Skip to main content

tv   Hardball With Chris Matthews  MSNBC  March 18, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT

11:00 pm
good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. let me start tonight with bibi netanyahu's big win and signs of new trouble ahead for his relationship with the white house. israeli leader swung far to the right in the final days of the campaign. he backtracked on earlier promises by vowing never to support a palestinian state. came to congress and brazingly called out the u.s. president for negotiating a bad deal with iran and boasted to the israeli press about being able to stand up to the u.s., complained about an international conspiracy of leftists, supposedly throwing money into israel into office yesterday netanyahu warned his supporters that voters are going to the polls in droves. that's while the election was taking place yesterday. those comments got rebuked from white house spokesman josh
11:01 pm
earnest. he said "the administration is deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalize arab-israeli citizens. it determines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the united states and israel together." and david sell rod and tweeted. and robert gibbs talking about and robert gibbs talking about further bumps in the road. >> this is a relationship between the president and prime minister that you could actually see getting worse in the next few weeks if an iran deal comes through before it ever has a chance to get better. i think it will be very challenging despite the fact that there are a lot of things mutually important as it
11:02 pm
pertains to foreign policy. >> andrea mitchell is joining me now from jerusalem. that question, then, of whether there is going to be a price to be paid by netanyahu, he's been re-elected, but he did it by making those comments about arab voters. he did it by renouncing the two-state solution. is there going to be a cost for him going forward the way he won this election? >> well, certainly it's a cost of his relationship with this administration. the bet is that he's going to be around a lot longer than barack obama, at least a couple of years, if not a full four-year term. he's been elected for a strong mandate with these hard line policies. the domestic price, a lot of israelis are very concerned about the lack of peace talks with the palestinians, the fact that if they believe that going forward they are going to be a democracy, they either have to give the palestinians and arab-israelis already have the
11:03 pm
vote but they have to include more and more people because of the demographics in their country and if there isn't a two-state solution, what are they going to do? are they going to absorb the west bank or the palestinian territories? this is a huge problem for them. either they will become not a jewish state, which is not an alternative for netanyahu for anyone here in israel or they are going to have to deal with some sort of homeland for the palestinians. tonight, the administration is saying it is re-evaluating its entire policy. it's conceivable that they will revisit the whole question of whether they support israel at the united nations against recognition for the palestinians. >> wow. and you say in terms of this result, it's a mandate at least in the short term for netanyahu and then he did it -- >> absolutely. >> he did it after coming to the united states, taking a lot of heat for making that speech in
11:04 pm
front of congress, saying in front of congress, basically, this is a bad deal your president is negotiating right now. now in the wake of these results, if those negotiations the administration is in right now do produce a deal with iran, what is this emboldened netanyahu with this new mandate going to do? >> reporter: well, first of all, he believes that this trump card is the republican-led congress. they invited him and he showed up despite the disapproval of the white house. the president will have a correct publicly correct relationship with the leader of israel. he has to. it's a key ally. but the bottom line is, they are counting on members of congress to move ahead with some sort of unilateral sanctions. there's democratic support, tim kaine and other democrats for unilateral sanctions against iran, the threat of sanctions against iran which could blow up a potential nuclear deal. so that is the next big bump in the road. it's more than a little bump. >> andrea mitchell in jerusalem, thank you for the time tonight. appreciate it. >> you bet. as i mentioned, prime
11:05 pm
minister netanyahu's last-minute appeal to his supporters yesterday warning that arab voters are going to the polls in droves, "netanyahu of course wasn't dog-whistling here. he screamed the arabs are coming." joined by michael sheer. michael, let me start with you. in terms of the implications for the way netanyahu won this for domestic politics in the united states when it comes to israel, because when it comes to israel, there's been sort of a bipartisan consensus for a long time. democrats and republicans, whether it's a democratic white house, republican white house, they protect israel at the united nations. andrea mitchell in that report right there raising the possibility that this administration now with this re-elected netanyahu may not protect israel. is this a partisan issue here?
11:06 pm
>> i think the partisanship was known and that has already been there and i think this probably only intensifies it. the dual messages that they were sending, on the one hand, having secretary kerry, you know, reach out and congratulate the prime minister but reserving the president's phone call, that hasn't happened and at the same time, the president's spokesman really delivering a blunt message of disapproval of the way in which he won this election which was intended to put some further distance between the president and the prime minister which already, of course, is a poisonous relationship. i think as andrea said, the relationship will be polite but it will never be close. >> and jeremy, we talked about the closeness between netanyahu and the republicans in congress
11:07 pm
over here, the republicans in congress who invited him over to speak. now netanyahu has gone and renounced the two-state solution, the palestinian state living side by side with israel. netanyahu has renounced that. that is something that in this country republicans and democrats have been both in favor of, the two-state solution, george w. bush a strong supporter of two-state solution. with netanyahu making this turn, do republicans in this country now make that same turn, do you think? >> i think there's already been a move in that direction. there's been resolutions to that effect. there's been debate over party platforms in a couple of states. i think there's a real possibility that you see the republicans break in a way that aligns them very clearly with israel's right wing and i think that makes a lot of sense, that the policies that netanyahu is advocating is very close in world view to the policies that the republicans here advocate and they have a lot in common and similarly, i think the
11:08 pm
democrats and barack obama and folks at the center-left there who favor a democratic resolution, two states for two people, they have a lot in common as well. i think the break makes a little bit of a sense but it's a real shame for the u.s./israeli relationship. >> michael, are we entering into unchartered territory? not just ranker but serious disagreement over basic fundamental policy that exists between this administration and the administration in israel now? >> well, i think andrea put her finger on it. if you want to measure how bad this relationship has gotten, let's watch what happens at the united nations. the united states has always had israel's back, always been the one to put the kibosh on any sort of resolution that comes out of the u.n. with the 1967 border, something that would be
11:09 pm
something that the united states could actually let happen and not veto on behalf of it is ally. you know, those are the kind of questions we should be watching as we assess how bad the relationship can get. >> jeremy, when you look at public opinion in israel, do you think that as netanyahu grows further and further apart, perhaps from president obama, can you see a scenario where that public opinion begins to change in israel when they say, maybe we don't want to be having a distance between this administration and us. >> there's a real split in israel. a solid third responded well to the conflict with the united states and the conflict with barack obama, to the racism that you heard about and some of the other outlandish statements that were made. 72% of the country think it's going in the wrong direction. bibi netanyahu's favorability is under water. he's got a strong opposition.
11:10 pm
the results last night reflect the divide in israel that exists. >> thank you to michael sheer and jeremy. coming up, terror in tunisia. 19 people are dead. it's the latest in the string of brutal attacks across four continents. those are attacks are sharply driving up support for war against isis. plus, authorities in japan are investigating a threat against u.s. ambassador caroline kennedy. we'll have the latest on that. hillary clinton showing real strength in the republican field. barbara bush changing her tune and donald trump may be running. we've got all of that tonight. and then finally, what is dick cheney thinking when he says that president obama is playing the race card. this is "hardball," a place for politics. meta health bars help promote heart health. experience the meta effect with our multi-health wellness line. ♪ ♪
11:11 pm
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! despite the controversy over her e-mails, hillary clinton is trouncing the republican field. clinton leads rand paul by 11
11:12 pm
points in the national general election match-up and that is as close as any republican matched against her. marco rubio does next best. 54 to 42. clinton beats mike huckabee by 14 points and jeb bush trails hillary clinton by 15 points. clinton 55, bush 40. scott walker, who is surging among republicans these days, is also down 15 against the former secretary of state. again, 55-40 there. and with chris christie, it's 55-40 for hillary. we'll be right back.
11:13 pm
11:14 pm
welcome back to "hardball." at least 21 are dead in a traumatic incident near the tunisian parliament. and an air mechanic has been charged with trying to join up with isis. it was a wild and also a
11:15 pm
horrific day, which has refocused all of our attention and fears on violent extremism. let's start with tunisia where men dressed in government uniforms opened fire near parliament killing at least 19 people, most of them foreign terrorists. two of the gunmen were killed. the attack comes after isis fighters from tunisia circulated a video online that warned the country that they would not be safe under their current government. joined now by terrorism analyst evan kohlmann and jessica stern still trying to piece together what happened in tunisia. no official notification of who is responsible for this. does this feel like isis to you? >> yeah. look, when people think of isis, they think of foreign fighters from saudi arabia or iraq.
11:16 pm
what people don't understand is one of the largest contingent of foreign fighters under isis in syria and iraq are tunisians. they are being killed in suicide bombings and other attacks inside of these areas. where are they coming from? from tunisia. there's a rat line going back and forth and not to mention inside tunisia, you have al sharia, a branch of the same group behind the benghazi consulate attack. it's a small country in north africa. not a country that a lot of us associate with extremism or violence but there's a very proactive isis movement there. this is not the first act of violence that's occurred. >> how equipped is tunisia to deal with this? there was sort of a general warning from isis saying if you keep this same government you're in trouble and now this happens. how prepared is this country to deal with it? >> look, it goes both ways. the tunisians support a
11:17 pm
tremendous amount from european partners. on the other hand, they have been racked by instability over the last few years. there is tremendous problems there right now in terms of people sorting out the aftermath of the arab spring. a lot of people in tunisia are looking for democracy. there is a very vocal, small minority of people looking to use the arab spring to bring violent and radical islam into control in tunisia. the targets of that violence, you know, they are disturbing. tourists at a museum. this is even upping the scale from al qaeda which previously attacked the synagogue in tunisia. now they are going after tourism. it's not that all surprising. >> we've seen a flood of extremist acts targeting the west. in october, an islamic convert opened fire inside parliament there and then a muslim cleric
11:18 pm
took 17 people hostage in a sydney cafe. and then in january, more than a dozen died in "charlie hebdo" and two isis went on a rampage in denmark and two died. at the same time, all of this is happening and we're seeing a growing appetite to commit u.s. ground troops to the mid-east. a poll conducted by cnn had 47% of americans supporting u.s. ground troops in the mid-east. a poll had it at 47% and then jumped to 66%. two out of every three. a poll this month putting it at 62%. jessica, let me ask you about this. you understand and you've written so extensively about the mindset of isis. and i keep hearing, when we see polls like that, i always hear voices that say, well, that is exactly what isis wants. they want to whip the united states, whip the west into a
11:19 pm
frenzy, get the u.s. to commit troops that will ultimately help them with their recruitment, enhance their profile. how is the united states -- how should the united states be reacting to this? are we just playing into their hand if we do what these polls are telling us they want us to do? >> i think so. i think that king abdullah of jordan is absolutely right. the presence of western troops, ground forces will help them mobilize. i think that the best people to respond on the ground are actually sunni muslims because it's part of their strategy to go to the west to appearing there, to fight it out for the end times battle that they are anticipating. and also, of course, the -- if we see too many shia troops, that is also part of their strategy. they like to see a sectarian battle as well. >> do you think, though, when we've seen examples of this last
11:20 pm
summer in iraq, do you think the strength that -- that isis has shown without a presence of the united states, without a significant presence from the united states are the forces that you're talking about capable of defeating something as powerful as isis? >> well, i think they clearly need support from us and from others. it needs to be an international response and we need -- part of it needs to be diplomatic, part of it needs to be political, part of it does need to be military but the ground forces, in my view, at least for now, it's much better if they are sunni arab. >> well, evan, you look at these polls and you can see the cause and effect is obvious here. we look at beheadings, paris, all of those things and the natural reaction is to be horrified and say we want to do something about this. we don't want to sit back and let this happen. when you look at isis and the appetite of that, what is the best thing we could be doing? >> we would be having sunni --
11:21 pm
iraqi and sunni fighters liberating their country, other fighters legitimately sunnis. we don't live in a perfect world and the world we live in now it pears ha options. either we get involved or let iran take car of business. neither of tho options are good. they are both bad. the question is, what options do we have. the iraqis are not capable of liberating the country on their own. not the shiites or sunnis or the nonaffiliated. look what is going on in tikrit right now. we're not one day away from taking tikrit. >> are you seeing a role for u.s. ground forces? >> this is my problem. if we don't commit u.s. ground forces, what is the alternative? if someone can come up with an alternative to that that works and makes sense, again, i'm all for that. i think the problem is we seem to be going through every option and exhausting all of the options and they don't seem to
11:22 pm
be working. diplomatic pressure didn't work. getting our allies involved didn't work. it's great having the jordanians and uae contribute one bombing out of every 50 in syria but that's, a, not going to make any difference and, b, they are not committing ground troops. in the absence of sunnis contributing to ground troops, who can we actually count on to do this and unfortunately it keeps coming back that we don't seem to be able to count on anyone except ourselves. >> thank you, evan kholmann and jessica stern. ashton carter said the group is metastasizing beyond syria and iraq. >> we not only need to defeat isil, we need to defeat them in a lasting manner. and that's always the difficult part. we can defeat isil but defeating them in a lasting manner means somebody on the ground who keeps
11:23 pm
them defeated after we assist them in the defeat. congressman beto o'rourke is joining us from the capitol. thank you for taking a few minutes. you heard that discussion before you came on here. i'm curious, to get your take on that, as evan kholmann was just saying, his assessment is it would be great if somebody else could lead this fight on the ground against isis. he's not seeing any indication that anyone is capable or willing to do it. what do you think of that take on this? >> well, i feel like we've tried that before. of course, we invaded iraq in 2003. we spent tens and billions of dollars of equipping and advising their army only to see them melt in the face of an interior enemy, isis on the field of battle. our country strategy is to demand and beg the question, if
11:24 pm
we really want to achieve the president's goals of defeating and destroying isis, won't we have to commit our own ground forces? and if we do that, what's going to change in the future? how are we going to ensure that iraq does not devolve into sectarian strategy. does the state of iraq really make sense? does syria really make sense? is isis a symptom of the need to reorganize these places to admit that perhaps there should be some kind of sunni homeland, some kind of shia homeland, some kind of kurdish homeland? the current political boundaries don't make sense and i don't think the u.s. military alone can resolve this. this is an issue of statesmanship and state craft and when it comes to ground
11:25 pm
forces, i don't think they should be the young men and women in ft. bliss deploying into iraq and syria. i think it should be the jordanians and saudis and turks and qataris. it should be those that have the most to gain or lose in the outcome. >> should be. as evan was saying, it should be one thing but to get the job done it's something else. are you opened in any scenario to using ground forces from the u.s.? >> we have the greatest fighting force this world has ever known and they certainly want our support and they have that but i think what they want even more is a plan. i was a senior in high school when this country first announced military actions in iraq. that's that country. you look at afghanistan, we're 14 years in there. you look at military operations in yemen, in libya, military operations in pakistan, none of those countries in our positions
11:26 pm
of those countries are for better policies. i'm not willing to devote to commit u.s. forces and lives if we don't have a plan. that's what we need from this president, this administration and, frankly, from the actors in the region who have the most to gain or lose. >> while this is happening, there's an authorization for military force collecting dust in washington. republican hawks think it does too little. liberal doves think it does to much. they say they have the authority to combat isis anyway. this was john kerry testifying before congress last week. >> the president already has statutory authority to act against isil. but a clear and formal expression of this congress' backing at this moment in time would dispel doubt that might exist anywhere that americans are united in this effort. >> in the president's letter to congress requesting a vote on
11:27 pm
that authorization, he wrote, if you guys in congress cannot agree on some kind of new authorization for the us of american military force, the administration says, that's okay, we already have the authorization we need. what do you think of that? >> it's a bit of a ridiculous situation. the president has been at war in iraq and syria for six months now. he would now like cross' approval of that war while failing to appeal the underlying law. it would be nice to have your approval and stamp but if i can't get that, i'm going to prosecute this war, nonetheless. again, the defense secretary said today that approval from congress would send a message to our troops that we support them. those troops will have our support regardless. what those troops need is a strategy and a plan. you look at everywhere that we've intervened militarily over the last 20 years and i see
11:28 pm
failure. i do not see success. i do not see our interests being met. in fact, i see us creating more problems, isis being one of them, than the problems we're solving. so i think especially on behalf of the soldiers whom we ask to fight this nation's wars, we need a plan and strategy and to date we have not had one. >> all right. congressman beto o'rourke, thank you. the latest on caroline kennedy, the u.s. ambassador to japan. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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
11:29 pm
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
11:30 pm
11:31 pm
welcome back to "hardball." authorities in japan have launched an investigation into a series of death threats launched against caroline kennedy, the daughter of former president john f. kennedy. according to reports, the threats were made by a man speaking in english in several telephone calls to the u.s. embassy in japan last month.
11:32 pm
nbc news senior white house correspondent chris jansing is joining us now. chris, what do we know about this? >> reporter: it's a series of calls. the man spoke english. we don't know if it was unaccented english, which is important. look, this stuff does happen frequently not just there but to embassies around the world. they take it very seriously. it comes at a time where a number of things are coming together. first of all, the first lady landed in japan. she's there on an education initiative. former president bill clinton is there. in fact, he had dinner with caroline kennedy last night because there's a big symposium on her late dad, jfk. so he was very popular there. and in addition to that, there's been a lot of concern about diplomatic security in asia because of what happened to ambassador mark lippert and got 80 stitches. state department officials tell us that while there is no increased security at the embassy in japan, they won't
11:33 pm
comment on her personal security and a white house official told me the president has been briefed on these threats against ambassador kennedy. steve? >> chris jansing at the white house, thanks for that. >> sure. up next, former first lady barbara bush changes her mind on her son jeb running for president. she used to be against it and now she says she's for it. trouble is, jeb is not getting the same love from the rest of his party. round table is next with that and all of the news from the 2016 race. you're watching "hardball," a place for politics.
11:34 pm
11:35 pm
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
welcome back to "hardball," the 2016 presidential cycle is in full swing today with lots of developing news in the race for the white house. bush backlash is intensifying with new poll numbers that don't bode well for the florida governor. one thing jeb is counting on, support from his mom. an early primary and caucus state they are ready for hillary now, not later. joining me is jonathan alter, political analyst and mike paul
11:38 pm
is a former aide to al donato. jeb bush has the highest unfavorable ratings among all of the 2016 contenders. 47% of all americans have an unfavorable view of the former florida governor. that's three points higher than hillary clinton whose favorable score is a whopping 22% higher than jeb. 53% favoring hillary and 44% jeb bush. rand paul, marco rubio, both do marginally better than jeb against hillary clinton. so let's talk about this for a second because i find this fascinating. i think we're used to, for understandable reasons, thinking of the bushes as the face of the republican party. if a bush wants to run for president, of course the republicans are for him and the most electable one. 47-41. favorable, unfavorable. i went back and looked. at this point in the 2000 cycle, are you ready to this? 60-8. 60 favorable, 8 unfavorable.
11:39 pm
that says something to me that there's something about the bush name that is not sitting well. >> i think it's a combination of things. one, he's getting the negatives that his brother earned in his eight-year tenure as president of the united states. that's fair or unfair depending on your analysis. i also think it's because we know a little bit about what he would do if he were to win the presidency. we know his foreign policy would be led by the neocons. >> that's coming back into favor. that's the other thing we're talking about. the appetite for intervention. what do republicans think when they see a poll like that? because the -- part of the pitch for bush here is this get on board because he can win. you want to win finally and he can do it. you look at a poll like this and it's got to give you pause. >> one of the things we also know is they don't know this governor from florida. we're not in florida.
11:40 pm
the rest of the country doesn't know him. he doesn't have just one brother but a father that is branded with the bush name. he's taking on that legacy and it's almost like being in a car and you've got two cars behind you and all of the bugs are hitting your windshield. you better take on the legacy of two other people before people know who you are. >> the new poll suggests that people have had enough of the bushes. jeb's own mother agreed of that sentiment, just two years ago she agreed on the "today" show. >> would you like to see jeb run? >> he's by far the most qualified man but, no, i really don't. i think it's a great country. there are a lot of great families. we've had enough bushes. >> a few weeks ago barbara bush weighed in via skype on literacy and she said she, quote, changed her mind. >> jeb -- >> yes.
11:41 pm
>> -- it's mom. >> hey, mom. how you doing? >> just great. just listening in. anyway, what do you mean too many bushes? i'm changing my mind. >> now barbara bush is doubling down and helping fund raise for the likely campaign. she sent out a fundraising letter announcing she's setting out the run jeb run fund. when the idea of jeb running for president first came up, i was hesitant. you may have heard about that. what mother wouldn't be? jeb has the best chance at taking back the white house in 2016 and i hope you'll join me in pushing him to run. >> i love this legal pretense you have to have. but jonathan, i think this is one of the great ironies of modern political history. in the bush family it was always supposed to be years ago. jeb was the son who was supposed to run.
11:42 pm
he loses and george bush wins in texas and now jeb has to run in 2016 with all of this baggage. >> the bottom line is, we're not a banana republic. this idea that we have these dynasties is trouble on the democratic side with the clintons. but with the bushes we're not talking about sort of history making with the first women president, potentially. we're talking about three people from a same family who are not -- no offense to all of them -- but they are not enormously gifted americans. they are decent public servants. you might disagree with them but they are serving the broad middle range of american political families. so the idea, as barbara bush said herself, that out of more than 300 million americans, we have to go again to the same family, it doesn't sit well with a lot of people. but the point is, these polls right now are irrelevant because nobody knows anything about the
11:43 pm
other candidates. so they don't have anything negative on them yet. the only polls that matter, in terms of the match-ups with hillary clinton, are the ones a year from now. >> here's where i disagree with that. i think when they don't know with scott walker, there's not much we can adnt they know the name bush. when you're testing the name bush right now and it's coming back 47% negative, i think that's telling you something. >> it is telling you something but, remember, scott walker and rand paul and these others, they are in their honeymoon period with the american people because they are unknown. >> right. >> so they can project all of their desires onto -- >> that's true. $100 million -- >> and not just the negative on them, we'll see that they have their own serious flaws. so what happens is that at this point all of us obsess over these polls. do you know that michele bachmann was running the iowa straw poll, you know, four years ago. >> right. >> these are --
11:44 pm
>> the thing that should alarm the bush people, though, is the polls at this point when they show walker doing that well, it shows the appetite is there. it shows the appetite for somebody else is there. one thing it says to me as well is that you look at bachmann, she had a lot of flaws that were pretty obvious and exposed. when you look at walker, there's a potential there, i think -- this scares the bush people a little bit, to put it together in a way that bachmann could and herman cain couldn't. there's a potential that didn't exist with somebody like -- the self-destructive potential with gingrich was always obvious. >> she's going to have to earn this nomination but at the end of the day, this is true, always in politics, the best politician wins and we don't know yet whether jeb bush is rusty or whether he can bring it. >> right. >> a year from now. but to try to project -- >> same with hillary, to be fair. >> hillary doesn't have any competition in the general election. >> in the general. >> as secretary of state, she
11:45 pm
had to do that shake and grim and sort of door-to-door politics with the world leaders. i think the criticism that she gets that she's not a people person, i think that's a moot point at this stage. >> that's not the same talking point, a world leader is not talking to sandy with an ice cream in her hand or kissing a baby. >> it's improved over the past eight years when she was secretary of state. >> look, we said jeb bush, he lost in florida and they both have high-profile losses. round table is staying with us. up next, dick cheney and eric holder have been playing the race card. we'll talk about that next. this is "hardball," the place for politics. boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen.
11:46 pm
the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. get flood insurance. visit to learn more.
11:47 pm
well, here's one republican making a big push for president obama's nomination to be attorney general. rudy giuliani. says president obama deserves to have his choice of nominees even if he disagrees with some of her views. rudy giuliani urged the letter to be shared with fellow republican senator, many who have come out against lynch's nomination. he says that could give the wavering republicans to give them the push they need to confirm her. we'll be right back.
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
we are back. it's well known former vice president dick cheney will take any opportunity he can to slam the obama administration. but his latest political reflexes appear this week in a very unlikely outlet. "playboy" magazine. he spoke with james rosen of fox news in a wide-ranging nine-page interview in this month's issue. probably the most controversial part of the issue is when cheney accused obama and holder of playing the race card. i think they're playing the race card, in my view, to say that we criticize, or i criticize barack obama or eric holder because of race. i just think it's obviously not true. my view of the criticism is merited because of performance, or lack of performance because of incompetence. and hasn't got anything to do with race. we're back with the round table. i think what he was responding
11:51 pm
to there, what he was trying to say, is the president, eric holder, i believe holder made comments that some of the criticism that the administration received, that obama receives, has to do with race. cheney then took that and said they are implicating me, they are implicating anybody who criticizes them, not seeing that distinction there. >> the classic cheney style. i think it was inappropriate. i think when we get into these discussions with a race perspective, it shows the bad side of who we are as a country. not locally as ourselves, but as others look at us from around the world. i think it was a cheap shot. when we get into those kind of things, and we did that together here on this program a couple of weeks ago when rudy giuliani was going after our sitting president, not respecting him, you know, one of the things that i really don't like is when the republican party says that we have to honor the office of the presidency.
11:52 pm
and we talk about ethics from that perspective. and then we turn around and slap somebody else who's in office. it shows how unethical and immoral those kind of decisions are. >> it doesn't have any class. you know, george w. bush, whatever you think of him, is handling this with some distinction, in his relationship with the obama administration. and i think that dick cheney, obviously in the article, is reflective of the values of a political hack. this is a real transformation. if you go back to the first gulf war, whatever, even if you didn't favor that war, he was a distinguished secretary of defense. he served his country over many years, in some roles as white house chief of staff, in congress. very credibly. and in a way, that really impressed a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. and now he just -- every month it seems like he does something that takes it lower and lower and lower in -- it's really kind
11:53 pm
of sad. in some ways kind of inexplicable. some of his friends think he's a different person. if you ask somebody like brent scowcroft who served with him in the gulf war, he told me one time, i don't know what happened to dick cheney. >> strictly in terms of his views on policies, this is the guy that as secretary of defense made the defense why we shouldn't go into baghdad in '91, and then going in 12 years later. what changed. in the spotlight today, take a look at what dick durbin of illinois said about the holdup in the confirmation vote of lynch. she was compared to rosa parks. >> loretta lynch, the first african-american woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the senate calendar. that is unfair.
11:54 pm
it's unjust. >> well, i've got to ask, is that playing the race card? >> i don't necessarily like the comparison to rosa parks, but he is correct, not only is eric holder receiving unprecedented attacks, but loretta lynch has been held up for longer than any other person. why is that. that's the question. >> is he saying it's because she's black, or is he caught up in this, another one of these ridiculous tug-of-wars between >> i will say it explicitly. she's being held up because she's black. eric holder was unfairly attacked all along because he's black. it is attacking president obama by proxy. i don't think we can continue to say that race is a card, it's an identity. in terms of electoral politics, there's a rein of three-quarters of asians and hispanics and 90-plus of black people voted for president obama two times. >> i'm sorry, are you saying
11:55 pm
that the republicans do not want her to have that job because she's a black? >> i think they have a strong dislike for the president of the united states because he's black. that's one of the reasons. and it's an attack on him via proxy. >> i agree with her 110%. and it's the exact same reason that i went up to my old boss on this program and said the same thing about rudy giuliani. you know, going back to what john said a little while ago about the relationship between the sitting president, and the previous president, and his father, and clinton before him, those examples should not be taken lightly. it was a son who looked at his father and said, you know what, our parties disagree. i like the relationship i see as a former president. he talked to his son about it, and he said this is the right way to handle it. you'll be polled ironically by people like cheney and others in the republican party who want you to do other things, be
11:56 pm
presidential. understand the difference between staff and being a president. and do the right thing. i honor them, both sides. >> we've got to cut it there. sorry. we're right up against the break. >> playing the race card definitely, but not just because she's black. they do this to all of obama's nominees, white and black. >> that's what i'm asking about. i could see in this situation if there was a white nominee for attorney general, the republicans would continue to -- >> they're holding up a -- >> they question the race's intelligence. they don't that with every single white nominee. ♪ yeah, girl ♪ ♪ you know, i've been thinking about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ ♪ bundle ♪ ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby ♪ and that's how a home and auto bundle
11:57 pm
is made. better he learns it here than on the streets. the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive.
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
that's "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. if i could take on 100,000 protesters, i can do the same across the world. >> scott walker said he can take on isis. but did he just cave to pressure from iowa farmers? the 2016 campaign season ramps up, a reminder what the republican candidates can expect. >> why are they letting the dictator in. what benjamin netanyahu's resounding election means to israel and the united states. >> he mortgaged the future in order to win an election. >> white house adviser david axelrod joins me live. desperate measures against drought in calif


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on