During Wednesday’s debate, Mitt Romney focused several talking points around the claim that “middle income Americans are being crushed” under President Obama’s policies. On Thursday’s The Ed Show, Ed Schultz asked James Hoffa, labor leader and General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, if he believes that’s true. 

Hoffa said no way. “Let’s look at what’s going on," he said. "The economy’s coming back, we basically have people working. Teamsters are working, UAW members are working, the auto industry is thriving, all the different people that work in the plants are back to work, so we have hundreds of thousands of people who have their jobs back. So that’s good news. We’re on our way back and we need some more time, that’s all. And for him to say they’ve been crushed, that’s not true. If anybody crushed them, it’s his party that crashed the economy in ’08.”

Despite Romney’s strong, impassioned plea for middle class votes during the first debate, Schultz said he believes it won’t be enough to overcome the damage caused by the secret 47 percent video. Additional hurdles for Romney, Schultz said, include his record of opposition to policies like the auto bailout and increasing the minimum wage—plus his running mate’s budget plan, which critics say could be devastating for the poor and middle class.

Hoffa agreed with Schultz and said labor was not swayed by Romney’s debate performance. “For him to all of a sudden say he cares about the middle class, I believe that video about the 47 percent," he said. "That’s what he thinks about us. ... He is against the things that we stand for, and the things that basically are a safety net for America right now. And no matter what you saw last night, it was a big lie. He basically tried to remake himself last night, but you know, we know the real Mitt Romney.”

The Tea Party’s crusade against voter fraud by way of suppression and intimidation was flipped on its head earlier this week as election officials in six Florida counties launched an investigation into potentially hundreds of cases of suspected voter fraud by a GOP consulting firm that was paid almost $3 million by the RNC to register Republican voters in swing states.

There’s been lots of talk from GOPers about cracking down on voter fraud, and now Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to make sure equal attention is paid to the crime of voter intimidation. Boxer stopped by The Ed Show on Friday to discuss a letter she recently wrote to the State Department inquiring about their handling of voter intimidation. She told Ed Schultz:

“I know everyone’s paying attention, I know the Obama campaign is ready to act on this. But I realized that there are two important federal laws, the Voting Rights Act, passed in the 60s, and Voter Registration Act passed in the 90s, that have criminal and civil penalties for people who try to intimidate a voter. And I wanted to make sure that the Justice Department is moving on these cases. So I did hear from them today, and although they can’t confirm or deny any particular case because I wrote about Ohio, they did say that they had opened up 42 investigations this year, which is good to know.

They are pursuing, enforcing these laws, and they said I could say that anyone within the sound of my voice, anyone in this country who feels they’re being intimidated can call their nearest FBI office because it is a federal offense to harass someone, to intimidate someone. Think about all the people that worked so hard and struggled and went to prison and put their life on the line for the right to vote.”

Schultz asked Boxer to comment on a video that surfaced on Wednesday of a young girl in Colorado registering people to vote – but only if they were voting for Mitt Romney. The girl said she was being paid by the County Clerk’s office.

Boxer said it’s very simple, black and white: “That’s against the law.”

When Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out as one of the first professional athletes to publicly support marriage equality, many fans and other pros applauded his decision to speak up. But Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Democratic Maryland delegate, had a different opinion. He wrote to the Ravens administration that they should “inhibit such expressions" from employees. 

In response, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe wrote his own scathing letter to Burns. Two excerpts:

“As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the very first amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech.”

“As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing.”

Ed Schultz couldn’t read the entire strongly-worded letter on television, but in his exclusive interview with Kluwe on Friday’s The Ed Show, he asked the kicker what motivated him to respond to an issue happening practically on the other side of the country.

“It’s an issue of free speech and of civil rights. The message the delegate was sending out was not one that any progressive in this day in age would want to see in our government,” Kluwe said. “It’s just not the right message.”

The Ravens organization issued a statement in support of Ayanbadejo’s right to freedom of speech under the first amendment. Kluwe said that's the right call:

“I think it’s great the Ravens came out and supported him because as athletes we have this very prominent platform where we can affect social change. And I think it behooves all of us to do the right thing."

Schultz asked if he’s involved with the fight for marriage equality in Minnesota, where the issue will be on the ballot in November. Minnesotans will decide whether or not to amend their state constitution to permanently define marriage as between a man and a woman.

 Kluwe confirmed that he’s a very active member of Minnesotans for Equality, and will continue fighting to defeat the amendment.

“Gay people would like to get married,” he said. “I think that’s something when we look back 20-25 years from now, and you look at history, which side were you on? Were you on the side that supported this or did you try to take people’s rights away?”

Newly-minted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan released two years of tax returns on Friday, revealing he paid 15.9% in 2010 and 20% in 2011. That’s $34,233 and $64,746, respectively.

The move did nothing to detract attention from Mitt Romney’s continued refusal to release more of his own. The Romney campaign turned down President Obama’s offer to lay off the issue if he would release five more years, but Romney did offer a tidbit of speculation on Thursday, saying, “I think the most recent year was 13.6%”

Here are a few of today’s commentary highlights on the Romney tax return debacle:

Dana Milbank from the Washington Post told PoliticsNation’s Al Sharpton:

“I don’t know about you Reverend, but I’d even be very happy to pay Paul Ryan’s higher rates on his taxes. What it illustrates is that Mitt Romney’s a very wealthy man, Paul Ryan’s a reasonably wealthy guy just with his investments and his congressional salary. Now, interestingly enough, because he’s a wage-earning public servant, Mitt Romney earlier on said a man like that should not be qualified to be president because he hasn’t worked enough in the private sector. It illustrates the point that okay, he’s a wealthy guy, but not extremely wealthy, and the less wealthy you are, the higher percentage you pay.”

Patricia Murphy of Citizen Jane Politics told Rev. Al that according to recent polls, most people don’t agree with Romney that the “fascination” with his tax returns is “small minded.” 63% of Americans say he should release more returns. Murphy said: 

“That also means a significant number of Republicans would like to see those returns and I’ve talked to a number of Republicans who can’t figure out for the life of themselves why he’s not doing this. And I do think it goes to a larger policy question. If anything is going to go forward in the next congress in terms of legislation, it is tax reform and there is a reality in our tax code that we tax wealth at a much lower rate than we tax work, and this is a perfect example of that. And I think for Romney to not be presenting exactly what is in his tax returns makes it very difficult to go forward and argue for tax reform when he can’t have an honest conversation about the kind of taxes he pays himself."

Daniel Berger, an attorney and member of the Patriotic Millionaires, a group that advocates eliminating the Bush tax cuts, told The Ed Show Romney’s claim that he never paid below 13% is a sort of funny:

“His statement yesterday was laughable…there’s no reason to believe him, given his reputation for veracity. He’s the all-time flip-flopper, but even if you were to believe him, the 13% is way below what the average people in his bracket are paying…13% is way below what the average people in the 1% pay. You might remember the Warren Buffett situation. Buffett said he pays less than his secretary, it’s an outrage. It’s a disgrace.”

Bonus: check out what millionaire David Simon, creator of HBO’s “The Wire,” had to say.

It’s not the first negative ad we’ve seen this election cycle, and it won’t be the last. But Mitt Romney’s latest ad touting the blatant lie that under Obama’s welfare plan you wouldn’t have to work or train for a job, you can just sit and wait for your check, could be a new low.

Lean Forward contributor and contributing editor of The American Prospect magazine Paul Waldman stopped by The Ed Show on Friday to discuss what HuffPo journalist Jonathan Weiler called “[perhaps] the single most dishonest television ad in the history of American presidential campaigns.”

“They really do appear to have lost any concern about whether or not what they’re saying is true,” Waldman told Ed Schultz. “In the ad, after they get through talking about the part about Bill Clinton, every sentence in there is false, with the exception of ‘I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.’"

Romney accused Obama of “gutting” welfare-to-work programs, reducing them to plain old welfare programs. In reality, the Obama administration announced they would consider granting waivers to states to allow them some flexibility.

“Waivers that weaken or undercut welfare reform will not be approved. Waivers will not be granted to avoid time limits on when assistance may be provided,” the Obama campaign stated. “The only waivers that will be granted will test approaches that can do a better job at promoting work among families receiving assistance.”

Waldman explained that besides being wrong, the ad attempts to subtly play off voter prejudice:

“This issue is an old story for Republicans, it goes back to the 1960s. And it really exists at the nexus of class and race. Mitt Romney’s biggest political problem is the perception that he’s a candidate of, by and for the 1%. And so he’s doing what Republicans have done for a long time, which is to send a message to middle class voters that ‘your resentments shouldn’t be aimed up at the wealthy, they should be aimed down at the poor.’ And even though they’re not making an explicit racial argument, you can’t ignore the fact that there is always a racial element to this in the minds of voters and that’s something the Romney campaign is not naïve about. They understand the kinds of reactions people have when you start talking about welfare and those freeloading welfare recipients who are taking your hard-working money so they can goof off.”

Questionable racial subtext aside, Michael Eric Dyson was on hand to point out another major flaw in the ad – when he was the governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a program that gave welfare recipients free cars, as well as repairs, insurance, inspection, and a AAA membership.

Thankfully, Waldman believes this could be the last we see of this kind of welfare-themed ad leading up to November. He told Ed Schultz they just don’t work like they once did:

“This does have sort of a whiff of desperation about it. Keep in mind, Republicans won the policy argument about welfare all the way back in 1996 and this just comes out of nowhere. I really think his biggest problem is this perception that he’s only going to do what’s in the best interest of the elite. So they are pulling out this argument that goes all the way back to Richard Nixon and to Ronald Reagan talking about welfare queens, and Newt Gingrich in the 90s talking about midnight basketball…this idea that your money is going to undeserving poor people and black people. It’s an old song but it doesn’t have quite the same ring anymore and it’s hard to imagine that it’s going to be all that effective.”