>> how did reading that letter feel? >> good. fear itself. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this, no sooner than the president tried to avoid a third war, the knee jerk right of this country began tweeting its call to arms. the mere word alone that an american president wants to avoid yet another bloody open ended conflict in the middle east or thereabouts to send neocons going to their keyboards screams appeasement, munich.

would anyone explain to me the danger of trying to carry -- that ends up a decade-long death march. can't we learn it's a lot easier to get into a war than to get out of one? can't we learn that those who make the promise of how easy war can be are the same folks you can't find on television or anywhere else. but go back to their warrens and carols and senior fellowships at the american enterprise institute and the heritage foundation and all those other home front hideaways. the second first real bull et ceteras -- bullets fly. don't listen to these people. one with an ally like hezbollah would actually have no problem whatsoever in launching and prosecuting an endless campaign of unpredictable action around the world the second we arm it with the moral authority of having been a victim to a

unilateral attack to the united states of america. an honest person will tell you you can't predict the future. the one we can believe is the relentless desire of so many on the far policy right to see a conflict as to release fire power before night fall. eugene robinson and sam stein. i must say i got up this morning and began laughing at the black humor, if you will, of these people. the knee jerk. the second there was word there was a deal with iran that would avert a war, they started saying munich, surrender. who are these people? >> not just that. before they knew the details, the outlines, anything. the one that drives me nuts and i don't have that great a sense of humor about it is munich. which has become a sort of

all-purpose word devoid of meaning that's meant to criticize any agreement short of war with any adversary or enemy is automatically munich. so what does that mean? and the answer is it's used to mean everything and nothing. there's no content there that applies to this situation at all. it's just ridiculous. >> i'm a churchill guy, sam, all the way. i love the guy. he's my one great enduring hero. but the complications of 1930 were real. they had just come out of world war i, the worst war in history up to that date. they saw a chance to avoid it. it was wrong, no doubt about it. but it was based upon the other side being completely and utterly deceitful. if that's the rule then always assume the other side is lying all the time, that you're always up against hitler. to avoid a war it's not smart. jack kennedy my other hero

agrees to trade the turkish missile bases in turkey so we wouldn't go to nuclear worldwide war with the russians over cuba. he be inked and so did khrushchev and we avoided war. this thought of thinking avoiding war is chicken is high school stuff. your thoughts. >> also nixon went to china. reagan talked to the soviets. there is a template as well. obviously eugene is right. munich is stupid. we're talking about something more complex. >> what about bagan, was that munich. >> of course not. the other thing worth pointing out, obviously, is there is a timetable here. it's a six-month timetable. we're talking about a treaty to open up an option for more treaties. so this is a delicate process. this is how diplomacy works.

it's not maybe suited for the 21st century media and twittersphere. but it's an outcome to avoid a nuclear iran. and when obama was elected, he said all options would be on the table including talking to our adversaries. they weren't really paying attention to the 2008 or the 2012 elections. >> you know, just got to step back. we all see the real problems. we all work on the same page. even right, left, center, we see the same news. the dangers of this deal. we see them. it's a question of this. the american people voted in 2008 in the primaries and caucuses for barack obama over hillary clinton. both extremely qualified candidates. i think the part differentiating the two of them wasn't much except obama had tilted against wars in the middle east. where hillary clinton then, senator clinton then made it clear she was going towards a centrist traditional path. said let's try something different.

>> that's right. it's what people voted for. and it's what they're getting. and, look, only a fool goes to war if he or she doesn't have to. if you can get it without going to war -- >> explain why. >> because you don't know where it's leading. people die. not just iranians die. americans die. now, if you had a strike, a military strike and you were able to eliminate half of iran's more highly enriched uranium. if you were able to shut off the enrichment to that level at least for six months, if you were able to get a concession that they would only enrich up to reactor fuel status and an agreement for daily verification to make sure this is true. if you got that after a strike, you'd be ecstatic. >> without gun play, we got this. >> exactly. we got all that without gun

play. >> before we get into crazy stuff tonight, i want to go with what i think is the sane stuff. i think everybody, the three of us agree, if we bomb there or clearly allow the israelis, everybody knows they wouldn't be doing it on their own. the iranian portion of the public whether it's a majority or less than a majority of the people who want to try to join the world, they'll be on the nationalist side then against us and go full speed ahead with as many nuclear weapons as they can build as fast as they can build. so we know for sure if we strike, that will be the reaction, right? >> sure. and this is the thinking in diplomatic circles. the election of president rouhani really provided an opening. if you would have clamped, you would essentially nullify his legitimacy and credibility in iran. you have to take this opportunity as it presents itself. and you're right. there is a very small window here if you direct too hardly,

you turn all of iran against us and against israel. and if you react too softly, that's what you have right now. essentially what this comes down to is these critics assume that barack obama is going to get duped. i don't see any reason why in this juncture within days of this thing that they can jump to that conclusion. >> how to get in the world wars in the 20th century by not doing what obama is trying to do now. surrender, that was the other buzz word from the right wing after the iran deal was announced. john boldin wrote, quote, this is not as the obama administration leaked before the deal became public a compromise on iran's claimed right to enrichment. this is abject surrender by the united states. mark lavin tweeted, quote, obama's destruction spreads worldwide. we surrender to iran. michele bachmann, another genius. she calls herself a genius. quote, u.s. gets nothing in

return for easing sanctions on iran. total surrender by obama administration that puts our security at risk. i'd love to see if she would find iran on a map. and then let's listen to rush. >> now obama has iran who are syria's masters. he's given them the green light to go ahead with their own weapons of mass destruction program. >> you like the way he stretches out words when he really wants to make the point? did they study the record here looking at anything more than an easy metaphor? >> it's an easy metaphor. they think of it as an easy attack. obama did it, therefore it's wrong. it must be something wrong and appeasement and he's probably a muslim too. >> what would they say to -- i got to say in this case the neocons are consistent. if "w" had dared break with cheney for five minutes --

>> they would have been all over him too. what is the surrender supposed to entail? i guess it's supposed to be acknowledgment of some sort of right to uranium enrichment. it's ambiguous on that point. the iranians claim they have established that right and we say they haven't. but step back for a second. the iranians know how to enrich uranium. they've been doing it for awhile. they know how to do it. how do you take that away? how do you take away the knowledge of how -- of the cycle? you don't. what you do is you figure how to keep that from progressing to a weapons program. >> can i interrupt just a second? i think we got to get ready for a bulletin here. i assume in the next 24 hours we'll hear the cheney family is reunited around the issue. if not same-sex marriage, they're reunited over iran. probably have mary, liz, lynn, on one of the weekend shows declaring war on iran.

i think it's coming. >> i mean, listen. this is a very easy political attack. you left out john cornyn's tweet this was all a distraction from obama care as if they had planned this out eight months in advance. gene's right, but if you read the document what they toub alk about with enrichment levels. it's not like we're leaving iran to their own devices. there's going to be independent inspectors with what's happening in the country, a microscope over iran. this goes back to the idea that obama will enter this agreement and get duped by the iranians and in six months time we'll find ourselves in a bad position. they can always reverse the sanctions if they determine iran is cheating. they can go back on them. i'm not sure why everyone is condemning it as surrender where there's nothing permanent about it. >> exactly. it gets monitored.

day will be, daily, as a matter of fact. they'll have less uranium then they have today. >> we bombed them with everything we got, they react. they go after the straits. they make moves on that. we had have to go in by land. we stop them somehow. we use sea battles. sea launched aircraft and bombing raids. and that won't work. then we'll keep at it. it will escalate. anybody that thinks iran is not a real country hasn't studied history. it's not one of these british created portions of the map like iraq or jordan. it's a real country and it's going to fight. because, you know, we don't like what they're doing and they don't like what we're doing. hitler was making the demands. we're making the demands. stop building a nuclear weapon. we're the ones putting a demand on them. i hope we can enforce it this way rather than the other way. either way, i believe we'll enforce it. no american president will survive right, left, or center with a nuclear weapon in the hands of those ayatollahs.

that's the deal. listen carefully. that's the deal. the question is how do we get to it? thank you sam stein and yew eugene robinson. how's he doing this offensive? also a new challenge for the affordable care act. the supreme court will decide now whether the law's contraception of insurance mandate, requiring companies to carry contraception coverage as part of the policy could violate the religious beliefs of corporations. are corporations people? and the gop is quickly becoming the party of 30%. roughly 30% of americans agree with them on gay marriage, immigration, iranian deal and more. and there's a new spin on what used to be a life or death decision at the white house. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

here's someone selling news for progressives. republicans have jumped ahead in the congressional ballot. look at the latest cnn poll. when people were asked who they want to represent them in the house of representatives, republicans now have a two-point edge over the democrats. that's a sharp reversal over a month ago. we'll be right back.

my top priority is making sure that this country remains a country where everybody who's willing to work hard can get ahead. and we'd be a lot further along without some of the dysfunction and obstruction we've seen in washington. we would be a lot further along. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was president obama. today just awhile ago talking to workers at dreamworks animation in california. leaving no doubt he's not for the obstructionists in washington also known as republicans.

the country he said would be better shaped without them. the president has been on offense lately as to what i've seen in the past week. he told the congress no more blocking with filibusters. here he is. >> today's pattern of obstruction, it just isn't normal. it's not what our founders envisioned. a deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything no matter what the merits. just to refight the results of an election is not normal. and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it. >> used a muscle foreign policy to break new diplomatic ground in the middle east. >> we cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. and tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing for our security. >> that was yesterday.

the president's been struggling in the polls, of course. while no doubt hopes his new aggressive stance will do good politically. you know, i noticed they change in the direction the president was like in a boxing match, i guess that's as good a metaphor as any. and he was on the ropes. finally he decided to stop whatever rope a dope was going on. no more putting holds on the budget. no more ted cruz running the place. we're going to war. his decision to go out there and say no more filibusters or appointments. especially of lower court appointments. >> you see the scene from rocky where he says cut me i'm going out there. >> adrian! >> listen, the president did what only presidents can do. he took the bully pulpit. he packed it up on air force one and went on the road. he went to states and had a different message almost every day. he talked about immigration reform, filibusters.

he's taking on republicans in their home turf. he's going to republican states where the republican governors have not expanded medicaid to bring people into the health insurance system, and he's challenging them to do it. he's doing what presidents do so well. and he's doing it out in the country -- >> which was the great football coach that said the best defense is a good offense. >> i thought -- >> woody hayes or something. what do you make of that? he's out there punching. he's not flinching anymore. >> i think it's an effort by the president to change the subject off of obama care which has been a disaster. i don't think the iran thing is part of that. >> i thought you were completely loon loony. >> i think the filibuster thing was a part of that. what it's going to do is unite republicans. which is good for republicans. as we know, it's not going to distract from obama care. and if we look at if republicans can avoid closing down the government, they're going to keep going up as we see.

>> i saw it. >> and the president's ratings will keep going down because obama care is extraordinarily unpopular. >> the plan hasn't been the main reason of the drop in that. here's what we just talked about. is the president smarter to take the punches, just let them pound him on court appointments. he can't even get richard through on secretary of state. he can't get cabinet officials through. appellate court level. he's had to put up with people on the other side saying we don't need that many judges. >> and the same district court when bush ran the white house. the best is to cut deals with republicans. >> what deal? >> budget deal. something on social security and entitlement. >> how about this deal. have a vote. put them on the floor and have a vote.

we know what happens in the senate. you have to get 60 votes to move something to the floor. then you have to get 60 votes to move it off the floor. >> this is going to make it harder -- >> let me ask a question. take off your political gloves for one second. is it better to have this filibuster used relentlessly or once in awhile. look. clarence thomas, probably the most controversial supreme court in a long time got in with 52, not 60. should the democrats have required 60 for him, he never would have gotten in. >> the best thing for the senate to do, to have choke points to have it work. harry reid has been a terrible majority leader. >> should any court appointment be a compromise pick or should be the president's pick? >> well, the supreme court -- this is not including the supreme court. >> but should the president be allowed to pick his cabinet? >> i think that's right. although the picking of mel watt, he was not qualified. >> i know a senator that's gotten all the ink lately. ted cruz. he's voted against everybody. everybody.

he votes against everybody for everything. is that the way the constitution's meant to work? >> no. if you look at the history of the filibuster and the number of times it was used in the first 175 years of the country versus the number of times it's been used in the last 25 years or so. hold on one second, john. it's big stuff. when i worked for senator kennedy, it was six or seven per year. now it's six or seven per day. >> pointed out that the establishment republicans, you folks, averaged to get a grip on the party wing has proved fruitless. our friend michael steele is quoted here. the establishment thought, that's you, oh, once they get to washington we'll wrap our arms around them. we'll put a shrimp in one hand and a committee assignment in the other and they'll be ours. and they were like sheep. keep your shrimp. and they were like keep your shrimp. i don't want your committee assignment. and i'm not voting for the same old crap you put up every year.

is the tea party under the control of the establishment or the other way around? >> i think the house is more unified than ever. the tea party leaders, per se. the senate conservative fund, those guys are trying to raise money for their own pocketbooks. if you're talking about the house and senate, they're more unified than they ever have been. >> come january 15th when we have the next choke point on continuing resolution to avoid another shutdown, will the tea party reign or will your wing reign? >> i think the republicans with reign and have a deal to not shut down the government. >> hold on a second. we saw this play before. there are 50 or 60 tea party members who control the house of representatives. john boehner couldn't control them last time. there's no reason to believe he's going to be able to next time. >> i think there's plenty of reason to believe. >> give me one reason. why are they more likely to follow baner oehner now? >> he's not going to shut down the government. >> why doesn't john boehner,

he's a likable guy in a empathetic way. why doesn't he call a vote, call all republicans in a big room, shut the media out and say i want to vote right now. am i your speaker? or do i got to kiss butt for the rest of my time here? am i your leader? if a bunch of right wing crazies say i get to veto everything you do, say fine. run anybody against me. >> nobody right now could beat john boehner. >> why doesn't he show that? >> if this was a learning process for a lot of new members. they went through it, it was painful. they learned not to shut down the government. they're not going to do it again. when the government doesn't shut down, their ratings go up. >> you noticed. >> i know. >> say with the hammer why are you hitting in your head with a hammer, because it feels good when i stop. maybe that's your party's rule. thank you. next, the white house twgs tradition with a new twist. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ male announcer ] they say it was during

an arm wrestling match that mr. clean realized the way to handle bigger, tougher messes was better leverage. that's why he created his new magic eraser handy grip. it has a handle that firmly attaches to the eraser so you get better leverage and more oomph with less effort. it's the perfect magic eraser for making stuff that's big and tough not so tough, after all. mr. clean's handy grip -- the newest member of the magic eraser family. in all purpose and bath.

[ engine revs ]

over the weekend, the u.s. signed a deal with iran to stop their nuclear program for six months. and if iran breaks this agreement, this is serious, if it breaks this agreement the u.s. will impose even more crippling sanctions. the iranians, they know this is serious. in fact, well, they see what our government did to our economy when we shut it down. just think what we could do to theirs. oh, my gosh. oh, my gosh. >> obama was finally able to get this deal with iran. basically what happened was obama got tired of trying to fix health care and said, give me an easier problem. iranian nukes. i'm on it. that's much better than what i've been dealing with the past couple weeks. >> welcome to the sideshow. that was jay leno and jimmy fallon reacting to the iranian program.

david letterman handled it differently. anyone who's seen miley cyrus' bizarre feline inspired performance at the american music awards will get the joke. >> we got a big deal, nuclear deal with iran. they say it's some kind of an agreement. they will give up their enrichment program, but something's not right at the white house. did you see the president? i think it's the wear and tear of the office. president obama is announcing the big nuclear agreement with iran, something is not right. take a look at this. then we'll talk about it. >> diplomacy opened up a new path. the future in which we can verify that iron's nuclear program -- >> see, he's got a giant cat there. >> finally it's the time of year the white house used to make a life of death decision. choosing which turkey will receive an official presidential pardon. while the sermon itself goes back to harry truman's

presidency, george h.w. bush was the first to pardon one. this year the white house are allowing voters which will get the special privilege in an online poll. they can enthuse between two finalists. one's named popcorn. the other's name is caramel. only one will get the title. knowing this is a progressive white house, it ensures that both will be spared. both turkeys will live. the deadline for the competition is 8:00 p.m. tonight. the ceremony will be held tomorrow. up next, the affordable care act goes back to the supreme court. that's ahead. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics 

so, this board gives me rates for

welcome back to "hardball." the president's health care law is headed back to the supreme court. not exactly great news less than 18 months after the highest court in the land handed down its landmark ruling upholding president obama's health care law. the court announced it will take

up another critical challenge to the law. this time the focus will be on the explosive issue potentially explosive contraception. specifically whether or not private companies out there can legally refuse the law's mandate they cover some of the most widely used contraception for women. such as the pill or the patch. all wound up in a potential cocktail, if you will, of religion, women's rights, medical care, and of course politics. and a highly toxic political environment we're in right now, the law has struggled to find its footing. the president's enemies will look at any chance they get to divide its supporters and chip away at the political foundation. can they hold together under the latest assault. dr. o'donnell is a strategist and john heilemann. i want to talk how you used this in "double down."

when the president was getting ready for the campaign and talking about the coalition, how did this come up? >> well, it came up in the fall of 2011. when the affordable care act was -- when they were thinking about going forward and what the rules were going to be in terms of what would be included in the coverage. secretary sebelius came out with a rule saying there would be limited exemption for religious freedom, for religious institutions. the catholic church was unhappy about that. there was a lot of internal debate inside the administration. joe biden and bill daley on one side arguing for a much broader exemption for the catholic church. though almost everyone else in the president's inner circle and many of the women around him saying that the original ruling was the right ruling. the president unhappy with both options not wanting to sacrifice the support of the catholic vote. but also recognizing that single

women were a huge part of his coalition. he ended in the middle ground adopting a center course modeling on what the state law in hawaii was. he ended up getting through the kind of threading the needle at least when it came to the catholic church largely because the republicans veered so far to the right on contraception that he was able to kind of avoid a lot of the potential problems that he might of encountered had the republicans not been so extreme on this issue. >> donna if, this whole fight was saying a religious organization that has a school next to it or a religious organization like a catholic hospital. any institution which is owned by a church or religious organization. then it goes to some guy who runs a corporation, maybe runs a pizza company. doesn't believe in contraception. whatever it is. then they can say my conscience as ceo or chief stockholder, i don't believe in birth control

so that's not going to be covered in our policies. where do you think this fight that's going to the court whether they have standing. it's a toy company, basically got standing before the court to say we do not want to have our health care employee coverage cover contraception. >> well, chris, you make a really important point in sites the mennonites. there's lot of players. most people are talking about the catholic factor here. what about a christian owned company or jehovah witness company. they're stepping into really uncharted territory. with respect to the catholic issue, i think it's awfully important to remember catholics are not a monolith. there are many catholic women who have used birth control and the hierarchy of the church is very different than the people walking in and out of those churches.

so there are an awful lot of catholics that voted for this president knowing full well where he stands. and to your very good point on single women and really all women who over the course of their lifetimes, i mean, 90% of all women have used birth control at some point in their lives. so this brushes well past the domain of just religious exception. >> after the court's announcement, both sides unleashed broad sooids. in a statement the white house said, quote, our policy is designed to ensure that health care decisions are made between a woman and her doctor. the president believes that no one including the government or for-profit corporations should be able to dictate those decisions to women. on the other side of the aisle, john boehner put out this statement. quote, faith-based employers including catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals should not be forced to provide services that contradict their faith. it is an attack on religious freedom and i hope it will be

reversed by the court. there, john, the speaker is smart enough not to support corporations but to defend catholic charities. the danger of this argument is some organizations will stop offering health care if they can. i don't know if that's legal now. is it? is that one alternative? if you can't discriminate in what coverage you offer, you just don't offer any. >> you'd be faced with huged to do that. what the court is taking up right now is, in fact, not so much to do with what the previous controversy and the catholic question. this is really a question about corporates -- about how corporations are defined. >> is a corporation a person? >> that is the question. that's the question. and in fact, the appeals court that ruled in favor of the company in this case that said it didn't, that it shouldn't have to provide health coverage plans that included contraception said that its reasoning was based on citizens united.

it said if you were going to call -- if you were going to say that corporations have the right, the personal right of free speech, there's no reason why they shouldn't also have the personal right of expression of religious rights. right? and -- >> what do comcast have? what religion? i didn't know they have one. i don't sense any incense burning around here, any religious events occurring here. these corporations are totally secular. how does an organization say in its charter, in its basic organizational documents that it subscribes to a religious principle or not? i didn't know that happened. what are your thoughts or what is the information? >> well, i'm a little astonished by it as i think you are, chris. i can't imagine how one could knit into a corporate fabric a set of beliefs that would dictate the terms of what kind

of health care you're going to provide for your employees. i mean, i have to wonder about the motivations that are driving this. >> well, i guess they're political. >> imagine. >> thank you donna o'donnell and john heilemann. up next, how the republican party became the party of 30%. a minority party representing the opinions of an even smaller minority. this is "hardball," the place for politics. i take prilosec otc each morning for my frequent heartburn. because you can't beat zero heartburn. woo hoo! [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

pressure's mounting on florida republican congressman trey radel. he's the guy who was arrested and pled guilty to charges of cocaine possession. now the republican party chairman in florida wants him to resign, and he was quickly echo echoed by other republicans who said the same thing. now the question is how long until the national partiship and speaker john boehner make the same request of congressman radel? we'll be right back.

we're back. the republican party's become a minority party of minority opinion because of the tidal wave of demographic changes in this country. and opinions working against them.

it's no wonder the republicans have lost the popular vote. through polling it shows republicans hold policies only held by a minority of voters. and those views are insensitive to or alienate a large part of the public. 49% polled feel the laws governing law sales should be more strict. while 37% say kept the same. on immigration, 57% of those polled say illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the country and apply for citizenship while just 12% said they should be able to stay without applying for citizenship. and 26% says they should be required to leave the u.s., simply put. when it comes to those who favor the sanctions on iran in exchange for rules on the nuclear program. 56% support the deal. and immediately following the republican's shutdown in october

which was inspired over appeal of the affordable care act, more repealed it than supported it. let me start with michelle on this. if you look at these numbers on guns and the chance at least for peace or avoiding a war with iran, a strong substantial number there. and yet the debate swings the other way too often. >> right. i mean, part of the problem is that the republican party or at least republican candidates are incentivized against being responsive to the majority of the people in this country. so there's no pressure on individual candidates to respond to the fkt that their views are unpopular. actually, quite the opposite. the pressure's all coming from the other direction to become more extreme, to cater more to this small but very firmly entrenched fringe. and so essentially what we have is a breakdown of majority democracy in this country because of campaign finance and

the way these kind of big money groups are able to pump so much money into these races and also because of gerrymandering and the kind of small state. >> let's talk about hawks and war and the gun people. pennsylvania where you have to live, where you teach, i'm sure you love it up there, but it is a pro gun state. and if you go to the question there of war. if you look back at the numbers, will we win the war in iraq. and they said, only if there are no significant casualties, which is part of the cake walk mentality. we'll get in there and get out without any problems. and a lot of people said if that's what we're going to do, do it. and with guns, if you have a majority of people, or even a

small mine north ority of people in pennsylvania who are gun crazy, don't mess with my second amendment rights, they have far more power than the majority for example that say a little more gun safety -- >> our financial, that's why campaign finance reform is so important. it's not just that the republican party is a minority party. >> let's talk about war. we're talking about going to war and everybody having a gun. what has that got to do with money? >> i'll tell you exactly what it has to do with money. is that there are money interests that support the neocon and the hawks that are in our government. there are money interests in the nra that supports gun manufacturing. so in the state of pennsylvania, yes there are a lot of gun owners, there's a lot of hunting in the state of pennsylvania. there are a couple of major cities that have challenges around gun issues, you have to inform people about all the issues and sometimes the minority because they're well resourced can get messaging out

that that distorts what the actual issues are. yes, pennsylvania has a lot of veterans, we're pro veterans in the state. that doesn't mean that pennsylvania is pro war. but war is sold to constituents as not what they really are. the iraq war was that, afghanistan was that, and the reason why we can't get the proper sort of political cache around -- >> michelle, my question now, because i think we were sold into the iraq war by a less than articulate president, a less than ingenious president, by some great editorial op-ed writing by the people in the "washington post," very smart people, i think it was an intellectual argument they made and they won with. i don't think it was a big

propaganda war, that was sold to the people intellectually. why were we so hawkish back in 2002? was it 9/11? >> you can't just attribute it to money, but there clearly were money interests, and intellectual and ideological interests, that took the widespread outrage in the wake of 9/11 and were able to channel it into a war that they wanted to fight even before 9/11. and you see, i think, something similar in terms of some of the same people who thought it was such a good idea to go into iraq are now kind of mobilizing a torpedo to go into iran. >> was it gun money or gun enthusiasts? >> no, it's also nra and gun lobbying money.

most of the people in the nra are in favor of common sense gun safety in the state of pennsylvania as well. people are in favor of background checks. but the politics around it is well resourced. when you talk about the distortion of the second amendment, those are the ideology ies that inform and help the money interests make their political case. but at the end of the day, we have to do a better job. >> i may be wrong on that. if the nra were to say background checks to keep the insane at least, and the criminal element from getting guns, the membership would be open to a little more leniency and a little more liberalism if the money people at the top that paid for the ads didn't agree with that. >> that's certainly what the all the polling said, and also the people at the top didn't tell them that any small gesture towards gun sense was the first step in obama coming and taking

away your guns. >> yeah. i like the latest nut case out there, we're going to have armies of people to go around with syringes to knock them out. invasion of the body snatchers. we'll be right back after this. thank you. [ male announcer ] need help keeping your digestive balance in sync? try align. it's the number one ge recommended probiotic that helps maintain digestive balance. ♪ stay in the groove with align.

let me finish with this. those who watch "hardball" know my faith in politics and the founder of this country believe that people who love this country can work together to make politics work, build the solutions to our challenges, resolve the challenges we face by reasonable debate, compromise and good faith. i have spent the last two years working on a chronicle of how it's done. how the real leaders of the right and left can govern with passion and patriotism. i am so thankful to simon and schuster for publishing my book. we took a very conservative president closer to the center and we had a very liberal leader to do it. sunday's "new york times" book review has a full page spread on "making politics work" pick up a copy as gifts or as simple gifts for yourself to remind you what midwestern american politics can be.

i'm very proud to have you who watch this show regularly to discover where i came from. that's "hardball" for you. all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes, the supreme court will be hearing a new challenge to the affordable care act in conservatives never ending quest to kill the gravely damaged law. but what's at stake in this case is les about health care and more about what rights corporations have. >> what is a corporation? >> a corporation as defined in american law is an organization formed with approval of the government to act as a single entity, most often carry on business.