a tax on the lgbtq community, war on women, war on african-americans with the voter i.d., war on the latino community is what is appearing to be the second nadeer. >> mark thompson gets tonight's "last word." invasion of the body snatchers. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. overnight the battle has escalated between obama and romney. before, the question was fairness. is it right to give big tax breaks to the rich? well, today the issue has sharpened. is it suicidal to give tax breaks to the rich while raising the taxes of the middle class? is it simply class warfare to give tens of thousands in tax

cuts to the very top having to pay $2,000 for those in the middle. welcome to the tax battle here at home. the middle class faces a tough enough burden these days. do we want to weigh them down further with this still heavy burden of this $2,000 in new taxes, romney taxes, so the better off get the best deal of their lives. that's the new state of play. to assess the politics tonight, a war unto himself, bob shrum a democratic strategist and steve moore writes for the "wall street journal". gentlemen, i'm talking about this decision. the obama campaign is taking this new study that's just come out showing a romney style plan, helps the rich at the expense of the poor. and they're running with it. this bar graph you're looking at right now shows how various income brackets are affected. and clearly the poor get hurt and the rich get helped. today the obama campaign made this the centerpiece of a new ad that will air in eight swing states. let's watch it.

>> you work hard, stretch every penny. but chances are you pay a higher tax rate than him. mitt romney made $20 million in 2010 but paid only 14% in taxes. probably less than you. now he has a plan that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year. mitt romney's middle class tax increase. he pays less, you pay more. >> well, what do you make of that, bob? this is a stronger, tougher more escalated battle. it's not just whether it's fair or nice to give big tax breaks to the rich. here we have a study showing every buck they make, tenz of bucks in each case, there's a dollar added to the burden of those in the middle. >> yeah, look, it's an effective ad. i love the picture at the end, by the way, he's getting off the plane and the one behind him says trump. the romney people are trashing this study. they've quoted the organization themselves before. the fact is a george bush

adviser was a co-author of this. they made assumptions favorable to romney both in terms of growth and in terms of what would have to be cut. they don't agree entirely with the idea that somehow this all pays for itself, and it didn't in the reagan years, but they do come up with a bottom line, that $2,000 a year you're talking about. this has been a terrible month for romney. he was awful overseas. he comes back to this. unlike the recommendation michael steele made on this network last night, the former r fl c chief, he's not going to release his tax plan, his tax returns. and i think he's eroding his standing. right now in the new pew poll, he's ten points behind and has a 37 favorable and a 52 unfavorable. this argument no matter where it goes is hurting romney badly. >> let's go to this question with steve. steve, what do you make of this report? and i want to go to a couple of points. the assumptions here are romney has laid out what he believes he can do, which is cut corporate rates, maintain the bush tax cuts all the way up to the top

of the income levels and at the same time keep the total level of revenue equal to what it is if you didn't make those changes. my question is, if you do that, keep the neutrality there, also make sure you've got the minimum tax removed and make sure all the incentives for investment and saving are maintained, how do you do all that and at the same time not reduce revenues or lay the new revenue responsibilities on to the middle class? >> well, let me just respond to one thing that bob said if i may, chris. i agree with you that mitt romney's had a lousy month. you know who's had a worse month barack obama? there's two statistics that barack obama can't get around. one is 1.5% growth which is anemic. barely keeping us out of a double dip reception. the other are 8% unemployment for months. those are devastating numbers. >> why don't you debate the tax thing instead of trying to shift the subject? give an answer on the tax thing. you going to give me the reagan fantasy again? >> all right, bob.

so let's get to this issue. first of all, what the romney plan basically says, chris and bob, is that 20% across the board reduction in tax rates for everybody. so there's no -- this fantasy that somehow the middle class is going to pay more, no. they're going to pay less. you're getting this confused with the obama/harry reid plan that doesn't change the ant where people next year are going to face a $2,000 tax increase if we don't do something about extending the bush tax cuts. where in the plan -- show me bob or chris, where in the plan it says about tax increases on the middle class. the one thing i will agree with you both on, a criticism i've made of mitt romney, is i do think he's going to need to be more specific about what tax breaks you're going to take away from people to help pay for this. >> well, that's how you get the tax increases. >> you just finally got there. took you a while to get to the reality, steve, here. if you're giving a tax break to the richest people in the world, somebody's got to pay for it if you're having the same level of revenues. bob, you do it.

>> hold on. you're leaving out something. >> look, the fact is, they assumed when they did this study -- and, look, this is a reputable group. mitt romney campaign has quoted them time and time again. when they did this study, they assumed that the tax breaks that are going to be taken away were going to be as fair as possible. but given the size of the tax cuts, you're going to end up with the middle class having to pay $2,000 more, the average middle class family. that's the bottom line of the study. >> yeah, but they just assumed that. >> that is the bottom line. you know, steve, you're smart. you can read the study. you don't have to sound like the romney fog machine. >> i've read the study and i've read the romney tax plan. there's nothing in the romney tax plan about raising $2,000 -- >> that's the point, steve. >> there is nothing in the romney tax plan. >> i want to referee for a second. no politician left, right or center is stupid enough to spell out how he's going to screw people. you have to read it to understand that. and if he's -- no, you tell me simply put.

if you're giving big tax break to the people at the top, corporate breaks, bush tax cuts for individuals, the whole routine and then you say you're going to keep the same level of revenue. anybody with a brain knows somebody else is going to pay the piper here. answer that question. >> i will. >> answer that. >> they're going to take away some of the tax deductions. we don't know which ones. hold on. let me finish this point. but what we do know is when you take away tax deductions, the top 3% that you want to tax more, they get 50% of the gains from all those tax deductions. a good example. a millionaire gets a much bigger tax deduction on the mortgage deduction than somebody with a $100,000 house. >> but the tax policy center studied it and said, on balance, the people at the top get a big cut even when you take away those tax deductions. and people at the middle and bottom get an increase. the only answer to this is to put the plan out there and let people look at it.

>> people at the top don't have mortgages. they borrow the money on their liquid assets. they don't even have to go to the trouble of mortgages. you're laughing already. you know they're not sitting around worrying about their mortgage payments. the millionaires. >> that's not true. they buy bigger houses. they make bigger payments. and there's economic growth. >> put out the plan. put out the tax returns. let's get the truth out there and maybe romney won't be losing by ten points. >> you know what i think, guys and this will squelch this conversation and i'll get to it at the end. i think there's a new tax to be considered here to protect the lower rates for the top people. there's only one answer to that. a new form of taxation. you don't have to tax the rich where you really go for the money or have bigger deficits. i think it's a vat and i think it's going to be proposed if romney wins. >> thumbs down on that. >> not all you guys. and not romney yet. if i had him in a debate, that would be the first question to put to him. will you rule out a vat or not? >> the answer is yes.

>> you would, but you're not running. this morning on a press call, a preview of the economic plan, campaign aide fern fehrnstrom dismissed the tax policy center report. let's listen to him flack for romney. >> that report you referenced is a joke. there are serious flaws with both the authorship of that study and the methodology. it was co-authored by a member of the obama white house, someone who was part of the white house economic team. >> well, flack will tell you half the truth. the other half he didn't tell you was it was also co-authored by a bush veteran. today in orlando, florida, president obama called out the romney campaign criticism. let's listen to the president here. >> first they said, well it's a liberal organization, despite the fact it's headed by an economist who worked for george bush. then they said that the study

failed to fully take into account the massive economic boom that would come from cutting taxes on the wealthiest americans and the biggest corporations. because we all know how well that worked out the last time we tried it. >> there it is again. cut and raise so you get more revenue. the dynamic score keeping that's always been proven wrong. but bobby, you start here. they want to make the case they cut the taxes for the rich, somehow the poor benefit. it's trickle-down absolutely in our face. give a bigger break to the guy with the money and somehow the pee-ones will wi e e es will do. go ahead. that's what they've been selling since reagan. >> steve and i will disagree on the merits of this, but the reagan thing in my view is a fantasy. what happened in the reagan years is they cut taxes and had big deficits. the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves. politically the president is in the right place here. the country agrees with him on whether the wealthy should pay more.

the country certainly agrees with him that the middle class shouldn't pay more. that's being held hostage by republicans in congress to give a tax break to people at the top. as this goes on, you look at that ad you showed at the beginning of the show, and listen to the president here, it's clear who is going to win this argument politically between fehrnstrom and romney. >> let me put on the scale here. there's one thing i see that shatters this argument. if it's true that the undecided voter who is trying to make up his or her mind right now, why do all of those 19 or so democrats call for complete continuation of all the bush taxes? i think they come from rural and conservative areas. they're afraid. but they have jumped ship there, bob. >> but the independent voters in the polling are in favor of the wealthy paying a higher share -- fairer share of the taxes. >> why'd they jump ship? >> bause they're cowards. they're scared.

look, the president is what matters here. he's going to go out and offer a fundamental choice. who stands up for the few and who stands up for the many in this country. who's fighting for the middle class or people at the top? >> steve, here's your shot. go for it. >> you nailed it, chris. 19 vulnerable democrats -- >> i didn't nail it. i'm just wondering why they're chicken. >> you said it better than i could. 19 democrats on battleground districts and they're not wealthy areas. these are middle class, working class rural areas voted to extend all the bush tax cuts. in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. >> was that an act or courage or cowardice? >> because they think it is good politics. and you know what? i think mitt romney is right on the politics. he's right on the policy. >> there are no numbers that support that. >> bob, hold on. let me finish. you said, bob, a few minutes ago the reagan tax cuts didn't pay for them stfls and you might be right about that. but chris what you and bob cannot deny is we had an incredible economic boom when

we cut those tax rates. >> yeah. because we had a keynesian economic policy that stimulated the economy. >> there's no doubt about it. we all agree that tax cuts generally stimulate growth in the economy, but that's a keynesian argument. the fact is if you shift the tax burden to the middle class are you smart or just screwing the regular people? thank you bob shrum and steve moore. you had a good shot on the show, steve. don't knock it. hot tea. tea party candidates are winning races. the behavior in the house will now be followed by the behavior in the senate. oh, boy. not so fast. could these guys cause more trouble for the republicans than for the democrats? that's my question tonight. the tea party is just trouble. plus, one right-winger out there is going after another right-winger. frank gaffney is going after grover norquist saying he's a member of the muslim brotherhood or working for them. what is going on in the right? should we just sit back and

watch the joyous craziness on that side of the world. speaking of right wing extremists, richard murdoch says his idea of compromise is having the other side cave into him. that's how tea partiers think. joe donnelly is even in the polls with murdoch and donnelly comes here tonight to play "hardball." finally, should english become america's language that you have to be able to speak fluently before you become a citizen? it's never been the rule before. you simply need fluency in some language. well, john conyers has an interesting salvo for congressman steve king who's pushing the bill. [ speaking spanish ] >> i don't think that's fluency in any language. anyway, no word on whether king got a full transition. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ♪

♪ pop goes the world ♪ it goes something like this ♪ everybody here is a friend of mine ♪ ♪ everybody, tell me, have you heard? ♪ [ female announcer ] pop in a whole new kind of clean with new tide pods... a powerful three-in-one detergent that cleans, brightens, and fights stains. just one removes more stains than the 6 next leading pacs combined. pop in. stand out. than the 6 next leading pacs combined. [ feedback ] attention, well, everyone. you can now try snapshot from progressive free for 30 days. just plug this into your car, and your good driving can save you up to 30%. you could even try it without switching your insurance. why not give it a shot? carry on. now you can test-drive snapshot before you switch. visit progressive.com today.

bob shrum just referenced a new pew poll at the top of the show. let's look at it. heading to the "hardball" scoreboard now. it's a big one. obama now 51%, passing the 50% mark. all of a sudden, and romney down to 41%, a ten-point lead for the president. keep an eye on that one. it's a closer race in the 12 battleground states we've been following but still a lead for obama. consistent with other polls 48%/44%. it's a wild national number right now, a big one for the president. we'll be right back.

there's a big difference of viewpoint in terms of what the tea party brings. i think they're one of the best things in the country because all of a sudden we're reengaging hundreds of thousands of people in this country who go to work every day, they obey the law and pay their taxes but they're sick

and tired of what they see as far as the stupidity in washington. >> that was oklahoma senator tom coburn earlier today on "morning joe" championing the tea party movement. following the big texas win by senate hopeful ted cruz, the tea party looks as if it's gaining strength and will likely add another member next year. it's good news for the tea party. but is that good news for republicans, democrats, or none of the above? max pap as is vice president of the group freedom works and mikal sheer is the white house correspondent for "time," who wrote the cover story in the latest issue. there it is. we always sell here. this question of whether -- i looked at last summer this time as what a great example of what the tea party can do to wreak havoc. as long as you've got 80 or so members of the house of representatives who are republicans who will vote against any deal that allows any revenue increase to coincide

with huge cuts in spending, they won't go along with it. therefore, they render impotent. even eric cantor who knows how to rides these guys and kills boehner as a negotiating partner and damn it nothing gets done. it's like the middle east peace talks. as long as you have tea partiers around, i contend nothing will get done. they will come to office with the single purpose of not being legislators. but simply giving speeches. your thoughts, max pappas? >> they sent them to the senate that harry reid controls and he sits on them. >> let's get back to the point. when it comes to reducing government and making deals that the democrats will go with it, that's the only way to get it done in the current form of government with two parties in it. what have they done to bring a deal to the floor? >> they passed the bill to repeal obamacare. >> there's a bipartisan thing, they want to screw obama.

>> democrats voted for it. >> this is the kind of talk that works out in the villages where people give speeches but has no relevance to running the united states. will tea partiers ever negotiate a deal that will reduce the federal deficit and reduce the debt down the road? >> i think if romney is the president, there's a much better chance if obama is president. >> how will it work? >> it will be difficult. you're talking about the freshman class in the senate. >> i'm talking about people like ted cruz and murdoch in indiana. >> they're going to be stars. they're going to be fantastic. >> see, your goal is to reduce the government to what? to a nonfunctioning irrelevancy. >> here's the compromise. i'll reduce it down to where we're not borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. >> in other words, no deal. >> deal if we get back to balance. >> what about ten dollars in spending -- >> how about the cuts. >> you don't get the cuts. by themselves. >> usually the ten for one deals is the wimpy version of politics like from popeye.

>> i know. >> tuesday for a hamburger today so the tax hikes -- >> except you're not going to get any other deals. just get rid of the democrats is your plan. >> they can stick around as long as they're going to vote for bringing the budget back down. >> it's complicated. you're talking about where you still need 60 votes to get anything done. if you're talking five, six republicans who are going to be playing this role, it's going to be hard for mcconnell -- >> if romney wins, full puls a victory this fall, the pelosi people come in and votes against everything he does. you'll have the same logjam and you'll love it because the government will stink. the more people hate the government, the more you like it. the more it fails, the more you like it. you're laughing about it. >> no. if you look at the graph, you slow down spending for one year you get a long-term benefit. we stopped it for this year. we'd like to keep it flat for another year. >> why should the government cut programs that help poor people unless it does something for the wealthy people. >> i'm not sure that's true. >> let's look. yesterday we showed you a

club of growth advertisement attacking ted cruz's opponent with that nasty word, he's a moderate. well, here's a cruz campaign ad comparing politicians to real conservatives. take a look. >> politicians from both parties have broken promises, driven us to the brink of bankruptcy and failed to secure the border. politicians cut deals. principled conservatives deliver. ted cruz, a proven conservative fighter who delivers. >> michael, you cover the politics of this thing. how does a conservative get something done without passing bills that actually achieve cuts in deficits or debt? >> it's a long-term problem, not just immediately what you're talking about but for the republican party. the most enthusiast part of the electorate right now is the tea party. it's been that way going on three years now that that's been the case. the problem is the republican party is being pushed to the right by this. and the republican party is now in a situation where mitt romney could lose the election and win 59% of the white male vote in this country.

the demographics much the country are moving a different way and the republican party is moving toward its base. so over the long term, if the tea party people who get into the senate, get into the house don't at some point start making deals, the trajectory of this enthusiasm, which is really a core group, not a majority of even the party. >> i think a lot of it is ethnic, too. i'm not trashing people who are racist but i think it's ethnic. people don't like the changing demographics of the united states. so every time -- >> like ted cruz. >> no. he's a cuban-american. >> or marco rubio. >> that's been a different situation. every time a speech is written by a tea partier, they're not happy with saying they're going to cut spending. they've got to say something to do with the border. >> that's not a tea party position. >> why does cruz make that statement? all of the time you hear border, border, border. >> what brings the tea party together is the center of american politics. it's not extreme.

it's let's spend what we bring in. it's fiscal policy. >> you're saying tea parties don't have an attitude about immigration. >> no. >> they don't? >> no. there's not a consistent tea party position on immigration. >> how can you say that when they're talking about the cause? it sounds like the confederate army still fighting the civil war. >> when we bring tea partiers together at freedom works, what they agree on is fiscal responsibility and the constitutional limit to federal power. they disagree on everything else. social policy, immigration. >> my experience is they're on the far right. >> we'll have you by next time they come. open door. >> far right. it is a far right political movement. >> center of american politics. >> i watched it bring down -- poor john boehner looks like a loser out there. you're independent of the republican party and to its far right. >> that's right but if we were to the far right we wouldn't be winning. we're at the middle of the politics. >> you're winning primaries, though. you're not necessarily winning general elections. >> we're seeing union guys disenchanted with their unions. >> by the way, stop with the domestic situation while you're at it. some of these guys are difficult when they talk fiscal responsibility.

i love fiscal responsibility at home too. max pappas, michael scherer, thank you for joining us. up next, the line of public officials fed up with michele bachmann gets even longer. this is "hardball," no surprise they've had it with her, the place for politics. [ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar car insurance companies say they'll save you by switching, you'd have like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or, "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology, and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save.

hassle, time, paperwork, hair-tearing-out, and yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. click or call.

back to "hardball." now to the "sideshow." a group of former u.s. officials have teamed up with ngo leaders and others to call for republican congresswoman michele bachmann and two of her colleagues to be removed from their posts on the house intelligence committee. bachmann and friends drew a slew of backlash suggesting that some in the u.s. government have ties to the muslim brotherhood. the list included huma abedin. in a letter, the group wrote in part, representative bachmann's advocacy of these conspiracy theories is particularly damaging to the u.s. interest

because of her greater prominence, including the fact that she was at a time taken seriously as a presidential candidate. despite considerable criticism these members of congress have refused to disavow their reactions so we urge you to act to replace them as members of the intelligence committee. so talk of muslim brotherhood infiltration, that may not play so well to the rest of the world. you think? well, moving on, the white house debated steve king's bill to make english our official language and require new potential citizens to be fluent in english. michigan democrat john conyers got his chance at the microphone during the hearing. see if you can guess whether he's in favor or not. [ speaking spanish ]

>> so he's not in support of the english-only bill. conyers said it congress said it was one of the country would look back on with shame and regret if it were passed. finally over to players and spectators getting ejected from baseball games. right? well, how about a p.a. system operating getting ejected? that's what happened in florida last night. the daytona cubs versus the ft. myers miracle. a p.a. operating named derek dye blasted "three blind mice" for all to hear. check out how the umpire and the announcers reacted. ♪ >> you're done! do not play "three blind mice" turn the sound off the rest of the night.

>> derek dye was ejected from the game. that is awesome. that is absolutely awesome. that is so cool! >> that is so cool. booted from the game. believe it or not, this has happened before. in 1985 someone else was ejected from a florida minor league game for playing the same tune. the umpires don't like being called "three blind mice." up next, conservatives pushing anti-muslim scare tactics, they're now targeting one of their own. grover norquist who pledges to never raise taxes now being accused by a right winger of being in league with muslim extremists. that fight's ahead. don't miss this one. this is fun. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

hello, everyone. i'm lynn berry. here's what's happening. aviation officials say three planes flew too close to one

another on tuesday but were not on a collision course. they say miscommunication was to blame. a judge refused a mistrial request in the drew peterson murder trial. peterson is accused of killing his third wife. and the july jobs report is due out later today. economists expect nonfarm payrolls rose by $100,000 with the unemployment rate staying at 8.2%. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." when michele bachmann who we created here, i think, and other republicans requested an investigation into whether hillary clinton's aide huma abedin was connected to the muslim brotherhood, the so-called evidence came from frank gaffney.

gaffney sees himself warning of infiltration at the highest levels of our government. for years he's been focused on a surprising target. fellow conservative grover norquist, yes, that grover norquist, the anti-tax crusader who has 95% of the republicans in congress to pledge to never raise taxes. he's accused norquist of working with the enemy, helping the muslim brotherhood for infill crea traiting the government. in turn norquist has called gaffney i think appropriately, a conspiracy theorist. for some it was a step too far. last year gaffney was barred from speaking at the cpac convention but he's not backing down. what do you make of this? you're covering it as a straight reporter.

tell me, is frank gaffney okay? i mean, he -- i'm going to get to it at the end of the show, but his accusations about logos and missile defense agency may be islamic symbols. he's finding things out there that may be delusional. >> more conservatives are lining up, john boehner, marco rubio, john mccain saying, look, he's pedaling in conspiracy theories, he's been accused of bigotry. >> bigotry towards whom? >> muslim-americans. they've been accused of being members of the muslim brotherhood with very, very little evidence and other conservatives are rejecting his claims. >> that's pretty rotten. >> it is. >> when i was in new york last week and you see people who work at the stands, all night at the food stands outside on the big avenues like sixth avenue and you see them out there praying, great americans who are trying to make it in this country with little background. and they all feel, i don't know what they feel when they read this crap. anybody with background with an

islamic background, anybody is now targeted with this stuff. >> these have consequences, too. someone that's been targeted by these accusations, has a security clearance, he has received death threats. law enforcement had to come to his house. these don't go into a void. >> terrorist suspect. then you have people coming on and saying, oh, they're just investigating. people like newt say they're just investigating. how would you like to be a terrorist suspect? that's enough. your thoughts. >> they draw connections very broadly. the norquist/gaffney feud goes back a very long time. gaffney was arguing that norquist introduced bush to some very rotten people. >> does he believe he's an agent of terrorist? >> does gaffney believe norquist is? oh, definitely. he said that. he said on cpac -- >> that a conservative intent on reducing the size of government by cutting taxes known to be a fanatic there, somehow he's not a loyal american. >> he says look this guy brought

-- to the white house. what was he lobbying for? and because people who norquist introduced bush to years ago -- >> okay. the idiocy of this. huma abedin, hillary clinton's good friend, they travel together. does anyone spot in hillary's arguments a pro-arab position? she's an american envoy. but what influence has been there? >> things are minor. tarek amedin was able to enter into the united states. he says he was able to enter the united states. but that was policy that a lot of people agreed with. some of the moves of the obama administration that's made towards the islamic world. he ran on meeting with iran. the way they look at it, is kind of let's find the roots and tentacles behind all of this. it can't just be a policy. >> the alternative strategy if you want america to be secure, you're a young woman, for the next hundred years let's make enemies of all arabs and islamic people.

let them all know they're enemies. that would be a strategy for winning hearts and minds in the world. make sure they know that we hate them. >> the sin grover norquist has committed is trying to bring more people like muslim-americans into the conservative movement. and that's what frank gaffney seems to be upset about. he says that norquist is basically expanding the influence of the muslim brotherhood and these islamic terrorists in the conservative movement. >> sometimes the logic of gaffney's charges can seem a little confusing. that's being pleasant. listen to what institutions he said norquist was helping the muslim brotherhood infiltrate. it may surprise you. let's listen to what he claims is happening here. >> that became sort of the entry point for member muslim brothers to work their ways into conservative circles, specifically to get into the

bush campaign and subsequently the bush white house and administration. >> i was thinking of the movie "a beautiful mind" all these things on the wall, you know. i'm thinking the way that gaffney, this evil man he's been trailing as he said for 12 years was using w. bush, the most toughest on the arab world we've had is somehow an agent of the muslim brotherhood. that's transparently ridiculous. >> based on something that's a dead letter. it happened 12 years ago. >> where is the pro-arab influence of george w. bush out there? >> kind of stopped after 9/11, didn't it? all the outreach stopped. but, because that happened and because norquist continues to kind of fraternize with these people, he thinks it might still be relevant. i mean, you're characterizing it the -- the way you characterize it, this is how theories develop. there's a couple of reids of truth and if you want to believe something darker, you take those

and run fast with them. >> was this like the big tank for all conservative thinking putting this together? how does that work? are they going to side with norquist against gaffney and say this is about economics and not crazy theories. >> gaffney's argument is if you know what i know, you will believe what i believe. but he presented all his evidence to the acu board, and she said there seems to be nothing here at all, and the board unanimously agreed with her. >> proving the conspiracy. that's what conspiracy theorists say. you just proved it. >> gaffney wants to try again. >> thank you so much. great to have you both on. up next, democratic congressman joe donnelly is the only thing standing in the way of a far right extremist richard more dock murdock from winning a senate seat in indiana which is currently held by a pretty good senator. joe donnelly here next. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

♪ hello...rings ♪ what the... what the... what the... ♪ are you seein' this? ♪ ♪ uh-huh... uh-huh... uh-huh... ♪ ♪ it kinda makes me miss the days when we ♪ ♪ used to rock the microphone

♪ back when our credit score couldn't get us a micro-loan ♪ ♪ so light it up! ♪ even better than we did before ♪ ♪ yeah prep yourself america we're back for more ♪ ♪ our look is slacker chic and our sound is hardcore ♪ ♪ and we're here to drop a rhyme about free-credit-score ♪ ♪ i'm singing free-credit-score-dot-com ♪ ♪ dot-com narrator: offer applies with enrollment in freecreditscore.com. . well, yesterday we told you about president obama's lead in the polls in some key swing states. but incumbent democrats also have leads in those senate races out there. let's check the "hardball" scoreboard. in florida it's senator bill nelson with a seven-point lead over republican connie mack. i guess they know he's not his father. that's according to the cbs/new york times/quinnipiac poll. the poll also found that in ohio sherrod brown has a 12-point lead over self-financier josh mandel. and in pennsylvania, i'm always watching that one, bob casey with an 18-point lead.

i know bob, he's still working hard. finally in michigan, debbie stab agnaw is oefr hoekstra. xó

we're back. what can you say about a senate candidate who proudly declares

his idea of compromise is making the other side cave in? that's the language used by richard murdock the tea party candidate who won the race between he and senator lugar in indiana. take a look. >> what i've said about compromising bipartisanship is i hope to build a conservative majority in the united states senate so that bipartisanship becomes democrats joining republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce of bureaucracy, lower taxes and get america moving again. >> he's not exactly laughing when he says that absurdity. imagine what happened if every senator talked like that guy. would anything ever get done? don't compromise on thinking. u.s. congressman joe donnelly, a moderate democrat, is running against murdock this november in what could be a very tight race. congressman, donnelly, you're a notre dame guy so i like you already. is this a close race right now fairly put? >> it is. the last poll put it a dead heat 42-42. >> i noticed in your speaking you're out there openly doing

what jack kennedy did in '52. in his case he went for the taft vote against eisenhower. you're going for the lugar vote. you're saying if you're a moderate republican and voted for dick lugar all these years, you should vote for me. >> absolutely. if you're listening to richard murdock, he questions whether social security is constitutional, whether medicare is constitutional. he tried to destroy chrysler. he has had time after time, as you just saw, where he just said my idea of compromise is democrats doing what we want them to do. lugar republicans are thoughtful people, moderate republicans who want to try to move our country forward. of that's not where richard murdock is. >> but has your state -- i don't think of indiana as a right wing state. i mean, it's not utah. it's not wyoming. it's not mississippi. you know, you don't have a history of that, do you? >> what we're about is common sense. it's how do we work together to create jobs, create opportunity, make our state grow, and make our country grow. that's what we're looking for, we're looking for people to act like adults, not like fifth

graders. >> you know, back in the '60s, i think '62 caper was flying to far to the right and your state dumped him. they said too far. does your state still have the anti-far right attitude? >> absolutely. what we're about, truly, is bring us solutions to the problems. don't talk about it, get work done. they don't expect us to go to washington and just give flowery speeches. we're the hired help. we're sent there to get work done, not to talk about it but do it. >> here's murdock. after losing to murdock, senator lugar wrote a sharp concession letter. he said, quote, if mr. murdock is elected, i want him to be a good senator. but that would require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to washington. he will find unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as legislator. worse, he will help delay solution that's are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities. i was just talking about this. i mean, you're the expert, i'm

the watcher. i used to work on the hill. every time you try to get something done, you have to give something to the other side or nothing gets passed. >> that's exactly right. i live right on the michigan line. fred upton just across the line, fred and i worked together to get the opportunity to have a veterans center in south bend. it didn't cost any more. but as a team we were able to make our case. over in ft. wayne we were able to save an air base there with the republican congressman from that area. the way you get things done is to work together. this fellow is talking about if he gets to washington and there's a democrat senate, he's not even going to try. he's going to travel around the country giving speeches. we're hired to do work, not to travel around the country. >> last week murdock made a somewhat startling analogy comparing the government bailout of chrysler to slavery. let's watch. >> mr. lincoln said if it was a prince demanding tribute from his subjects or if it was offered by an apology by one race of men for enslaving

another race of men, it was, he said, the same tyrannical principle. it is once again that message from washington, d.c. that even people like those i represent can work and sweat and toil and earn and save so that someone else can be given their assets. it is the same tyrannical principle as in 1858. but now it's 2012. >> you know, on a rhetorical level -- i'm a student of this, i'm not saying he's like him. but that nasal voice, that indignant nasalness that joe mccarthy used to use all the time, you know? the same communist party that did this is the same one killing our soldiers in korea. it's that same kind of angry nasalness. what is that about? is that something that works in indiana? >> he also compared trying to destroy chrysler, he called it his rosa parks moment. >> what's that mean to him? >> he has compared himself to rosa parks, an american hero. >> she gets on the bus and won't

go to the back of the bus. how does that relate to him? >> i have no idea how he thinks that relates to chrysler and his actions. she is an american hero. he's tried to destroy over a hundred thousand jobs in indiana. in indiana we want you to focus on creating jobs, creating opportunity. and we honor our american heroes. we don't talk about them in a way that makes no sense. >> i'll be surprised if indiana jumps in the nut barrel. >> they're not going to see. >> let's see. good luck to you. i hope not. we can't endorse, but you seem like a good candidate. notre dame, sing the song together. that's congressman joe connelly running against a wild man. when we return, let me finish with a fight between a guy on the far right between frank gaffney and grover norquist. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. know that honey nut cheerios is... oh you too! ooh, hey america's favorite cereal is... honey nut cheerios ok then off to iceland!

let me finish tonight with this. never interfere with the enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself. napoleon bonaparte is to have said that. it seems like the smart advice for reasonable people watching the crazy intramurals we talked about tonight. i'm referring to what neoconservative gaffney is saying about tax avenger norquist. according to gaffney who normally champions the latest war overseas, norquist is sec t secretly working with the enemy within, that he's doing the work of, you guessed it, the muslim brotherhood. listen to his words and think about someone who might say

them. i have had it as my personal burden for the past 12 years to try to warn conservatives one of their own has been involved enabling and empowering muslim brotherhood influence operations against our movement and our country. he goes further. gaffney says that it all starts with the bush white house. got that? the people around george w. bush. quote, that game became sort of the entry point for muslim brothers to work their way into conservative circles, specifically to get into the bush campaign and subsequently the bush white house and bush administration more generally. this is from the same accuser who once made and withdrew a charge that the logo of the u.s. missile agency bore a similarity to the islamist crescent and star. something nefarious, he said, was afoot. so this strange war goes on between the questionably accountable and the seriously -- between the enforcers of the conservative order. one demands that politicians