weiner weary and stay classy san diego. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. "the new yorker" magazine for next week has anthony weiner mounted up on the empire state building tv helicopters swarming around. and above as he takes pictures of the tower's pinnacle. it wouldn't be -- it would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact it's dominating democratic politics in this world. weren't we the country that

taught the world that people had the brains and judgment to pick their own leaders? didn't we say, certainly churchill did that democracy is the best form of government. yet, here we are watching this guy at the top of the empire state building contending still he wants to be mayor and leader of the world's greatest metropolis, the center of the consciousness of the universe. the circus has come to town. the question is, when is it going to leave? meanwhile out on the west coast, a real live mayor already elected is taking two weeks for therapy after dramatic charges for sexual misbehavior in the workplace, charges for which he now asks forgiveness. finally some good news for weiner, a brief eclipse of the sun in which a solar system in which he has been the moon of the hour. steve kornacki and kelly goff. kelly, i think you're on this beat. let's take a look at this woman, her name is sydney leathers.

i guess that's her real name on "inside edition." here's what she had to say. >> i felt manipulated. >> why? >> because obviously, i felt like you know, he's saying one thing to me, saying another thing to his wife, saying another thing on the campaign trail. i don't know who the real anthony weiner is i guess. i really truly believe that he needs some help. and i'm not saying that in a condescending way. i really think that he has some issues that he needs to work out. and i don't think he's fit to be mayor of new york city. >> when did things turn dark and dirty? >> very quickly. >> who prompted that? >> him. >> so anthony weiner moved your conversation from professional to dirty? >> yes. >> well, that's putting it directly. let me go to kelly on this. you know, i guess i don't like

the line of questioning. i guess it's inevitable what happened here. you ask is this guy decent enough to be mayor. today he says once again he's running for mayor of new york. what he wants is a promotion. let's not forget, he was a u.s. congressman, one of dozens in the new york area. now he wants to be the job he always wanted. he wants a promotion because of all the mess he's caused here. spitzer is coming on the show on monday. at least he understands the need for demotion from governor to. -- this guy wants to be rewarded and he says if you don't forgive me and reward me and make me mayor, there's something wrong with you. you're being judgmental and weird. if you don't back me, you got a problem. >> i think the one quote on twitter said it best, when did new yorkers' self-esteem become so low we decided anthony weiner is the mayor we deserve? that that kind of says it all. >> tell me why 16% of the people after they knew about this, which is a big chunk of votes in a city where christine quinn wien this windfall of good news

for her has only got a quarter of the votes. he's still in the running based upon the latest polling. i mean that. he could get second or a strong third. he could still win this thing. i don't care what anybody says. there will people that will say you know i'd prefer mr. weiner. what are they talking about. >> when i first got out of college, i worked as an operative in new york politics. what's going on, chris, there's a very strong abq contingent in new york, that's anybody but quinn. we could have a separate conversation why that is. what i've heard from a lot of people, they're trying to hence their bets on which candidate they think is most likely to take out kristin quinn. for some, they think weiner may still be that guy for fund-raising and other reasons. that's why it's still a split vote here. you didn't see immediate evaporation of his support. >> what's the knock on quinn? >> a lot of people feel she's responsible for giving mayor bloomberg a third term.

>> they voted for him a third term. the people voted -- they had an election in new york and bloomberg won it. >> can i say i got done writing about this because of bill thompson. bill thompson was outspent 10-1. president obama would not campaign for bill thompson and thompson still came within less than 5% of beating mayor bloomberg. you're talking about the 2016 presidential race, we're talking about july 2013 right now. >> suppose he wins. >> well, suppose he wins, then he's a ticking time bomb. but i think there's a much greater likelihood at this point anthony weiner's going to fizzle out, lose the preliminary in september and be an afterthought by 2016. if you want anthony weiner off the stage, that's the best to hope for he stays in this race and doesn't just lose in september. he loses badly. comes in near the back of the pack at the back of the pack in a way that gets him off the

stage for good. >> steve, you work for msnbc now. is your opinion this guy is really out of it? he's not going to be elected mayor of new york. is that your opinion? >> yeah, i think so. i think before this week, he could've won. he actually improved significantly in the two months as a candidate. his negative numbers were on par with christine quinn's. now there's been a ceiling. no, he will not win now. >> kelly, can you say that? are you still live reporting straight here? you can't give us the verdict. what's going on? >> i think anthony weiner at this point is as likely to become mayor as i am and i'm not running. >> well, i think you would be in the running. thank you, kelly goff and steve. monday on "hardball," we're joined by eliot spitzer. we'll have a very interesting discussion. it will be within bounds.

but there's questions he's got to answer about his decision to run for public office again and we'll ask him about that. coming up, another civil war in the republican party, and it's the hawks versus the doves. i love this fight. rand paul the party's front runner, the intellectual debate over privacy is dangerous. he's picking a fight in the republican party. is the republican party, however, still the hawk party it was under "w"? i'm not so sure. plus, what are we to make of the zimmerman case. she said in her heart, zimmerman was guilty. she voted to acquit. she said she had to acquit him. but now she feels she owes trayvon martin's family an apology. why would she apologize? this is complicated and we're going to get to it. this time, how the across the board spending cut known as the sequester is costing america 1.6 million jobs. and let me finish tonight

with the republican civil war over war. and this is "hardball." the place for politics.

uh-oh! guess what day it is?? guess what day it is! huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!!

get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

>> welcome back to "hardball." a hallmark of the republican party for years now. from the reagan days of military involvement in lebanon to bush senior's first gulf war. and, of course, the invasion of iraq. the party's core identity all these years. it's the calling card has been internationalism and interventioni interventionism. but a new libertarian wing has exploded on to the scene in recent years does not rely on the wars of choice. they filibuster against the use

of drones, fight the nsa. they want no part of the war in syria or revolution in egypt. not a loose international notion or interpretation of national security. that split in the party isn't sitting well with crust christie. he took aim at rand paul just yesterday. >> this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines, i think, is a very dangerous thought. >> senator rand paul for example. >> you can name any number of people and he's one of them. these esoteric intellectual debates i want them to come to new jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. >> now, in response, john, a

paul saying on twitter, christie worries about the danger of freedom, i worry about the danger of losing that freedom. spying without warrants is unconstitutional. is the hawkish wing of the republican party starting to fade? will democrats be able to capitalize on the new division in the gop? i'm fascinated by it myself. david axelrod is an msnbc political analyst, and a former senate republican candidate out in california. thanks for joining us. let me start with this. we've run through the history of the republican party. david, and clearly they have been if you have to argue back and forth, they're the more hawkish party, the democrats more dovish. lear cannily the issue of the war in iraq are a war of choice was a key issue i believe and i believe you know was a key factor in the strong political run by president obama back in '08, starting in 2004. do you think the republican party is having guilt about the war in iraq they now feel is unpopular that they're beginning

to think this instinctive call to arms, engagement in countries like syria, and lebanon won't pay off at the ballot box? >> first of all, i would quibble with one point which is there has been over time taft and others in the past, there's been a strain of isolationism in the republican party. it's resurge be the now represented by this tea party faction. of course, the reality is we have to find the right place between these two points of view. there are times when we have to act in order to preserve the safety of the american people, but we can't intervene everywhere. it seems like paul and christie may be moving to stake out, you know, the polls of this debate. and the sweet spot is the middle. that's where most americans are. >> let me go to carly. thanks for joining us. let's take a look at something that happened in the election back in 2008. not 100 years ago. this is when during the debate

when ron paul, the father who has the same policy as his son, when he came out in 2007 and basically took on the issue of why we're getting so hawkish and rudy, who didn't end up winning because he was pro-choice jumped on him like a hawk. it was quite a scene. i wonder if this could be repeated today the same way. here it is. >> we need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. >> are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir? >> i'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. >> may i make a comment on that? that's an extraordinary statement. that's an extraordinary statement. as someone who lived through the attack september 11th that we invited the attack. because we were attacking iraq. i don't think i've heard that before. and i've heard pretty absurd explanations for september 11th. >> carly, your view on this, hawk or dove?

which way is the party heading? because the democratic party has been pretty happy with its general position as opposing the war in iraq while being very tough on al qaeda. so there's been a bit of a division and emphasis there. different i think than president w. bush. >> well, i think we're conjoining a couple things here. the data point that i would offer up is that the majority of americans today think that edward snowden is a whistleblower, not a traitor. and i this i what that data point tells you is that people actually are quite troubled. on the one hand, people want to be safe and they understand that be government is engaged in activities to keep us safe that they didn't used to be. on the other hand, they worry about a government that has vast power that we don't know about and government agencies that we can not effectively hold accountable. that's a different issue than whether or not you believe we should have been in iraq or not, and there the splits have always existed in the parties. >> where are you on those issues?

the speaker of the house came out the other day and led the republican party in fighting not to restrict the nsa. he's very comfortable with the security approach that's more hawkish. where are you on surveillance and wars like iraq? >> i believe. >> you're a big republican. >> i believe that we have to ask now fundamental questions. and i actually would hope that as david axelrod suggested, there is some middle ground here and actually some ground for bipartisan agreement. the big fundamental question is, how do we hold these bureau crasscies accountable? how do we know they are not abusing their power. >> how do we know that they are competent and ethical? these are huge questions. when the government now has such incredible power, power that we didn't even understand they had six months ago we ought to be asking those fundamental questions. >> let me get back to you in a minute. here's my general question. should the united states be primarily concerned with its own defense?

do we have to be careful we don't get invaded and two days later say somebody says if we'd only done one thing because we're concerned about civil liberties. >> are you asking me? >> if you come out what looks to be an argument and you didn't use that power, you're dead politically in this country if you get attacked. >> chris, i worked 20 feet from the oval office for years and i saw the president the national security team grapple with a very real threat of attack. and the tools that are there that the nsa provided were important in thwarting some of those attacks. if we hadn't done it, then we would indeed have had more catastrophic kinds of attacks. i think people would have been outraged about it we have to be careful how we do that, and what the president suggested is that's why we have to have the involvement of all three branches of government. the answer is not to scrap the intelligence gathering that has demonstrably helped keep the

american people safer. >> i don't like this. i'm not comfortable with you two agreeing too much. i'm going to put a question to both of you. i think i know the answer with david and that is this. do you think it was a good thing for america to invade, attack and to overrun and occupy iraq in 2003? was that a smart move? or a mistake? >> i think it was a grave mistake when we were attacked not to go after the people who attacked us but to divert our attention to iraq at great cost of lives and resources while bin laden and the and the people who attacked us went free for years. and so yes, i think it was a big mistake. i don't think that sort of reflexive of interventionism reflexive attack is the answer to every threat in the world. on the other hand, there are real threats we have to respond to. >> carly fiorina, same question. was it right to invade iraq? yes or no. we know a lot. >> given what we thought we knew

at the time, yes. i supported that decision then, i support it now. however. >> it was a smart decision to go to iraq? >> yes, given what we thought we knew. now it turns out the information was wrong. there were no weapons of mass destruction although virtually every intelligence agency around the world stood together and say yes he had them. big important however, we mismanaged that war tremendously. we had unrealistic expectations. we didn't resource it appropriately. so there were many, many mistakes made. >> my opinion wmd, the claim had nothing to do with that war. the people that wanted that war from dick cheney to the neo-cons the whole batch decided on that how do you square that with your concern about the accuracy of the intel when in the fact the people led us into there said it didn't matter there was no wmd.

explain. >> it's a very good question. >> it sure is. >> i think casting aspersions on the cia and british intelligence -- >> i'm casting aspersions. >> excuse me, chris. i let you finish. i let you finish. i know the directors of both the cia and british intelligence. i knew them at the time. they were both absolutely convinced, based on the information they had, that is wmd existed and they would say so to this day. having said all of that, it turned out to be wrong. and yes, i absolutely support ta we need more effective intelligence gathering tools and techniques, but we have to understand how to hold government agencies accountable with this kind of power. we have not had a national dialogue on that. that is why most people think edward snowden is a whistleblower, no the a traitor. this is a big issue. >> well, thank you, we disagree. you are a hawk and i'm a dove.

that's it. i'm glad i disagreed. up next, jane fonda, i like jane fonda, and nancy reagan, and i like her even more. a lot of republicans are up in arms that the famously liberal actress is playing the former first lady. what does nancy think? that's a query. and this is "hardball," a place for politics. because my back hurt so bad. the sleep number bed conforms to you. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. do you toss and turn? wake up with back pain? if so, call us now. you'll learn how the sleep number bed helps relieve back pain by allowing you to adjust the firmness and support to conform to your body for a more proper spinal alignment. just look at this research... 93% of participants experienced back-pain relief. plus it's a great value because it costs about the same an innerspring yet lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free

information kit with dvd brochure and price list. call now and we'll include a free $50 savings card. call now for your free information and this free $50 savings card. call now!

back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. sexting and politics don't mix obviously. anthony weiner has proven that this week. what if there was a service that helped politicians indulge their digital perversions, if you will, without the risk? take a look at this parody commercial from conan last night. >> oh, no, there's a picture of my penis on tmz again. that's the fourth time this week.

>> oh, well, guess there's nothing i can do about it. >> wait. i can help. >> who are you? >> i'm with the junk squad. we teach congressmen who weren't born in the digital age how to send pictures safely and discreetly. >> wow. if you're old enough to find computers perplexing, one of our junk squad technicians will personally visit your home, office or governor's mansion and safely guide you through the process from start to finish. >> sounds great. >> first of all, as a high ranking public figure, are you sure you want to send someone she may have the approval of at least one influential republican. here she was discussing the role yesterday. >> i thought it would be fun to play her. i know people say, oh, my gosh, jane fonda is playing nancy reagan. i don't think whatever differences there might be in our politics really matters as an actor, an approach her as a

human being and i happen to know she's not unhappy that i'm playing her. >> i hope she plays her well. she said she heard it from a friend that nancy was okay with it, but about can't beat an endorsement like that. that's "hardball" for now. coming up next, "your business" with j.j. ramberg.

[poof!] [clicks mouse] there's doughnuts in the conference room. there's doughnuts in the conference room. automatic discounts the moment you sign up.

how can a small business compete with the big-box stores? for one hardware store, it's beating them on price. find out how they're able to do it. and a unique bike called the freedom cycle. time to get rolling and make money coming up next on "your business."