going to call a victory. professor of political science, thank you very much for joining me tonight. rumors of war. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. what is it that makes me resist all this? what is it that makes me ask why attacking syria and killing a bunch of people there would be a signal to the people running syria that they were wrong to kill a bunch of people in syria? we shoot cruise missiles into the country, kill dozens of people who happen to be working in or living near a weapons pile. the idea is to teach their government a lesson. i guess killing its people is a way of instructing him not to do the same.

when their relatives hold funerals, the people of syria demand violence and vengeance and the government of syria looks for ways to teach us again a lesson. some act against israel. some unleashing of hezbollah in lebanon. does anyone think this is our last act of war against bashar al assad? really? the president wants assad to go. several weeks or months will he begin to push for stronger methods to get assad out? will he allow this war to fester in the middle with millions of refugees pouring into jordan and lebanon? isn't this the balloon going up for a wider presence in the east. if not why is every neocon bouncing around from tv show to tv show blowing their bugles. and these people aren't usual this the ones showing restraint but are showing it now. congressman holt, i don't know

if you've seen the actual vote from the senate. the senate foreign relations committee voted just a few hours ago 10-7 and they voted basically for the president's resolution to authorize the use of force in syria. in the committee it was lop sided. only three republicans voted for it. the resolution includes controversial language mccain pushed for that said the goal of intervention was to quote, change the momentum on the battlefield in syria. it still faces major hurdles. as politico reported today, nearly 80% of the house republicans opposed to launching a strike. and in the senate only about eight to ten yes votes among the support there. i'm looking at this language here, congressman holt, that was crammed into the resolution that has nothing to do with a bombing attack.

it's talking about the president to the congress. an integrated plan basically to bring about a negotiated political sentiment in the conflict in syria involving all kinds of arms and aids. this is a multifaceted resolution which the president will sign calling for a major u.s. effort apparently to change the direction of the war in syria. and everybody's saying don't worry this is a dainty little one-time-only operation. by the way, why do they need 60 to 90 days to carry out a two-day war. that's my question. >> that's a lot of questions and good questions. the vote count you need is not just in the house or just in the senate. it's really in the united states of america and the world. the only reasons for us to be

involved in this civil war in syria that possibly justifiable reason would be to enforce international standards for civilized behavior. to say that weapons of mass destruction may never be used or else there will be real consequences. but a single nation can't enforce international standards against a single nation. that's -- and particularly the united states who, you know, our reputation for having clean hands with respect to chemical weapons is not all that good. if you looked at the cia and other things. so -- >> what do you mean? are you saying congressman that we have used chemical weapons? >> no. i'm saying that we have been historically too close to the involvement, too close to the use of chemical weapons in the iran and iraq war. >> by whom? in the iraq war? in which war?

>> against iran. and much of the world sees united states culpability in that. and my point is if you're going to enforce worldwide standards, it has to be done multinationally. it can't be done unilaterally. and furthermore has to be done in the way the world understands. so potential future users of these weapons of mass destruction would clearly understand. and therefore can't be done by a single nation. >> so you're voting against this resolution when it comes to the house? >> well, likely. i've talked to the white house today and two days ago and given them a long list of questions that they have to answer. and i said you've only got a few days to answer them. the more they try to answer them, the less satisfied i am. >> let me go to robert gibbs. thanks for coming on. it seems to me you're here more or less in support of the administration position. is that fair to say? >> well, i -- depends, i guess, on what question.

>> do you support the resolution? >> i do -- >> let me ask you this. here's the problem. the president is trying to square a circle here. he wants to keep the progressives with them that are skeptical of the involvement in the middle east. at the same time he wants to bring in mccain and win the support of apac and neocons. then we have this language -- now, may be refined in the process of being refined, but basically enough to get the mccain crowd to support this resolution out of the senate foreign relations committee. it talks about the president coming forth in 30 days of this for a plan for helping the opposition overthrow assad. why are we getting into that when all this was supposed to be about was whether we deal with them regarding the chemical weapons use. why bring all this in. >> i think that is a paragraph on what secretary kerry and

others have said for a long time. and that is we have to bring to bear some change in the political calculus of assad to leave power. that's what we desire. we desire that he leave power in a negotiated settlement. i do not -- >> military aid to the rebels? so we're taking sides? >> we made a decision adds a government. i don't mean "we." the government made a decision to begin passing limited arms to the rebels. again, i think this is a time-limited, no boots on the ground resolution. >> why would the people in the democratic side who were skeptical about a war not only say i support the right to the bombing mission or cruise missile mission but also sign onto the stuff mccain wants to do and neocons want to do who love this stuff. >> i don't know where bolton and cheney are on this, but they're both opposed to this.

>> that's local politics out there, but anyway. with her. >> john bolton, i don't know what he's running for yet. but i would say if you're a progressive and i would say to congressman holt, if no one will stand up and enforce the international norms that i think he is extremely concerned with, that somebody's going to have to do that. because if we don't stand up and enforce those international norms, the nearly 100 year prohibition on chemical weapons in warfare, if we don't do it what signal does that send to assad? >> my response quickly is your notion and very cleanly and daintily you're saying enforce international norms. what you're saying is give the military the right to send cruise missiles into syria and kill people. that is somehow going to stop assad from killing his people. explain how that stops him from killing his people. >> i think what we do is we degrade his capability --

>> by doing what? >> go after helicopters, airfields, delivery mechanisms for these chemical weapons. >> you think this is going to be a surgical strike? >> i think it will. >> and not kill many people. >> i do not think it will kill many people. >> congressman, your thoughts on the idea we kill people to punish someone for killing people and basically we're killing the same syrian people which is so encrusted with irony, i don't know how to keep going. your thoughts? >> i think mr. gibbs is saying we'll make a strike to deter assad in the future. that's hard to do. chemical weapons are no doubt dispersed. it's going to be hard to take them out. the only possibly justifiable reason would be to deter future use around the world of weapons of mass destruction. in other words, to enforce these international norms. that's what secretary kerry talks about, it's what the president talks about. i don't see how one nation can do it.

if the rest of the world won't do it, then we can't. it is not up to one nation to enforce -- >> then nobody can. if one nation can't, then nobody can. i think the standard is if we don't want this to happen again, then somebody has to do it. the russians and the chinese are not going to do it. right? the russians are the arms dealers to the syrians. >> you know, i've -- >> let me ask you, congressman -- >> i've asked the administration -- >> secretary kerry had a question from rand paul, asked him does he think if we don't do anything that mr. assad the president of syria will do it again. and he didn't answer the question. let me throw it to you. >> he answered his own question. kerry said oh, absolutely they will. it has not yet been established for the world to understand. it's only been established for some leaders of congress in some closed sessions that who did what to whom.

it won't work if those are the people who convinced. it has to be the world community that is convinced. >> all right. so you think it would be in -- you're saying we send cruise missiles into damascus or the outskirts, wherever the equipment is we're trying to disable. and that will not be a stability because it's not an international statement. >> that's right. that's right. and what do we mean by international? if we can't get the u.n., if we can't get the arab league, i've asked the white house what's their criteria. what do they think will be satisfactory? 20 nations saying go for it guys, you americans do it. that's not good enough. and so, you know, i think this really has to be an international operation and the -- it's on the administration -- the burden is on the administration to show what that means. >> okay. congressman rush holt thanks for joining us. robert gibbs, as always.

this is going to be tough. coming up, rejectionists on the right. they have their theories. benghazi, he's gone too far. he hasn't gone far enough. not too early to see what this means for 2016. hillary clinton is for it, rand paul is against it. and look who's back on late night tv after 12 long weeks. >> you can't use chemicals to kill your own people. you have to do it organically. america and the world want to make sure he only uses free ground range in ordinance. >> welcome back. let me finish with the republican nomination for -- this is "hardball," the place for politics. she's always been able to brighten your day. it's just her way. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow.

cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

vice president dick cheney was the architect of leading us into the war in iraq. where does his daughter stand on syria? she says she'd vote against the resolution to authorize force in syria. she says they should have supported the rebels when the war began. liz cheney also said not to believe the media when they say there's a split on the issue. there is. we'll get to that in a moment. we'll be right back.

i don't see a clear cut or compelling american interest. i see a horrible tragedy but i don't see our involvement will lessen the tragedy. i think it will make the tragedy worse. i think more civilian deaths could occur. i think an attack on israel or turkey could occur. i think you could get more russian involvement, more iranian involvement. i don't see anything good coming of our involvement. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was of course senator rand paul from kentucky earlier today outlining his objections to president obama's syria resolution.

paul's hardly alone. republicans have been vocal opponents of the president's stance on syria. some are arguing that obama has already failed or he isn't going far enough. by the way, two different points of view there. some of the gop will oppose him no matter what on anything. and others say he can't be trusted on anything. sparked fireworks on the hill today on a hearing on syria. jeff duncan told john kerry he couldn't believe the administration due to benghazi, the irs coverup. >> has an issue with the american people due to the unanswered questions surrounding the terrorist attack in benghazi a year ago. when you factor in the irs of targeting conservative groups, fast and furious, and nsa spying programs. bottom line is there's a need for accountability and trust building from the administration. >> we're talking about people

being killed by gas and you want to go talk about benghazi and fast and furious. we don't deserve to drag this into yet another benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. hitler and saddam hussein. >> that guy's a walking clown show. anyway, the washington examiner reports that the influential conservative group heritage action has come out against the president's syria resolution. they may end up scoring gop lawmakers positions on it. in terms of how good you are. put more pressure on gop lawmakers to find a way to oppose the president. david corn with mother jones and dana milbank from "the washington post". gentlemen, this is weird. i don't agree with any of these right wing guys about any of this.

those things had nothing to do with this discussion. they want to talk about benghazi, fine. i think really the question of consistency ought to be brought to bear here. consistency. i heard a lot of progressives talking like they're neocons lately. and neocons talking like neocons who are at least consistent. they always want in. both boots flying. they want in. they're consistent. now we have progressives talking like they just learned their lines from the last time around from the other side. and we've got guys who are questioning the administration when it talks like the other side. this is getting whacky. forget this clown. let's take rand paul. >> none of the usual scripts are holding true here. a lot of the democrats in the house oppose this. they just oppose it. they're not voting for it and they're not being persuaded by nancy pelosi. some do or will because they

want to back the president, they're on the fence. >> but they don't believe in it. >> they may not believe in it. they don't want to weaken the president as he goes into budget fights and debt ceiling fights. the others would be for any war if it came down the pipe except this is from barack obama so they're opposed to that. the key thing you get with rand paul, there's been a festering schism in the republican party for years now. interventionalists have always had the heavy types. and now they're being almost chased out of the party. they're coming along. this is like pat buchanan's moment. >> i want to go back to this. let me just talk sheer politics for a minute. you know how to write it and think about it. it's not all ideology. i don't get this guy ted cruz. but rand paul is a libertarian.

and it's sort of like projection large, libertarian based on isolationalists. why are we getting involved in there? i'll live my own life here. >> on the republican side you've got two things going on. you've got the legitimate, genuine disagreement going on from rand paul. but it's a small section. i don't think it's growing at all. i think the neocons are very much in charge of this party. but the problem is it's overlapping. >> why are we hearing 80% of the house republicans want to vote against this thing? >> because if the president said i'm for peanut butter and jelly, they would vote against it. it doesn't matter. they were interested in attacking syria when obama wasn't. now that he's interested in attacking, they're not. if it were a republican president recommending this same course of action -- >> they'll say you don't have my kind of bread. they'll say wrong bread.

>> let me disagree a tiny bit with my good friend here from across the aisle. >> is this about peanut butter? >> not about peanut butter and jelly. but i do think there is more of a real fight here. if you look at the leading candidates for the 2016 nomination now in the republican party, they all have this position against obama or they're moving really fast. >> i'm going to take the more opportunistic way of describing this. republicans are going i made your shift in their stance on intervention in syria. this very important. according to a poll this month republicans oppose strikes against syria by 12 points. just about the same as democrats. both parties are about the same on this issue. but look at those margins how they compare to polls last december. not a million years ago, december 2012. the republicans supported by a margin of 38 points. so don't tell me there's been an ideology shift. it's been opportunism. >> i think it is both.

i think what's happening here now is that the ideologues like rand paul are taking the political energy, the obama hatred, the mania and sort of capturing it and they're doing it in a way that's going to cause bill kristol and the others real problem because this has become a political issue in 2016. ted cruz saw where rand paul was going and they ran to meet him today. >> eight or ten republicans support this in the senate. would you then say there's an ideological difference or is it just i don't want your cooties? >> i don't think it'll turn out that way. i think a lot of people are sitting on the fence. and yes you've got the presidential candidates. you've got the loons like ted cruz talking about we don't want to be al qaeda's air force. but it was a good line. when you -- i was over there in the house committee today. and i think you hear some of the

more responsible voices kind of tiptoeing in that direction. i think those republican numbers will move. they're just afraid right now. >> sometimes the broken clock is right like twice a day. that was a funny line. she said so the syrians are killing syrians so we're going to kill syrians and they call me the idiot. how do you beat that? we are going to go in there and kill syrians. that's what this is about. 200, however many people in syria will be dead in a week or two because of this action. and everything else is about message, smoke signals we're sending. supposedly to someone in a tent and these guys are going to get a message. they killed 200 people in damascus, therefore we better not build a nuclear bomb. they might get the idea a nuclear bomb is scarier than the 200 people getting killed. if this was scare tactics, wouldn't you build a bomb? >> of course. >> okay. >> obama has backed himself into

a corner with the red line. >> you got the bomb, they won't shoot the cruise missiles there. and i'm not giving any advice here. >> you just did. and you agreed with sarah palin. >> thank you david corn. that's you. and you dana milbank. i didn't mean to send any good ideas over there. something you might have missed the last 12 weeks. this is "hardball," the place for politics. that guy. ♪ ho ho ho

[ female announcer ] at 100 calories, not all food choices add up. some are giant. some not so giant. when managing your weight, bigger is always better. ♪ ho ho ho ♪ green giant you can't use chemicals to kill your own people. you have to do it organically. america and the world want to make sure assad only used locally sourced free land range ordinance. >> that's jon stewart on the president's stand against chemical weapons use.

the daily show host is back in the anchor chair after spending 12 weeks in the middle east where he was directing a movie. he had more trouble adjusting to life in the states than you'd might think. check out the skit that opened the show. >> jon is back. hey. what? okay. that's nice. no. how you doing? hey, jess. we have a huge problem. >> what are you still hosting the show? >> no. jon's back but i think the middle east has changed him. he's not even acting american. get a defibrillator and two big macs. let's do this. okay. >> jessica. >> what? oh, my god. >> hey, john. clear.

>> obama care can suck paula deen's [ bleep ] for all i care. it's a politically correct culture. why can't we say that word? >> glad to see him back. anyway, tonight show put its own spin on the syria question last night. here was jay leno explaining the dilemma facing president obama. >> are you confused by this whole syrian situation? it is confusing. here's a video metaphor that will maybe help explain the situation. take a look. >> the following is a video metaphor for president barack obama's syrian dilemma. this guy represents what would happen if we bomb assad which would mean we would be siding with the rebels who are members of al qaeda. this guy represents what will happen if we don't bomb assad which would send a message to iran that we won't do anything to stop their nuclear weapons program. either way, it's a lose/lose situation.

this has been a video metaphor for president obama's syrian dilemma. >> i wonder if that just happened or ever happened. while leno may think a u.s. intervention is a lose/lose situation most pundits describe it as a high-risk gamble. during yesterday's hearing senator mccain made some gambles himself in poker that is. caught a glimpse of the senator playing the game on his phone as secretaries kerry and hagel were testifying. mccain tweeted afterwards, scandal caught playing iphone game after three and a half senate hearing. worst of all, i lost. we'll be back in a moment. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

the use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act. it's pretty clear to me that the united nations is unable to take action, nato not likely to take action. i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe that my colleagues should support this call for action.

we have enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. >> hundreds of children were killed. this is behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior. and we must respond. i do not in my district i don't think people are convinced that military action is necessary, but it's important for them to know that the weapons of mass destruction use has taken this to a different place. >> we're back. as we told you earlier, this senate foreign relss committee has approved the use of force in syria in a vote of 10-7 today in setting up a showdown for the full senate. the major showdown will happen next week when the full congress returns from recess. president obama will need every vote he can get in the senate and the house to support intervention in syria. but republicans and democrats alike in both bodies are split over the debate on a military strike.

joining me right now is a member of one of those bodies. ted yoho a republican from florida who is opposed to the resolution and gene robinson for "the washington post" who supports the president's call for a strike. congressman, thank you for joining us. i guess the main argument, the big picture argument raised by the people is that this has to be a message sending operation. that we have to signal iran especially. that we're not going to condone the development of nuclear weapons by them and the way we do that is to signal we're not going to permit the use of chemical weapons by syria. your response? >> i don't support that. i represent the people of north-central florida and overwhelmingly 98% have said to stay out of syria. i've got to listen to the people of my district. if we're going to enter in on that effect and if you go back to the cwc agreement that was signed by over 189 nations, where are the other 188

demanding that we come together and bring the u.n., bring nato, bring the arab league and we sit down on one side of the table and demand mr. assad sits down at the other side and bring a close to this through diplomacy. i think we can get a resolution and an end to this conflict not with military. our foreign policy for the last 30 years has led us down to this path where we're at today. and i think to continue on the same old, same old is like ground hog days. we need to change course. this is an opportunity in america for america to show leadership to bring people to the table and show that we can resolve this and we can get this done and we can win this without guns and bombs. and that's a new direction for our foreign policy especially in the middle east. >> is that your position toward iran in regard to nuclear weapons that we shouldn't use violence, we shouldn't do a preemptive strike, we shouldn't support the hard line thoughts of netanyahu? is that your thought? do not use military weaponry to

stop countries from violating the norms of weapons of mass destruction. >> that's my policy. go back to the cwc. that agreement was stated that any country that produced, stored, transported so or used chemical weapons or wmds were in violation. so when do you start doing that? when do you draw that line and i don't want to talk about red lines, but once you do that do you act in totality or do you act in, you know, we'll pick and choose who we're going to attack? i think it's a dangerous thing and we need diplomacy at this time in our country. >> gene robinson, that's the argument he made that why should we be the world's policemen of the international norms if they're not going to take steps? >> maybe we shouldn't have to be, but guess what. if we're not, nothing's going to happen. i mean, it's very clear nothing's going to happen. u.n. security council is going to do nothing because russia is an ally of syria and they won't

allow anything to happen. and where are the other nations? some are supporting publicly. a few supporting privately. but they're not going to do anything. and when you look at the nations that has the capacity to do anything, i mean, what the president is talking about and i take him at his word is a punitive strike. not an attempt to chart the outcome of the syrian civil war. i think the use of chemical weapons is a very big deal. and a very, very bad thing. and i think there should be punitive action and, you know, not that we have to take it, but i don't know who else is going to do it. >> congressman, i know this sounds pushy, but would you take the same position if mitt romney were commander in chief right now? >> yes, sir, i would. this is not party politics. this is what's best for america. and again, we've been down this road. and i disagree with the gentleman that just spoke that

we need to take the lead in this. i asked that to john kerry. why america? why does america need to be in front when 189 countries signed this pact? his response is the world expects it. we did it in world war ii. but my comeback to that was in world war ii, we entered that war because we got attacked in pearl harbor. or allies germany and france were attacked. we had no option. there are options on the table. we have not -- we have not brought those to full fruition yet. and talking about russia, russia in the paper today said that they would reconsider their stance if the evidence was 100% conclusive. i think that's a huge move on russia's part. and if russia could do that, i think china could do that. and i think with america supporting so many of these foreign countries around the world with our aid, we need to use the clout of america's aid and say, listen, if you want our aid you come to the table and help us negotiate peace without war. and that's what i want to do.

>> it's surprising to hear this from a republican conservative. you are conservative and yet you're saying that your view is the same towards -- it's consistent with your view towards iran. i've been in this business now covering politics for years and all i've heard from the conservative side of things is we've got to be aggressive with regard to iran. we've got to draw red lines. we have to stop them from weaponizing the nuclear program. we have to make sure whether we have to attack or work with israel. now you're saying that norm doesn't apply. you would not support an aggressive step to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons. that seems odd to hear from you. >> mr. matthews, i ran as a republican but also as an american. our problems today not just in america but around the world are bigger than republicans and are bigger than democrats. we've got to come together as americans to solve the problems we have. and i ran on that and i will not waiver from that. >> and you don't have any problems following the commander

in chief, you don't question his legitimacy. >> no, sir. he's been under enough scrutiny. i think we need to move on from there. the issue about his birth certificate came up at a town hall and people wanted me to pursue that. i said is that where you want us to spend our time for three and a half years? it was probably 99% said absolutely not. we've got $17 trillion in debt this country is facing. we've got social security failing. medicare is failing. and we're talking about going into another war? give me a break. >> so you accept the fact he was a born american? >> i'm not -- no comment. >> no comment? in other words, you question the president's legitimacy. >> i disappointed you, didn't i? >> well -- no, you didn't. i've never met you, sir. so i don't know what disappointment would mean in this case. after saying you oppose the president then say he's legitimate but you say you don't think he's necessarily a national born american.

>> i didn't say that. i just said no comment. what you said was i said that. >> what did you mean? >> what i would like to say is i haven't studied it enough to come back with an intelligent answer so i will not respond. and i'd rather get back to syria. >> when do you intend to find out whether the president is legitimate? when would you put time into that? >> let's get syria taken care of and debt taken care of. then you and i can have a one-on-one and i'd be happy to talk to you. >> are you a birther then? >> i'm not going to comment on that, chris. we came on to talk about syria. >> okay. thank you for coming on. i mean it. thank you for expressing your views. gene robinson, you never know what you're going to hear here. up next, what happens in 2013 doesn't stay in '13. how what happens in syria could determine the 2016 presidential election. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

up next, the sticky problem syria poses for 2016 presidential candidates. we'll be right back.

on what i believe was the single most important foreign

policy decision of this generation whether or not to go to war in iraq, i believe i showed the judgment of a commander in chief. i think that senator clinton was wrong in her judgments on it. >> welcome back to "hardball." any doubt that the votes of position staked now on syria could have an impact on a 2016 run should watch that clip. senator rand paul, senator ted cruz, and senator marco rubio. >> i don't want see a clear cut or compelling american interest. i see a horrible tragedy, but i don't see that our involvement will lessen the tragedy. i think it will make the tragedy worse. >> we should be focused on defending the united states of america. that's why young men and women sign up to join the military. not to, as you know, serve as al qaeda's air force. >> this idea that a military response is the only way to

respond to what's happening in syria is just not true. instead our response should have always been and should still be a multifaceted plan to help the syrian people get rid of assad and replace him with a secular and modern government they deserve. >> those are just the potential contenders who have to vote on syria. there are others like chris christie and scott walker who can sit on the sidelines for now and not have to vote. the new york times jonathan martin. i want to start in an unusual way. i want to offer you a premise. i believe this is a road map. you watch the republicans and how they walk right now, can you see the road map to where they think this election is going in 2016. the campaign will begin in two weeks? it's going to begin pretty soon. >> if it hasn't already. >> rand paul is -- i predicted he will be the nominee, you don't have to agree with that, he's the pathfinder for where this party's going, it's time for a volcanic eruption in the party. they're going hard right and he's their leader. your thoughts? >> i would say i'm not sure he's

going to be the nominee, i do feel very confident that he's the prime mover in the party right now, which is that he acts and others react. we saw that with his filibuster early in the year on drone strikes which is not exactly -- opposition to drone strikes is not typically an issue where you see marco rubio, mitch mcconnell, john cornyn all coming down to the floor of the senate to support him. whether marco rubio and his people like it or not. i think the narrative that comes out of that vote, rand paul was always going to be a no. there was some debate over where marco rubio may come down. he comes down as a know. we know they're watching how each other votes, seeing how it goes. i do think you're right. the libertarian strain within the republican party. i think people underestimate its power, rand paul is the figure that best coalesces that group. again, he's the prime mover in the republican party. >> when you're out there, do you sense the libertarian mood is

stronger -- the party of the rudy giuliani instinct. all giuliani did was say 9/11. ron paul had to shut up. >> i think the combination of a decade of war, and that impact on the party combined with the fact that you have a democrat in the white house has led to an isolationist mood in the republican party. the question is, how deep does that go. we know it's happening in the grassroots. is it happening in the donor class? that's what you talk about -- >> probably not. but if iowa is the first donor class, the people that give their votes -- let me ask you about the thing -- >> keep in mind, iowa across the board -- >> this anti-obama, i have a sense what you want to do is position yourself as a republican as the most anti-obama person running. it's the easiest -- the inside rail.

is part of that going on here, not the ideological -- all libertarians. they really don't like the cooties, if you will. we used to say, don't get your cooties on me when we were in school. i was ten foot from obama i didn't feel comfortable. is that part of this too, don't be an obama associate? >> it's a real challenge. the mere proximity, you're talk ing about cooties. the mere proximity that christie had to obama on the jersey shore, that's the issue that comes up. not any stance he has, not any issue, it's the fact that christie was next to obama on the jersey shore a year ago after the hurricane. yeah, that's going to be a challenge. the question is, does that fade at all in 2016. >> is that another set of the vote with the president on

syria? >> keep in mind george w. bush got the nomination in 2000. his party had impeached president clinton. he ran against not just president clinton, he did, he ran against washington generally, he was certainly an establishment figure. i think there is recent history here. >> let me go back. let me go to chris. is this a further disincentive for the republican not to vote with the president. on anything, but especially an act of war. >> i take the senators at their words who voted against it, that it's based on principle, i would say as it relates to rand paul, this is not a new position that rand paul has arrived at. he's been consistent as his father was in saying, we need to rethink our involvement abroad. i would say, i do think the sort of success of ted cruise -- if you want to say, who gets the

biggest response from early state audiences, it's ted cruise, what is he define ed as, repeal obama care. the most anti-obama candidate, none of these guys, marco rubio, rand paul, chris christie, none of them operate in a political vacuum, they all look around and see what the others are doing. i think the uproarious appeal that ted cruise is getting -- >> thank you so much. we'll be right back. you're watching "hardball."

i'm only in my 60's... i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans,

you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans

that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

let me finish tonight with this, i believe that this debate over syria is offering a road map to the republican nomination for president next time. the candidate who wishes to be the nominee will be the one who positions himself as directly as possible against president obama. why? well, you know, it's for the simple new definition of the republican party. it's the anti-obama party. the more you hate obama, the more you are deeply entrenched in the deepest bunker of the gop. the further away from obama, the further right you are, and that is the safest place to be come campaign time. watch this episode, the testing zone. the ground zero for political posturing. rand paul voted against the syrian resolution today.

marco rubio and other members of the foreign relations committee followed him, watch when we get to the senate floor. it will be the same. anyone who wants in in 2016 will stay out of syria. that's hardball for now. thanks for being with us. all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. tonight on "all in." we are one step closer to military strikes on syria, but as more of our elected representatives move into the i column, i find myself more and more opposed, the latest news and my position coming up in a moment. also tonight of all the voices being heard from on the syrian issue, it seems to me the guys who marched us to war in iraq are the least credible. why is anyone listening to any of these people? we'll talk about that a little later. plus, last night we told you about mitch mcconnell's new charm offensive to win over women voters in kentucky.