i am a grandmother. i am jewish. those happen to all be facts of life. the nosy part, i will leave the public to make that decision. along with my family. >> the public elected-up to be nosy about things like this. senator weinberg. thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. hire on the right, let's play "hardball." >> good evening. let's start tonight with the right wing assault, not just on the president, but government. government itself. are they out to destroying not just the party in power, the right wing, but the power in government? is that what people like ted cruz and birther types are up to? knocking over not just barack obama or washington, but the

very institutions necessary to support national authority itself. listen to ted cruz go at it. we need to abolish the irs. we need to repeal dodd-frank, we need to repeal every single word of obama care. >> plibs on display right there at the cpac convention has become hard stuff on the right, which dedicated years for trying to smear, undo or dismantle president obama or clinton's agendas. but not only that, they're out for the goverment itself. everything from the irs to the federal reserve to the department of justice itself. every part of the federal government. listen to them. just look now at the contempt texas congressman louie gohmert showed attorney general eric holder this week. >> i realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight. >> don't go there, buddy. you don't want to go there,

okay? >> i don't want to go there? >> no. >> about the contempt? >> you should not assume that that's not a big deal to me. i think inappropriate, it was unjust, but never think that was not a big deal to me. don't ever think that. >> later in that same hearing, blake farrenthal, a member of the commerce who won't even acknowledge that president obama is a legitimately elected president, refused to talk to the attorney general saying the attorney general ought to be in prison. this is how he talked now, listen. >> i just don't think it's appropriate that mr. holder be here. if an american citizen had not complied with one of the justice department subpoenas, they would be in jail, not sitting here in front testifying. >> ought to be in jail. here's the attorney general reacting to this right wing contempt of him. yesterday, al sharpton's national action network. here's what he said in reaction. >> i am pleased to note that the last five years have been

defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms. even in the face, even in the face of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity. if you don't believe that, you look at the way -- forget about me. forget about me. you look at the way the attorney general of the united states was treated yesterday by a house committee, had nothing to do with me. what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? >> what president has had to ever deal with that kind of treatment? >> joe walsh is the editor at large with salon. joan, i have to tell you, what i'm thinking about here is when you listen to these guys, people like louie gohmert and people like farenthhold, they're a bunch of birthers who don't even believe obama was born in this

country, they're now going at it with cruz, a little more intellectual version of this same message. we don't need a government, we don't need an irs, we don't need a federal reserve. is this seven days in may? are they attacking the constitutionality of government. what do they say when they say we're not going to collect any more taxes or have a justice department? we're not going to have anything. they don't like alcohol, tobacco and firearms. is this just ruby ridge talk? or is this some new level of play, which is we're going to bring back not just barack obama, we don't like for a lot of personal reasons and eric holder for those same personal reasons, or we're bringing down this hold government. >> i think it goes way back. i think it goes farther than that, chris. think about what jim demint has said about the big government did not end slavery. it was people of faith and the, quote, love of abraham lincoln and not government.

this is a deliberate effort to discredit government, to discredit big government, to say it can't do anything right. so say we're going to withdraw its hold of the citizens. it goes back to fast and furious. they've held him in contempt. think eve treated him like they've treated no attorney general in the history of this country. it's an effort to repeal the federal government, to repeal the 20th century, and to repeal the protections that have brought so many rights to so many of us. and they're not subtle about it anymore at all. >> some of this reminds me of an old snuffy smith comic. a bunch of people in the mountains in tennessee worried about the revenuers coming.

anybody work for the government is bad, especially if they're blablg. db black. your thoughts? >> i do think if you're black, you see that interaction there very differently than if you're white. i think you see it very differently than if you're progressive versus -- >> i see it because i look at the way they talk. >> i do think we are always in the middle of this ongoing racial conversation. america is a racial experiment, right? i do think there are racial and class underpinnings oa lot of conversations that we're all having about the role of the federal government. should it be an activist role or should it -- >> what do you make of eric holder when he says don't go there. he used a street corner thing, don't go there. he said it that way. at which gohmert repeated the words, like he could put him down for the words himself.

>> right. this was a competition of almost tribal pro-porgtss. >> that's right, that's right. this is street talking. >> trash talking. >> right, trash caulk talking. and gohmert said something about -- >> asparagus. we're going to try to disentangle that one. >> at some point, holder made a joke about that. >> that's going to follow him around like asparagus follows everybody around. >> holder lab very honest about america -- >> how much is constitutional? how much is states rights talk? ted cruz, he's smart about this stuff. he's playing that states rights card. we don't believe in big government, wre don't believe in washington or the irs. probably don't like the atf. probably don't like fish and game. anything that says authority. what are they up to? >> again, this is the conversation. reagan would have this conversation when he would go down to the south and campaign in south carolina. he would praise some of those -- he would go to bob jones university, right? >> but reagan would admit the existence of the civil war, unlike june jim demeant who

thought that stonewall jackson and robert e. lee were flower children. >> but he also thought we shouldn't have the department of education. that's where it started, let's abolish the department of education. >> ever since the president obama was elected, the hard right hasn't been shy in their contempt of the office of president. mere's a sampling in the past couple of years. >> the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. >> you lie! >> that's not true. >> i believe that he is a muslim. >> you do? >> yes. >> how many of you belief that here? wow. >> as the speaker of the house, as a leader, go you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance? >> david, it's not my job to tell the american people what to think. >> i stood 12 feet from that guy and i couldn't stand being

there. tell me how to impeach the president of the united states. >> i'm sorry, i don't think you have to be a person of color to hear, when you don't want to be near the person, you say he lies. i have never heard this kind of treatment of a president. and it seems to me it's very personal. and i don't know any other way to look at it. but it's also a putdown by elected public firnls of the very government they're working to serve. they're putting down the institution of the presidency. i don't know how they can separate it. i think they're doing both at the same time. they're using obama to beat the hell out of the government itself and using the government and people's problems with the government to beat the hell out obama. your thoughts? >> i think they' been doing this from the beginning. there's been a real conversation out on the web about how ugly is this racism? how deep is the racism? and how much are liberals just crying racism, using racism?

i think when you see those examples, chris, there is race involved in the reaction to this president. now, some people will say, well, bill clinton was treated very badly by republicans and i say two things to that. yes, he was. a lot of it was unfair. bill clinton was a racial liberal and his enemies went back to segregation -- >> there's a big difference. there's a big difference. >> also, then he got himself in trouble. there are lots of -- >> that's the point. >> it predated -- you know, go back to judge johnson, go back to arkansas, chris. it predated some of his troubles. i'm not saying he didn't do some of it to himself. >> i'm -- okay, okay. you finish. >> there's an elm of he was a civil rights liberal, he worked for george mcgovern and he was the enmyth. and then barack obama is the enemy personified. >> let me try this with nia. there's dampbs between these two

gentlemen. both smart guys, both ivy leaguers. we know they're brilliant and their weaknesses. with capitol hill ton, had to make specific charges. oh, he murdered people, or the relationship with monica. with obama, it's personal. they don't need any particular charges. he didn't do anything wrong except exist in the white house, get elected twice. that's what they seem to be bothered by. >> no, they're bothered by him, they're bothered -- there are legitimate ideological differences here between the two sides. you're smirking. >> a middle of the road president. no philosophy, no health care program, if he had just been a boring middle of the road president, he wouldn't have these enemies. i think farenthold and gohmert wouldn't be at his friends anymore. >> you think because they're southerners. >> no, i listen to what they say about him. you lie and the personal nature

of the attack. >> i can't speak on that. >> ims. >> how much does that happen? you know, george what's his name, romney, his family moved to mexico and nobody maed a big issue. barry goldwater was born outside of the arizona territory. nobody made an issue of that. obama born in hawaii, he's somehow born somewhere else. that's what i'm saying pop i think the country is still getting used to the idea of having a black president and an african-american first lady. this is a country, we have no african-american female senators. lupita just won an oscar for, you know,er the fifth or sixth time in the history of the country. so i think we are naive to think at some point race sort of ends. it's this ongoing conversation. this sort of ongoing experiment

that we're having. you know, i wouldn't want to cast aspersions on any of these congress preem. i think they have legitimate concerns about this president as they see him. legitimate, ideological differences. >> i will jump in -- >> questions about whether this is a legitimate president or not? last word. >> i will say what she won't -- some of these guys do have a racial problem with the president. some of them don't, but when you listen to the list that have been said about them, they are different from any other president. and they're worse, and they're racial. it's not all racial, but a lot of it is. >> all i know is that waste of time farenthold from texas, i invited him on the show, i say was he legitimately elected president, he won't say it. the people back home are worse than him. joan walsh, thank you. coming up, a one-two punch from two the.s on the conservatives attack on voting rights. president obama and bill clinton both warning right now that republicans know they can't win national elections anymore without making it harder for democrats to vote. that means minorities and young

people. plus, the latest on the growing rift between the gop's cheney war wing and the rand paul isolationist crowd. libertarian crowd. we have new video of rand paul taking down cheney on the torture issue. plus, chris christie. my question tonight. is this guy still a serious presidential candidate? with the drip, drip, drip of scandal that could break the dam at any moment? and it looksing as if we'll see a lot more of stephen colbert. he's taking over for david letterman. what big shoes to fill.

>> today, a woman was taken into custody for throwing a shoe at hillary clinton. she was speaking at the mandalay bay and hotel and casino. there's no word on why the woman threw the shoe.

we'll be right back after this. i had to do something. i saw my doctor. a blood test showed it was low testosterone, not age. we talked about axiron the only underarm low t treatment that can restore t levels to normal in about two weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer, worsening prostate symptoms, decreased sperm count, ankle, feet or body swelling, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing while sleeping and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about axiron.

>> we are here today because we know we cannot be complacent. history not only travels forwards, history can travel backwards. >> today the president spoke in texas and paid tribute to one of his pred says sors, lyndon b. johnson. while the president didn't allude to it directly, voting rights is front and center. on friday, the president will speak at the reverend al sharpton's national action network in new york and address this subject. last night at a fundraiser in houston, he warned about active efforts to deter people from voting. apparently he's very active down in texas. the idea that he purposefully tried to prevent people from

voting un-american. how is it that we're putting up with that? we don't have to. that's the president. what's part of a discharger democratic effort to suppress voting by republicans all across the country. yesterday, former president bill clinton also spoke about vote rights at the lbj library. >> we all know what this is about. this is a way of restricting the franchise of 50 years of expanding it. is this what martin luther king gave his life for? is this what lyndon johnson employed his legendary skills for? is this what america has become, a great diverse thriving democracy for? to restrict the franchise? >> jonathan capehart, an msnbc contributor, and dale is with voting rights. i want to talk about the fact of the voter suppression efforts.

as you know all the facts and figures. my question is how is it going to affect voting? will it discourage african-americans and young people and other people from voting? or will it get to and say we're going to try to stop you from voting because you tend to vote democrat. will it get people to vote or will nay win their effort to suppress? or will it turnaround and have a backlash? your thoughts? >> i certainly hope there's a backlash. we can't really let these efforts stand. what's really amazing to me, chris, is ten years ago we weren't having this conversation. in 2004, no one was talking about voting restrictions. in 2006, the voting rights act got reauthorized. and then all of a sudden, 2008 rolls around and the electorate gets younger and more diverse

than it's ever been. >> and votes for obama. >> now everybody is trying to cut back on voting. >> obama wins, so what's the republicans' solution? change the rules. >> right, if you can't convince -- unfortunately people, you know, in elected office who have decided they're not going to try to get more people to vote for them, they're going to try to change the electorate and prevent people from voting. unfortunately a lot of the restrictions we're seeing are targeted precisely at the kinds of demographics the aclu are concerned about. people of color, young voters, voting cutbacks in ohio and wisconsin. wisconsin geing rid of early votings on the weekends. ohio got rid of a week of early voting and then sunday early voting. over 100,000 people cast their

ballots in 2010. even though this is going to disproportionately going to affect people of color and young voter, it's going to affect everyone. it's not the way our democracy should run. >> the republicans picked up up a the dixiecrats and sard you have a new home. 9 republican party in the early '60s was the party of lincoln. they supported -- all but six u.s. 12345r9s backed civil rights. overwhelmingly in the house. now it's become the party that is the old tools, you know, literacy tests, poll taxes, all the gimmicks. now you can't vote the days you like to vote. lengthen the lines and shorten the days. >> that southern strategy has now turned the republican party into a monochromatic party that's filled with active energized voter, but they're shrinking as a percentage of the population and who are dying off, to be perfectly blunt. >> they've turned themselves into south african whites? >> if that's the way you want to look at it. >> in terms of numbers. >> it's easier for republicans to restrict the vote, to block

the vote, than it is for them to come up with the policies that would make it possible, that would be attractive to african-americans, latinos, women, young people, to bring them into the party. the republican party is not going to survive if it keeps going the way it's going. >> we've talked about this. the short run, will it work? the press voting or -- i think, you know, people that see certaincy, some laws make people want to go the ore way. like in '65, you tend to go 68 to 70. there's a certain way who work. and in this case, you find out people say to you, you can't vote because you're black, well, if you're black, what? that's interesting. >> we saw that in 2012 when all of this started ginning up, we saw lines of african-americans out there, standing in line for hours waiting to vote, because no one was going to tell them that they could not vote.

that was their right. african-americans around the country basically said hell no, you're not going to do this to me, not out. >> that's a healthy american attitude. >> right. this is why we see presidents clinton, president obama, and others in the democratic party sounding the alarm that it is important, it is imperative for you to get out there and vote because republicans are trying to take it away, and if they succeed in doing that, then a whole host of other bad things could follow. >> w wii and others cut out early voting, the rationale was it's about fairness between urban and rural voters. here's the argument. her's the wisconsin senate majority, the republican, said after their law was passed. it's difficult for people to turn on channel 6 in milwaukee and there's a shot of someone voting during a time when it's not available to people in rural areas. what do you make of that argument? they've had a couple of arguments. what do you make of that one? >> let me say two things about

that. it doesn't make a whole lot of the sense to me. i never heard of anyone saying we should take away someone's right to vote because it makes someone else feel bad that a person is exercising that right. i mean, i might feel bad when someone doesn't vote for my preferred candidates, but that's not really a basis for din enfranchising that person. but the second thing i think that argument really gets wrong is that we want to treat voters equally, not cities or municipalities equally. that means every voter needs to have equal access. and equal access doesn't mean that every municipality gets the same number of machines or has the number of voting hours. milwaukee is ten times larger than a lot of municipalities in wisconsin. >> how many states are engaging a voter suppression right now of the 50? >> i can't give you an exact number, christian, off the top of my head. there are a dozen states where we're engaged in active litigation right now.

north carolina is a big one, ohio is one that we're looking at very carefully. wisconsin, we challenged their voter id law. it's a real, real serious problem. more than half the states covered by section 5 have engaged in voter suppression efforts since the supreme court struck down the voting rights, section 5 of the voting rites act. those are not the only states. it's spread to other parts of the country as well. >> i don't think there's anything lower that than an attempt to keep a person from voting in this country. thank you. thanks for coming back. up next, louie gohmert said he wasn't flustered. he really meant to say that whacky line about casting aspersions on my asparagus. he keeps talking about asparagus. it's like precious bodily fluids. and dr. strangelove.

you have time to shop for car insurance today? yeah. i heard about progressive's "name your price" tool? i guess you can tell them how much you want to pay and it gives you a range of options to choose from. huh? i'm looking at it right now. oh, yeah? yeah. what's the... guest room situation? the "name your price" tool, making the world a little more progressive.

>> our copanderer in chief spent the day kissing up to women. >> the average woman earns 7 cents for every dollar a man earns. the equal payday means a woman has to work about this far into 2014 to earn what a man earned in 2013. >> yes, to get the same amount of pay, women's work year is three months longer. good news, ladies. if you're 38 years old, financially, you're just 29. >> that was stephen colbert taking on equal pay debate. but the pig big news today is colbert is officially set to replace david letterman as host of the late show on cbs.

next, as we showed you yesterday, attorney general eric holder took a parting shot at louie gohmert in a contentious hearing saying to the congressman, good luck with your asparagus. and the dig was in reference to a remark that gohmert had made in may of last year. >> the attorney general failed to answer my question -- >> the gentleman will suspend -- >> aspersions on my asparagus. >> casting aspersions on my asparagus. as you might imagine, many were left confused on that one. so gohmert went on "the blaze" with glenn beck yesterday to explain the origin of the line. he said he was quoting the late percy foreman a famous texas criminal attorney. >> percy foreman was a very, very liberal criminal defense attorney, but he was incredible

in the courtroom, and when somebody started attacking his integrity, he stood up and said i object. he's casting aspergss on my asparagus and people would scratch their heads, but it brought down the level of the rancor. >> oh, i was intentional. >> so i was using a percy foreman line back probably 50 years ago. >> glenn beck is so understanding. it's an unwritten rule of comedy, if you need to explain the joke, it probably wasn't that have funny to begin with. a similar line was used by the three stooges. this is from the equipment "busy buddies." >> hot cakes must be made out of the reclaimed rubber. where's your chef? >> are you casting asparagus onka my cooking?

>> it makes much more sengs as a punch line in the three stooges than the way gohmert tried to use it. coming up, another release of rand paul calling on republicans to reject dick cheney. that's ahead.

>> welcome back to "hardball." in today's article on the gop feud between rand paul and dick cheney, they have unearthed audio of rand paul on a radio show in 2009 saying cheney and his pension for torture are hurting the republican party. >> i think it's kind of hard to believe we would go around the world to defend freedom and torture people. they're so totally opposite that i just can't imagine that's what america would stand for. and while john mccain and i would disagree on a lot of issues, the one thing you have had the guts to do is stand up and say look, i was tortured and this is not what america should

stand for. and if republicans can't understand that, and if republicans want dick cheney to be sort of the representative of our party still defending torture, which is not something america stands for, it's just another way to shrink the republican party. >> there's a revolution coming. certainly a civil war in the republican party. this comes on stop of monday's mother jones exclusive headline, rand paul says dick cheney pushed for the iraq war so that halliburton would profit. so we have the early front-runner of the gop 2016 field calling the last republican vice president a war profiteer and a liability to the party to boot. there's a reckoning, i've said, coming for the republican party on national security, on war and peace. it looks like rand paul and dick cheney are the main card on this fight. joining me right now is david corn, washington bureau chief for mother jones magazine and msnbc political analyst and clarence page, a columnist. i see a war. i talked about this at the end of the program. it remind me of '68 and the democrats in chicago where nay went hubert humphrey defending a

war policy and a legacy of a war and along comes the left in the party among students, rye yating, disaster, four years later, mcgovern gets to be the dovish candidate, voting for nixon a complete disaster. is the republican party reaching an armageddon point where they have people like rand paul saying iraq was a disast e, we can't have people who want to do it again and dick cheney coming out of wherever he hides and coming out like freddie krueger back again, pushing war again. not only pushing war, he wants to go to iran, syria, ukraine. a. >> i think it's getting personnel. he was attacking rand paul, not by name, but everyone knew as an isolationist and dangerous and no-nothingings about the middle east. and here you have rand paul saying he's a liability to the party and acted in essentially treasonous manner to profit a company he used to share.

this is not a good faith policy dispute. this is really personal. while the policy dispute over what the role of the american military force should be. so this is going to be bloody. there is no resolution to your question. >> to me this is fundamental. was the iraq war a good move or a smart move that cost almost 200,000 lives. rachel maddow pointed out there's a lot of economic mote i have to war. but dick cheney is saying he fought that war for personal profit, that his company benefited from it. i never made that charge. rand paul is making it. >> dwight hiezen hower, that's the wing of the republican party that we're hearing in rand paul

and ron paul. i have a question about how strong it is right now. i think it is stronger that they're more isolationist than we were four years ago or eight years ago. >> what happens somewhere in iowa, probably year after next, or next year, next year, somewhere late. somebody will be there and it won't be the old days. let's watch what used to happen. ron paul, the senior paul, would come out against war. he would take a shot at iraq and immediately rudy giuliani would jump on like a jack in the box anticipate put him down. ron paul was a pariah to the debate stage because of his isolationist views. rudy giuliani used to take particular umbrage on that and always took the opportunity to remind voters of his, rudy's role on 9/11. let's watch the old game. >> 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. and they are delighted that we're over there because osama bin laden has said i'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier. they've already now since that time killed 3400 of our men, and i don't think it was necessary. >> do you want to comment on that? >> that's really an extraordinary statement. someone who lived through the attack of september 11 that we invited the attack because we were attacking iraq. i don't think i've ever heard that before. and i've heard some pretty absurd explanations for september 11. >> you know, i think rand paul, the younger man, he's a senator right now is going to take on a rudy, and i wonder if there will be a rudy on the stage, a real hawk like that. >> there are two things happening here, the intervention

skeptics, i don't call them isolation iss. they're the republican party, have gotten more of a soap box than ever before. they've always been there. now you have rand paul in the senate, ted cruz. they have more voice, and it scares -- >> why did liz cheney accuse rand paul -- >> but, let me -- let me -- it scares the hell out of john mccain and others who call them whacko birds. that's a policy fight that's going to go on and the skeptics on the rise. when rand paul gets out there and says cheney started the war to profit his own company, they're going to use that as basically the bully club to hit them with because they don't like the policy. and on that, they're going to make him try to sound like a conspiracy -- >> do you think there's going to be a battle royale between people who think the iraq war was a disaster?

>> in the primaries, this can benefit rand pause because he's the only republican candidate right now who holds that position. that sets him apart from the pack. >> four hawks and one do you have -- dove. >> exactly. the republicans have a remarkable ability to pull back together again eventually. how far they will go at this point in the this era of the tea party remains to be seen. >> i think it's a fight worth having. the democrats usually benefit in the long run over having these fights. if you don't have the fig fights in the country, you become irrelevant eventually. i want them to have the fight obviously. up next, can chris christie revive his dwindling presidential prospects in or has the george washington bridge scandal closed his road to the white house? this is "hardball" the place for politics.

>> according to a new poll, it's a tight race for the frun nomination. jeb bush, rand paul each with 10. this is spread out. followed by ted cruz at 9, chris christie down at a distant 7. among the democrats, no surprise here. catch this number. hillary clinton, 63%.

and here's a bigger surprise, elizabeth warren, 12%. joe biden down at 10. hillary clinton and elizabeth warren maybe duking it out, who knows.

chris christie looks and sounds like a candidate these days actually running for president in 2016, in spite of the heat he's taken back home in new jersey. last month, christie flew out to l will have to court billionaire sheldon adel snon his venetian hotel, selling himself as a decisive leader. >> we cannot have a world whether our friends are unsure of whether we will be with him and our enemies are unsure if we're against them. in new jersey no one is unsure if i'm for or against them.

there's never really a cloud or indecision around what i say and what i do. >> but can chris christie run for president with mud on his fingers, a legal cloud of suspicion under the u.s. attorney and his own legislature? this is what christie said to abc's diane sawyer last month. >> at core, i am a passionate, loving, caring, direct truth teller. that's who i am. and for some people, they love it. i will tell you, when i travel around new jersey, i hear from most people that's what they love the most. >> and what about iowa? >> i think they love me in iowa, too, diane. i think they love me there, too. >> just the way you are? >> especially because of the way i am.

>> christie is putting on a strong face publicly. the co-author of the book double down. an the reporter from "the wall street journal" journal. let's get to the facts right now as you can report them. first of all, mark, tell us what indications you're getting as he faces the legal problems, as he's dealt with his own investigation, by his own account he's got to deal with the legislature there to some extent. but a bigger question with what the attorneys people do there with the grand jury sitting and all that stuff. is the running a two-front campaign right now? is he doing all that deal defense and strategizing at the same time he's putting together a presidential campaign? of. >> yes. it's a legal fight and a legislative fight. it's thinking about the

presidential, it's also the republican governors, also being governor of new jersey, not just because he takes his job seriously, but because no incumbent governor can run a serious presidential campaign without having their house in order. he needs his approval ratings up in the state, he needs a report of accomplishment on the presidential fround i've been told of many conversations he and his top associates have had with leading political figures in the republican party, very much clearly intending to try to run for president. >> do you have soundings or evidence of the political people still working for him and the governmental operation to see a presidential campaign there? >> i think they haven't rulinged it out. they've been cautious in saying exactly when he'll decide on such a thing and when they'll make such an announcement. they're saying end of the year, beginning of 2015, but inthey see his rga role as a key to try

to continue to get him out across the country, repair his image. they've been very excited about the rga fundraising numbers that have been announced recently that showed he brought in quite a bit of money. and once the prior parts are over and he's stumping for candidates, i think they really see that he can, you know, be on camera, be all around the country in vital states for him and they see that as a potential way for him to come back. >> it seem to me, two cutting edges against him, "the new york times" editorial board, one will be he's a bully and he was involved in signalling to people to go put the pressure on dawn zimmer down in hoboken, and he somehow sent the signal to his staff people like steppian and bridget kelly, nasty muscle is okay by me. that would be one charge against him. the other possible charge, and it could be simultaneous is he's out of control. he's not running people -- he picks the wrong people that

can't be trusted. don't put putt him in the white house, he picks all the wrong people. thugs. whether both of those charges, or does he take advantage of the tough guy, which he seems to do in these interviews and with sheldon adelson. okay, i'm a tough guy, jersey guy. take me as i am. >> yeah, just to break it down. i think on the first one, tough, arrogant bully, i think within the context of the republican nominating fight, that's not going to be a negative. i think barring some legal problems, investigative problems, i don't think that's going to be a problem. they want someone tough. they want someone who will take it to hillary clinton, the presumed democratic nominee. the other question that you raise, i think, is a bigger issue with his strongest constituency within the party,

which is wealthy donors. and elite republican officers and operatives. they want him to upgrade his staff. they want him to have an. ration that is more like a major league operation. that could stand up to the clintons, that could organize a $1 billion campaign. and there seems to be at this point some resistance within his world to say no, we don't need to clean house, these are the people who got thus far. that tug of war, that is a potential problem. they want to see maturity on his part and a more mature operation a more seasoned group around him with a different style. so far we haven't seen that in many way that's impressed the people i'm talking to. >> i think he still faces a lot of grenades down along the road there. anyway, thank you for joining us. we'll be right back after this. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

vietnam war. in 1968 they stuck with the war policy of lyndon johnson running his vice president for commander in chief. hubert humphrey could never unite the tempt party on that basis. in 1972 the democrats ran the country's leading anti-war figure, senator george mcgovern for president. he, too, failed to unite the party. richard nixon was re-elected overwhelmingly. will this happen to the republicans in 2016? will they run rand paul and have the hawks fly the coop? will they run a hawk and have

the anti-war faction growing all the time saying he we made a mistake with iraq. we're not doing it again? as of now it looks like this fight is unavoidable and you and i will be watching with excitement. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i am chris hayes, and it is great to be back. breaking news tonight from washington. nbc news has confirmed that after five years the rocky but ultimately successful implementation of obamacare health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius will announce her resignation tomorrow. the white house is already putting out the name of her replacement and the responses from the right are coming fast and furious. we will have a full report ahead. meanwhile today ma