tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC March 9, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
quote, it has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between president obama and ayatollah khomeini.
the next president could revoke it with the stroke of a pen and future conditions could modify the terms of the agreement at any time" the letter was organized by senator tom cotton of arkansas who proudly admitted to a conservative audience back in january that he wanted to quash the ongoing negotiations. >> certain voices call for congressional restraint. >> the president today also responded to the letter. >> i think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in iran.
it's an unusual coalition. i think what we're going to focus on right now is actually seeing whether we can get a deal or not. and once we do, then we'll -- if we do, then we'll be able to make a case to the american people and i'm confident we'll be able to implement it. >> michael, i have to start with you on this. he makes a point. i don't like the word ironic because most people don't get irony. he's saying it's ironic. why does this group of 47 republican senators open up a dialogue, they must be talking to the hardliners over there, who don't want a deal for their own reasons? probably maybe they want a nuclear weapons program. what a strange alliance to play with those guys after playing with the right wing leader of israel, they go to the right wing hard line of iran with no other purpose than to scuttle any deal before it happens. >> right. so i think that is the practical effect of the letter. if you read the text of the letter, of course, it's not addressed to the right wing, the iranian revolutionary guard corps, is the shorthand for it. it's addressed to the leadership of iran saying you may not understand how our constitutional democracy works
but, in fact, the iranian leadership does understand that. the iranian foreign minister zarif got a graduate degree in the united states, he's a fluent english speaker, quite savvy about american politics. he's name drop people at think tanks who specialize in nuclear issues. >> a doctorate -- >> i believe it was the university of colorado or university of denver. >> i think it's denver. >> i'm going to get in trouble if i get it wrong. i'll add, the effect of it is the hardliners in iran will say, look, you can't trust the americans, congress is going to blow up any deal that you strike, and they will use it as a pr ploy within iran to try to undermine a deal. >> i know this isn't enforced anymore, but there is a logan act. you're not supposed to negotiate except the president of the united states. here they are actually telling those people, don't trust our president, it's not going to work, but i'm trying to think through the policy of this. do they want the iranian right wingers, the hardliners who do want a nuclear weapon presumably to get their way? because that opens us -- they don't like hearing this -- to a
war. if those guys win and we don't have a deal, what's to keep us from a war? >> apparently that is ha they want. >> our hawks are talking to their hawks. >> exactly. you don't have to step back far to look at the big picpicture. our government is looking like the iranian government. you have your moderates, hardliners, fundamentalists, ayatollahs. we've got the same thing here. we've got your moderates and your hardliners and the fundamentalists. i mean, it's insane. >> but they can cut a deal. >> right. >> now our opposition, our loyal opposition, is saying our president can't keep a deal. can't make one, can't keep one. >> which is -- which is frankly outrageous. it's also not true. >> suppose this thing goes down in the next couple weeks, we don't make the deadline by the end of this month, coming at us, the end of march. if they can't reach a deal, who gets blamed? perhaps this is part of it in a weird way. i don't care who gets blamed. it will be a blame game. >> sure. there's a blame game within the united states and on the international stage. what concerns the obama
administration is if this thing falls apart you don't want to be seen as the party that caused it to fall apart. you're going to get into this realm of world o pinion and can we muster support to keep the sanctions on iran or military action on iran? if it looks like we were the reason the deal fell apart, there's going to be sympathy to tehran, they wanted to make a deal but the americans were too reactionary to do it. europe, united nations, russia, china. there will be a debate in the united states if it leads us down the path to military action. the white house is quite willingly starting to use the war card. who is leading us to war? whose fault is that? >> i think that's absolutely right. you'll never get china and russia, right, to happily go along with tougher sanctions and reimpose the sanctions regime if the talks fail. i don't think -- i think that's going to be a heavy lift to begin with. >> yeah. >> i think you lose the others. i think you lose germany, britain, and maybe also france
if you go down this road and make it so that essentially the u.s. congress has torpedoed this deal. >> torpedo is a good word. >> and -- >> and my question -- this isn't -- everybody accuses people like me and the president, actually, i shouldn't put myself in the same company, but i agree with him on this, if there's no deal to stop them or delay their program, they race -- they just start racing. what happens the day after march -- end of march this year, april 1st, they start building a nuclear weapons program because there's nothing to stop them? then the call will come from the neocons and people on the right in america. just say, we have to go bomb them now. what else can they say? >> you can see the obama administration setting up the debate this way. so what -- >> isn't that the logical alternative? >> well, probably. because you aren't going to be able to sustain the sanctions. if iran is smart, what they will do is creep their way up to bomb capability without ever crossing the line so they will say to the world, we are just expanding our nuclear program, we just -- we
have every right to do this, and why would you bomb us just because we're -- >> they would do that for what reason? they would not go ahead with weaponizing for what reason? >> because weaponizing is the red line that almost, you know, that the world community would certainly take action. the united states -- >> do we know for a fact if israel can do it without our help? do we have to give them overflight help over saudi arabia? do we have to give them bigger bunker-busting bombs? do we have to help them or can they do it on their own? they've done it before. >> i think we have stuff they don't have. i think israel could do a number on the iranian nuclear program without u.s. help, however, that number would delay the program by most a few years. and, you know, two to five. whatever. >> what could we do? >> well -- >> what's our firepower? >> remember, iran is a great big country. and if you listen to what everybody's been saying the last few days, we are not sure that we know about all of the iranian nuclear facilities. >> yeah.
>> there's a big question as to whether they are undeclared and uninspected and -- >> you're making the case that the only way we deal with them is try to get a delay in force and hope for time to change conditions. >> well, if you put -- the obama administration argument is if you can put them in a straitjacket for a decade and keep them at the end of ten years, further away from making a nuclear bomb than they are now, then that's a good deal. >> yeah. >> that's a good deal. then you try to make another deal. but that's a good deal. the better deal than war. >> i will say, you know, the line -- you notice bibi netanyahu back away from the line of zero enrichment, completely dismantle their program. everyone agrees that's unrealistic. >> said they could live with it. he still wants to get rid of the whole thing. >> he wants to but he knows -- >> the point that merits more debate is oil prices have crashed. that's just happened since late last year. it's really hitting the iranians hard. i think it's worth considering if we were to try to draw this out for a little bit onger, you know, would they feel more pain? what the response from the administration is, you can't keep the coalition together anymore. there are p 5 plus 1 negotiating
partners and countries like india and korea don't have the toll rons. >> the word torpedo is my word for tonight. what the 47 republicans want. they don't want a debate. they want this thing croaked. mitch mcconnell said this week the president was trying to prevent the congress pr playing a role in foreign policy. here he is. >> the fact the president doesn't seem to want congress to participate in this underscores what a bad deal it is because i think he's afraid that we might not approve it. >> what do you make of that? >> well, that's true. they might not approve it. they seem determined not to approve it. but this is the president's job. this is the kind of agreement that is the president's job. >> okay. he's not just asking for that. what he apparently wants, mitch, they want to have some sort of legislation passed that says in a couple weeks we're going to rule on this thing. just voted down out of principle. >> exactly. >> without any evidence it was working or not. >> if they vote no, they can't deal the voting no. it's not a treaty.
the president does not need congressional approval. the president has a lot of power to suspend sanctions on iran. >> but not totally revoke them. >> not permanently revoke them, repeal them. he can suspend them for a couple of years. what you hear from the administration is once that happens and a deal gets under way, it will be like obamacare. this is an argument i heard today from a official, it will take on a life of its own and undoing it after a couple years >> there's no principle involved. there are 47 senators, you know, i don't know whether it was sedition under the law. whatever it was. it was an attempt to bring down this president on foreign policy. thank you. coming up, kevin spacey plays "hardball" right now. the academy award winning actor stars in netflix's "house of cards" as the diabolical ruthless politician frank underwood. he'll be here to talk to me about the show's new season and defends it of course. president obama delivers what some are calling a masterpiece of a speech in selma this weekend to mark the 50th
anniversary of bloody sunday. voting rights was the issue then. still is, of course. then the clintons unleash the attack dogs. james carville says "the new york times" isn't reporting the news, it's working off right wing talking points. he said that about five times today. will blaming a vast right conspiracy, right-wing conspiracy, the early monica maneuver as we remember it, will it work this time? and the other front page news today is isis appears to be fraying from within. comes at a time when the majority of americans are calling for a u.s. ground war against isis. so, what gives here? we going in or not? this is "hardball." the place for politics. new skin is revealed in only 5 days. without drastic measures. stunningly youthful. award-winning skin. from the world's #1. olay, your best beautiful progressive insurance here and i'm a box who thrives on the unexpected. ha-ha! shall we dine? [ chuckle ] you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates but that's precisely what we do.
going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today you could save an average of over 500 bucks. stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount! oh, and he sticks the landing! president obama told cbs this weekend that the only way the two sides will reach a deal is if the iranians are willing to provide sufficient verification to the world that they won't produce a bomb. >> you've said that if there's no deal, you're willing to walk away.
that's it. >> absolutely. if there's no deal, then we walk away. if we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that there's a breakout period so that even if they cheated, we would be able to have enough time to take action, if we don't have that kind of deal, then we're not going to take it. >> we'll be right back.
welcome back to "hardball." the third season of the emmy winning show "house of cards" debuted on netflix ten days ago. many are already drawing comparisons to our real life political process here in washington, d.c. well, throughout the series, we've come to know frank underwood for his ruthless efficiency in the pursuit of power. this season, we find him at his pinnacle in the white house as president and he's fighting to stay there. he's a clip. >> practically speaking, a thousand special interests, organized labor, opposition in both parties, that we can do a version of what you're proposing.
>> i don't want a version. i want a vision. >> as head of this team, and i think i speak for everyone, we have done -- >> speaking as the president who chose this team and for whom it works, i want $500 billion to put 10 million people to work. i don't care how much it hurts. i don't care how controversial it is. your job is to find a way. >> i'm joined right now by the star of "house of cards" kevin spacey, himself. kevin, through your knowledge of american politics, is that the guy -- i'm asking an open question here -- that the american people would like to believe is going on in the backroom of the west wing right now? a guy who says get the damn thing done, stop giving me bureaucraten crap. is that who we want? >> i think if we go back and look through american political history, we certainly an reexamine perhaps some politicians who at the time might have been called ruthless and very, very difficult to
negotiate with, who knew what they wanted and went for it. lyndon johnson comes to mind. >> yeah. >> certainly he had that reputation in congress. i think that once he became president, one of the things that was impressive about his presidency, despite all of the, i think, proper criticism he took over the vietnam war, was that he saw the presidency as a place where you could actually get something done, where it was the time to step forward. even if you were doing something that was against maybe a stance you had had for many, many years as a congressman, and that certainly was true in the case of civil rights. that he decided that passing those three civil rights bills was more important than almost anything else he did in his presidency. and i would say that that was a pretty effective thing to do, and i think probably the way he went about doing it was twisting some arms. >> yeah. that sounds like lincoln in the spielberg movie getting the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery. here's what your show's creator, bowillman said recently about the new season. "a lot of people love the show for all the chess moves and like seeing frank invincible.
they like seeing stamper his assistant being invincible. if it was easy for frank, if he didn't stumble, didn't fail, then the show would become a parody of itself. i'm not interested in that." the way you're portrayed in the new series is being president creates a lot more challenges than getting there even for the machiavellian way he got there. what does tell you about what we're watching in washington now, how difficult it is for obama to get things he wants? >> i think it's interesting in case of looking at frank underwood and claire underwood, we now in the third season have a chance to examine two characters who primaily in the previous two seasons had been very successful in working in the shadows in the dark alleys and now suddenly find themselves in the hottest, whitest spotlight you can imagine. and both what the heart of this season is about is how does that change them, how does that change what they want to accomplish and how does that affect their relationship and their marriage? i think all of those areas are what we've tried to explore in this third season. >> and she wants something, too. >> yeah.
yeah. and frankly she deserves it. she's an awesome character. >> yeah. i know. i don't mean in terms of time on stage, but i mean the u.n. job. i mean, in the script. that she obviously wants a piece of the action. >> well, you can go back to, you know, roosevelt and say that, you know, she was an ambassador to the united nations, although i don't think it was at the time that he was in office and it wasn't an appointment. but we've had women who've taken on remarkably important roles in politics and i think we'll probably continue to see that in the future. >> let's talk about macho and your fight with petroff, the guy who's very much like vladimir putin. these episodes show him to be quite the match for frank underwood. i mean, frightingly so. if you think vladimir putin is tough, this guy is brilliantly machiavellian as underwood at his best. >> yeah, it's hard to talk about specifics and plot. while you may have watched it and your viewers have, there are millions of people who haven't
caught up with season three. i will say there are certain aspects to the confrontation frank has with the russian president that people might recognize. >> spoiler alert, he's bad. anyway, here's another scene from the season three, the current season of "house of cards." this is a white house cabinet meeting with claire underwood played by robin wright. here they are coming together here. >> secretary and i recommend increasing our relief funds to zimbabwe, outspending israelis. >> the president will just pocket the money. >> we always anticipate a certain level of -- >> a certain level? he's egregious. the man's a monster. >> who happens to run the african bloc. >> who happens to kill his own people when he's not stealing from them which is why i reduced >> we are scraping together every penny we can. the last thing i want is to be slammed for giving additional money to a brutal dictaors from usaid to persuade him. this is ill conceived. you should think before you bring a proposal like this.
>> this is like the "godfather," never speak about your family before public. >> he doesn't have such a pleasant night at home later on in the executive bedroom i guess. >> what do you think about underwood as a guy you've gotten to know and maybe not love, but he would do well it seems to me in a really frightening dictatorship where you work your way up through people, killing people, stabbing them in the back, leaving them in their cars with the exhaust on, that sort of thing. he doesn't need the people's judgment much, this guy. >> well, he certainly seems that, you know, the whole series has been such an interesting examination about power, how people get power, how they try to retain power. and he has certainly gone about it in his particular machiavellian ways. but the thing for me that's been so exciting about coming to work every day is that i don't show up every day thinking i know everything about this man. the writers, our writing team, who you indicated earlier as our
show runner, they continue to peel back the onion. i continue to be surprised when i discover something in a script that i didn't know was going to be revealed or where we decide to put an even thicker layer of onion on top of his character. it's actually very exciting to come to work because it's brand new for me each day. >> you know, i learn a lot. i've been here 40 year and keep learning things that are very much close to your script. one of them is this not as evil as frank underwood, but machiavellian. members of congress who get elected in their late 20s and early 30s spend 30 years plotting which of the other guys will be moving on, which of the other guys will be defeated, which will move on to be chairperson of different committees and who they'll have to contend with in 30 years. >> there are some congressmen like kevin mccarthy who manage it do it in two years. >> he's moved fast. >> took two years to become whip. >> he got some help from eric cantor.
i mean, it's one thing when they drop like flies before you. by the way, barack obama ran for the senate both his opponents got marital problems in the middle of the campaign and were blown away. he ended up having an easy race for the united states senate. it does happen. good luck. you know? kevin, my friend, congratulations. you've done it again. who would have believed you created a whole new platform that everybody is going to say, i could have done that, why didn't i do that? how come he's the superstar? you are. thank you for coming on "hardball" tonight. >> thanks. good to see you, chris. up next, president obama marks the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday with an emotional appeal for civil rights and voting rights. this is "hardball." the place for politics.
we the people. we shall overcome. yes, we can. that word is owned by no one. it belongs to everyone. >> wow. welcome back to "hardball." that was, of course, president obama speaking in selma this weekend. actually on saturday. the president and his family along with former president george w. bush and nearly 100 members of congress marched on the same street, the same bridge where civil rights demonstrators were beaten, bloodily by police 50 years ago in what became known as bloody sunday. civil rights icon and georgia congressman john lewis was in selma 50 years ago and he spoke about that day. >> we were beaten, tear gassed. some of us was left bloody right here on this bridge. 17 of us were hospitalized that day. but we never became bitter or hostile. we kept believing that the truth
we stood for would have the final say. >> what a soulful man he is. anyway, selma, alabama's, current member of congress, representative terri suel is a democrat from alabama. she joins us now. thank you, congresswoman, for joining us. and, where are we now? you know, it's 50 years ago that march had a lot to do with getting the voting rights act of '65 so that on the books, not just in the amendments to the constitution. in the books, you have the right to vote. back then, 2% of that county, dallas county, was registered to vote, the black people just 2%. how is it going today in terms of registration and voting? >> well, chris, thank you so much for having me on. this past weekend was an amazing testimony to the strength of the american fiber because i think that even in a place like selma where we're now predominantly african-american, we're working on our second african-american mayor, i get to represent selma
and the civil rights district in congress today. the real struggle for us right now is an economic struggle, but i have to tell you i thought the president's speech was really amazing and i thought that his focus on making sure every american knew what took place on that bridge and how uniquely american that experience was. >> what's it like to serve in congress with republicans who don't agree with you? and i know they agree in principle. everybody has the right to vote. yet in 36 states, they're out there trying to make it very difficult to vote to the point where they succeed when they pass laws that say, to make it tougher to vote, just to vote. >> yes, well, listen, i think that for me selma being my hometown, it was awesome to be able to welcome a bipartisan delegation of members of congress. it's very tough, chris. i won't lie. because, you know, i think that the partisan politics and the nature of it right now is so stifing to get any legislation done, but having an opportunity
to come to selma, to walk in the footsteps of john lewis, with john lewis, is truly transformational. and my hope is that all americans will take serious the right to vote. and that we in congress will go back, renewed by witnessing living history, that we will actually go back and restore the voting rights amendment. >> what do you make of what happened in oklahoma at that frat house where i thought david boren, former governor, former u.s. senator from that state, now the president of the university of oklahoma, basically cracked a whip? this guy threw the fraternity off campus, said as long as he's the president of the university, will never get back their fraternity house again. he condemned even casual conversations in which bad words are used, racist words. here's a video of the fraternity and what the members were doing at the university of oklahoma chanting racial slurs including the "n" word. the video was posted on youtube on sunday. here it is. >> you wonder what planet or century those young people
thought they were on. they're paying the price. what did you think of boren? no bs here. he cracked the whip and said, you're gone as a fraternity. >> i think what the incident that happened at the university of oklahoma just shows us what the president was saying. there's a lot of unfinished business in america with respect to civil rights and voting rights and i think that the president of the university of oklahoma was right to crack the whip. i think that, you know, selma is now. the lessons that we learned in selma 50 years ago are as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. we understand that we must be ever vigilant in the fight for civil rights and voting rights. progress is elusive. old battles become new again in a heartbeat. we must be ever vigilant in our struggle to make sure that we all live up to the ideals of the constitution that all men are created equal. >> i hope you come back on the show a lot.
thanks for coing on. first time i met you. you're great. congresswoman terri sewell. thanks for joining us. you represent selma, alabama. up next, james carville says journalists are being fed the story about hillary clinton from the right wing. in other words, "the new york times" is working off the right wing talking points. will blaming the right-wing conspiracy work this time? didn't work last time. you're watching "hardball."
if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business.
welcome back to "hardball." well, the hard focus on hillary clinton continues on front page, has been front-page news today again in the wake of last week's big private e-mail story. well today, clinton lieutenant james carville tried putting the fire out in an interview with andrea mitchell here on this network. he says "the new york times" got the story from clinton's enemies on the hard right. specifically from right wing talking points. here's james. >> "the times" gets something from right wing talking points. you know, "the times" took right wing talking points. the press, you know, which took right wing talking points. right wing talking points. where do you think the e-mail story came from? >> let me -- >> it came from republican staffers. that's where it came from.
>> well, last week i asked michael schmidt, the reporter at "the new york times," who broke the story if he got his scoop from republican oppo. here he is, michael schmidt. >> what doesn't make sense is they have known about this for many, many months. >> did they drop it? let me just try a couple theories. did you get this from oppo from the republicans? did you get it from the clinton people trying to put it out ahead of time? >> this was much harder. >> on your part. just enterprise. >> shoe leather. >> in that same interview, ann garen, a reporter covering the story for the "washington post" denied being tipped off by the hard right. here she is. >> that was a clean break. the republicans had nothing to do with it and that's become a narrative now on the democratic side is that this is a manufactured story that the republicans are pushing and that the media is biting on. and that's just not the way it happened. >> well, james carville and other clinton allies are doing here is familiar terrain, of course, back in 1998 clinton's camp blamed the monica lewinsky
coverage on what they called a vast right-wing conspiracy. >> the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that's been conspireing against my husband since the day he nounsed for president. >> our roundtable is going to take a look at that. national journal editorial director ron fornier. bloomberg's fill. and jackie. jackie, you first. let me ask you this. i didn't hear any evidence from carville that this was put -- was handed over to "the post" or "the times." wasn't given to them. wasn't oppo work. it was enterprise reporting. does it matter he keeps saying it? will anybody believe it? >> "the new york times," the bastion of right wing talking points. it doesn't make sense. it feels very retro. everything they say doesn't matter. she's going to respond to this. hillary clinton is going it
respond to this. the clintons don't usually respond to things personally. when things are patently false and it's the right wing agitating. >> hillary clinton will go out there and give the straight skinny on this, not this very i think ineffective pr that's been coming out, like we gave you 50,000 pages. okay, there's another 90,000? we don't know. or we want the state department to release the e-mails when she had them in her possession. this dumb talk they've been using hoping people who are following it and loyal to the clintons don't understand the story. do you think she's going to give us the straight skinny? >> democrats who are not former, current or soon to be clinton hands have their ways, yes, she will do that. jackie and i were talking about this before, i will be stunned to see full-blown press conference where reporters get free rein to talk to the former secretary of state and ask her a ton of questions. that's the great question. >> what do you expect? how do you control it? how would she have a press conference where she keeps changing the subject? what will be the technique to avoid answering the questions
directly? >> it's not possible for that to actually occur. the ideas the clintons would put her in a scenario where everything is not controlled, just wouldn't align with what they've done. >> i think she can end this in about five minutes. no. two minutes. end the entire controversy. there's only two questions, only two answers. here's the servers, here's your e-mails back. these are the people's e-mails. and here's receipts to show i've given my foreign donations. these are her mistakes. she can fix them or drag this out. james carville, i'm sorry, the '90s are calling. they want their pr tactics back. they don't work nowadays. james carville, you tell me he hasn't given "the new york times" stuff on republicans? i don't care if the devil, himself, gave "the new york times" this information. doesn't matter where it came from. it's the truth. that she violates regulations, that she assaulted transparency. that they've been deceiving and lying about it ever since. her hinchmen out here. they've got to come clean. turn over the servers.
hand back the foreign donations. the controversy is over. >> i've been frustrated by the elegance with which we spoke about the ideal press conference when you watch them, whether it's a convention -- the worst of the congressional hearings. they don't follow a logical transition from question to follow-up to better follow-up to isolate the person holding the press conference, phil. never seems to work that way. people ask one ding bat question after another and they ignore it because they're competing with each other. they don't want to help somebody get a better answer. if you just listen to the last answer, follow up on that rather than thinking of a new question. >> the politicians rely on that. >> chaos. >> day plan for thereat. there's one benefit hillary clinton would have if she holds a press conferenceno one has gotten a free shot at her with an actual question for a long period of time. to ron's point, there are only a few that need to be asked and answered. you need to try to figure out -- >> first question goes to blumenthal. second question to david brock.
>> i think we make a -- >> i'm just teasing. >> i think we make a mistake in the media if we think this is about how well she performs and frankly her team is -- >> you're right. it's the objective fact. >> there's only one thing to do here and that is to come clean. >> you think bill clinton the other day -- >> you can't talk your way out of things. >> he said transparency is bad enough. give some money to a bad guy in nigeria and use it for flood relief in haiti and we tell you we're doing it, will that work? you say it won't work. >> not when there's been very credible allegations. first, they're taking money from banks that are under investigation. there's been credible allegations of pay to play. she -- the champion of women's rights, this is the aspirational reason why we should vote for her is taking money from countries that suppress the rights of women. >> to turn the pillow over to the cold side right now, jeb bush, and i mean the cold side. this guy, they're not ready for him out there. according to a new nbc/"wall street journal" out tonight, scott walker leads the field out there, 53% of republicans say
they can see themselves voting for walker versus only 17% who say they can't. that's a 36 point positive spread. marco rubio, another one, second in the poll. jeb bush is seventh out there. 47% of republicans say they can see themselves voting for jeb. 42%, as many say they can't. this sounds like overdone bush. >> yeah. i think that's his biggest problem. >> whereas hillary is flying high right now. >> you hear him say, i'm not my father, i'm not my brother. it's not -- it's not working. and the thing that scott walker -- >> jeb flew into office on the republican side. maybe the second one gets home free. the third doesn't. >> walker has something else going for him, he's a sitting governor and doing things the right likes right now. he signed the right-to-work legislation. he's showing himself to be this conservative fighter that he's really presented. he does have the benefit of being a sitting governor, being able to do these things. where jeb bush hasn't done that. >> i think there's two things
that drive the tea party on the conservative right which are very legitimate. one is make some sense of the border. every other country in the world does. we have a liberal immigration policy. it should be enforced. it should be real. democrats are loosey-goosey about the proposition to make anything real. spending money, wasting money. he doesn't say it like i beat the unions. what he says is i protected the taxpayer against the teachers union. it's all about protecting spending. that's what people on the right all agree on. all republicans agree on this. it's a unifying issue. stop wasting our taxpayer dollars. >> he has a record he can win on. he has a message that wins. how do you fight against right to work or freedom to work? he's figured out a way not to make this a purely union bashing measure. >> he says i protect the taxpayers. >> it's a message -- >> these are public employee unions. not just unions. >> it's a message that works and one that jeb bush will have to overcome, no question about it. >> flip side of the pillow for both, we're really hammering hillary clinton. >> no, you were -- >> okay. let me say -- >> very tough. i was on servant. >> i don't take anythingback.
it's still early in the process. if she's transparent and accountable she can overcome this. jeb bush, i'd love to see how he is on the number two. how many people are picking him as a number two choice? that's a key thing with him. >> might not get that far. >> it might not. >> ed muskey, a guy that couldn't lose. the roundtable is sticking with us. up next, the "washington post" is reporting that isis is fraying from within. front page today. what does it mean for the president's strategy? and an american public ready to send in the troops? this is "hardball." the place for politics. hey, mi towel, su towel. more scent plus oxi boost and febreze. it's our best gain ever! there's nothing more romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use,
you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com
increasingly unsuccessful attempts to recruit local citizens for the front lines and a growing incidence of guerrilla attacks against islaming attacks suggest they're struggling drawing muslims together under the umbrella of a utopian islamic state. other news seemed to undermine that premise. the nigerian terror group boko haram pledged allegiance to them suggesting it was seen as the premiere jihadist group in the world. back to jackie on this. you know, apparently what's going on inside is this cauldron where they want people to get out into the outpost and take the airplane hits from us, the bombing raids, but all the people want to live in the cities where they're protected from bombing because americans don't want to blow hospitals and schools so trying to get the people but the europeans and the americans who come from around the world and the north africans, they all want to live in the cities so locals are getting forced out to the front like stalin finding hitler.
chewed where the bombing is going on. >> right, that's the thing is they have to govern if they're going to create this state and talking about services, we're talking about basic things and if they can't do that then they'll have these problems and in terms of u.s. strategy, seems like everything is very in flux right now. seems like it's too soon -- >> does that mean the policy of containment will kill them. >> hard to tell. you have to take it with a grain of salt. we've been the last 14 years learn what we hearrom intelligence or front of the newspapers doesn't turn out to be true. it would verify what the president is doing and suggest we don't have to go further but keep our foot on their neck. i'm dubious. >> then the iranian militias went -- the iranian quds force wins and also the shia-led militias from iraq win. >> their influence is certainly growing. this underscores the need for pressure on the islamic state.
whatever the strategy is and nobody thinks it will involve u.s. ground troops but the ability to have a coherent offensive strategy when it comes to the iraq forces with the sunni tribes, that can put pressure, rifts are exposed like this when that's pressure put on them what you're starting to see. >> speaking of that a recent poll found by 2-1 a big majority americans backed sending troops. here's my quandary. the american people 2-1 want us to go in with troops like big regiments and take them apart. at the same time most republicans you hear think iraq was a disaster. >> right. >> so most recent experience with war was a bipartisan disaster. are we already back to fight again? has that member ray faded? >> i don't think so. when you talk to lawmakers they're not ready to send troops in again. >> the american people -- >> look what --
>> why are they saying yes. >> take care of the people coming back -- >> i'm saying public opinion. >> it's a relatively new blip. they saw those beheadings over the summer and we'll see more people not wanting it and in kind of a blip up because what we saw recently. >> this is reactionary. it's got to be. this is how you react. >> james foley. saw the face of that guy -- >> would not sustain if we put a bunch more troops in. that number would come down. >> i was just reading about taking us into world war i. you screw us and we are ready to fight for a country that says it doesn't like war. remember james foley. i think there's a lot of that. i'm part that have myself. anyway, thank you. >> much easier war to fight. >> phil mattingly and jackie kucinich, thank you, the best of the kucinichs. when we return the language of
the conference call. the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business. let me finish tonight with
the language of the logan act which congress passed and the president signed in the earliest case of our republic. any citizen of the united states wherever he may be, who without authority of the united states directly or indirectly commences or car irs on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies with the united states or to defeat the measures of the united states shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both. i wonder if the senators who rushed to sign that letter to the iranian leaders had read this document which is known as the logan act. it says that only the government of the united states is allowed under the law to negotiate with foreign governments. again, i wonder if these 47 senators gave thought to what they were doing here. then again as i said in the beginning of this show, they did know exactly what they were doing. they were trying to undermine the work of an american president by first of all disrespecting him even if they
don't get charged and in prison for it. what they've done here is craven. that's "hardball." thanks for being with us. tonight on "all in" -- >> end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of congressional action. it is very much an intended consequence. >> republicans declare war on peace talks writing an open letter to the mullahs in iran to try to sink a nuclear deal. tonight the president is responding? >> it's somewhat ironic to see some members of congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in iraq. >> meanwhile, in hillary land -- >> all of this is just the same cook nammy stuff. >> plus, a true crime bombshell from hbo. >> this was found inside this.