from guys on republicans now who are finally saying this is outrageous for the republicans to actually do this. >> it's all about not giving president obama a victory. it's all about not giving president obama a victory. jack rice, ron christie, great have with you us.

>> sadly. >> ron, doggone it nobody yelled at you tonight. >> what's the world coming to, ed. >> next time. >> it must had been that new treaty that we were talking about. >> that's it, take care, guys. the day after calling the president a left-wing socialist. now i know where beck gets all of his material. this guy is nothing but a propaganda pusher. eric boller tells us why ail ses unfair and unbalanced. mom, i want to drive. it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan. here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪

road trip ! [ male announcer ] there are billions of people in the world. ♪ but only one dad. ♪ show him how much you care with gillette fusion proglide. ♪ [ male announcer ] there are billions of people in the world. ♪ but only one dad. ♪ show him how much you care with gillette fusion proglide. ♪ it's not too late to let us know what you think. the number to dial tonight is 1-877-ed-msnbc. tonight's telephone survey question is, does today's vote against extending unemployment benefits disgust you? press the number one for yes and press the number two for no.

and in my "playbook" tonight fox news chief roger ailes is calling people nazis. a day arch slamming president obama and calling a far-left socialist who has a different view and a different belief system than most americans, fox news president propaganda pusher, roger ailes blasted npr for firing juan williams. get over it. he said this, they are, of course, nazis. they have a kind of a nazi attitude. they're the left wing of nazism. those guys don't want any other point of view. they don't even feel guilty using tax dollars to spout their propaganda. i mean i just cannot believe this guy is whining about other points of views. this is the president of a so-called network news division? calling national public radio nazis, americans how feel about that? today he tried to walk it back in a letter in the antidefamation league. he wrote, i was of course ad-libbing and should not have chosen that word but i was angry at the time because of npr's willingness to censor juan williams for not being liberal enough. for more, let's bring in eric

boller, senior fellow media matters for america. what do you make of the comment and the log back. >> thanks for having me. now we know where the crazy fox news comes from, it comes from the top. i mean this is just really amazing. this kind of rhetoric, as you say someone associated to a news organization is just amazing. and what about this bogus apology, a, he doesn't call off the president of the npr and the decency to apologize that way. he claims that he was ad-libbing, what does that mean? having an on-the-record interview with the reporter. he pretends like it was a slip of the tongue. he used nazis three times in one sentence but this is how they think over at fox news and this is how they talk on the air and off the air. they've chosen to you know

trivialize an epic genocide in an effort to score partisan points against democrats. >> why isn't -- >> it's beneath contempt and they cannot stop themselves. >> it is beneath contempt. why is npr a target all a sudden by the right wing. >> because they got rid of juan williams not because he wasn't liberal enough but because he routinely violated apparently their ethical guidelines in terms of appearing on fox news. you know, fox nupz embraced him as some sort of martyr and sort of this -- turned it into a case of censorship. i think that roger ailes hates npr because they practice actual journalism. npr, anyone in the business will tell you, is an absolute gold standard of reporting in journalism in this country and he can't stand that. >> here's ailes going after npr and then of course coordinating with the republican effort in the congress. >> right. >> to defund npr.

here's congressman cantor today. >> this proposal would eliminate funding for national public proop it's not the government's organization to tell how to do its job. it should not be the taxpayer's responsibility to fund news organizations with a partisan point of view. >> it is public radio and they get 7% of their total budget is from the taxpayers. eric, we'll come back with this in a later date and talk more about it because it is part of their agenda. good to have you with us tonight. one final page, big eddie. that's me, hanging out with the hollywood stars last night, well, one of them. the biggest one ever, george clooney says that he watches the show. he was honored for his humanitarian award. for justice and human rights. that award's center was fan fastic last night. mr. clooney i can tell you he is a class-act and he was more than

well received. thanks for watching the show. coming up, the drugster, now why in the world would he take the day off? i think that he's feeling the heat coming from reverend sharpton off of the show last night. the black eagle joe madison cranks up the pressure next on "the ed show."

welcome back to "the ed show." rush limbaugh's been on a racist bender as of late and besides ticking me off it's got folks wondering if the fcc should intervene. within the past few days he's posted the racist image of house majority whip, jim clyburn chauffeuring speaker nancy pelosi and called obama's time in the white house, quote, graffiti on the walls of american history. here's al sharpton responding to that last night.

>> i think that the congressional black caucus, progressive caucus and others, ought to take this up with fcc. there ought to be a line on race, on gender, on sexual status, there ought to be a line where people have the right to say what they want but they do not have a right to use federally regulated airwaves to malign people because of groups and i think that mr. limbaugh and others should have to be subjected to that line, as you and i and anyone else. and he will have to deal with that. >> xm satellite radio talk show host the black eagle, joe madison with us tonight. joe, what do you make of this. >> well, you know i realize that if you go back into radio, even in the days of segregationists, we have not heard this type of conversation on radio, even when segregationists were at their height. and so the reality is that it's

not only the fcc that has to look into it, but i think that stations that carry limbaugh's program have got to ask themselves, do they really want to be associated with this throwback to the kinds of racial baiting that he is engaged in. so before coming on this program, i talked to the reverend al sharpton and asked him to pull together a coalition of his organization, national action network, the naacp, the urban league and other organizations, and to do exactly what the antidefamation league would do and that is to go to clearchannel and to other stations and networks and have a conversation about the decency or lack of decency on the part of limbaugh and then to officially take this to the fcc and see where it lands. because one has to ask themselves, do you really want to subject your audience to this throwback era of when racism ran rampant and you didn't even hear it on radio in those days like you're hearing it today.

>> dr. laura, don imus, they played a price professionally. do you think limbaugh is too big to fail? >> no. the answer -- the single answer to that is, absolutely not. if he's too big to fail, then our society has failed, ed, because we've grown past that. we really don't want to hear it. and those people who do want to hear that type of thing, really are dinosaurs. >> so there is a movement. >> yes. >> there is a pushback coming from minority groups against limbaugh's racist comments. this will be the first time he's ever been collectively challenged. and i commend you for it, joe. it's long overdue. >> it has to be done. look, no other group would put up with this. >> yeah. >> and i think that collectively that coalition will -- i think they will have results. >> we will stay on this story. good to have you with us