get tonight's "last word." awe thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. southern comfort for democrats. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, not so fast to all the republicans licking their chops at the prospect of a senate takeover in november. a new new york times/kaiser family foundation poll out today says let's not be spiking the football just yet. granted it's one poll, but shows vulnerable southern democrats are still very competitive. republicans need six states if they are going to take over the senate majority and likely to win in west virginia, south dakota, and montana.

that would mean they'd need three more wins to get over the top, and democratic incumbents in these states, mark pryor in arkansas, mary landrieu, and kay hagan were considered prime candidates to be picked off. plus in kentucky, allison lundergan grimes is giving mitch mcconnell a run for his money. in arkansas, mark pryor leads republican tom cotton by a whopping ten points. north carolina democratic republican kay hagan is holding on, leading tom tillis by two points. mary landrieu leads by more than 20 points. that's a little misleading. landrieu is going to need 50% to avoid a runoff. it does show she's very much in that game. finally in kentucky, republican institution mitch mcconnell is barely fending off allison lundergan grimes. 44% to 43% the margin there. joining me, howard fineman and michael tomasky.

howard, i'll start with you. we've always known kentucky is going to be a dog fight. we've had indications that arkansas was a little more favorable to democrats than people had been thinking, so in one sense this is confirming there have been a sense for a little while now, but the big take away for me, when i take a step back, it's almost shocking to think of the south, this region that's moved so decisively against president obama, none are states he carried in 2012, the south could be the salvation of democrats in 2014. >> well, it's remarkable, because in part, obamacare, which the republicans staked everything on, while it still might be a problem even in some of these southern states for sure, is not quite the political disaster that it looked like last october when the republicans staked their entire philosophy and game plan on opposing it.

that's number one. two, the democrats are raising substantial amounts of money, and number three, in these states, in arkansas and kentucky, the popular democratic governors accepted the expansion of medicaid and those democratic governors are very popular and i think that's helping mark pryor in arkansas and it's helping allison lundergan grimes in kentucky, and also people like mary landrieu, daughter of the mayor of new orleans, mark pryor, son of a senator, kay hagan in north carolina, an experienced savvy paul. and alison grimes, who comes from a very political family, these are tough people that are going to be tough outs for the republicans because they are local people with local roots, whose primary identification is not barack obama. >> so, michael, you look at these three democratic incumbents here, one republican seat. we know if the democrats can take out mitch mcconnell, that changes the math completely in their favor, but generally

agreed the democrats need to pick off two of those. my question is, how sustainable is this? because howard talks about obamacare not being the political weapon maybe republicans thought it would be. i still look at it and say, look, we're also seeing these polls that president obama's numbers not really good in any of these states and you have the experience of those democratic governors implementing the medicaid expansion, but still have obamacare overall not polling well, so can they keep defying gravity like this, or those numbers going to eventually catch up with them. >> well, i think they can to some extent. i think with respect to obamacare, i don't think that's going to be the disaster that everybody predicted some months ago, and i've been writing this for awhile, actually, steve, and i think it has turned around and i think it's probably going to keep getting a little bit better. i think the issue of the medicaid money is going to play out in these states where governors have refused it. it's going to play out a little more in governors races. florida, it's going to be a very

big deal, but maybe even in a place like georgia. but to get back to the senate, i don't think obamacare is going to be a big problem for the democrats and you see landrieu and others, embrace a strong word, but warming up to it more and more. the president's own general approval rating, however, is going to be a problem for the democrats in some states, and that number often tracks pretty closely with how members of the president's party do in a sixth-year election, and i think that will still be a problem, so i think this is still an uphill fight for the democrats, but i don't think obamacare is the problem. >> that in and of itself would be amazing, talk about defying gravity. that is what republicans are staking their 2014 campaign on right now, but republican candidates like todd aiken and richard murdoch crashed and burned in 2012 because of misguided comments about women and abortion. does 2014 hold potential for a similar grenade? buzz feed lists comments of greg brannon, who's in the running to be a nominee against kay hagan under the headline "13 things

you won't believe the man who could be north carolina's next senator said," including property taxes make us indentured servants to the government. however, there's polling, you know, in north carolina right now, this same poll shows the republican establishment candidate and greg brannon fairing about as well against kay hagan, certainly indications the democrats are going to try to do what they can to get the nomination, you know, tillis won't win the nomination down there, but there's a growing sense when you look at lindsey graham, talk about mcconnell in kentucky, cochran in mississippi. at the beginning of the year we were saying all three could be vulnerable in primaries. not looking like the tea party challengers have as much momentum now as they did in 2012, 2010. >> i don't think they do, and the reason is while the republican establishment was kind of blindsided in 2012, which they shouldn't have been, but they were, they are not

blindsided this time. the incumbents in the senate, the republican incumbents in the senate, moved many steps to the right. they ran to the right as fast as they could to try to shut off the oxygen to the tea party. in kentucky, for example, mitch mcconnell hired rand paul's campaign manager to be his own campaign manager. that gives you an indication of what the republican establishment was doing. so i think, you know, the democrats in a machiavellian way, the democrats might want to pour money into tea party campaigns, but i don't think these tea party challengers are going to win. and that's bad news for the democrats. the only way it could conceivably be an advantage or some help to democrats is after the primaries and if those tea party people endorse the mainstream candidate, the mcconnell, for example, what ownership does mitch mcconnell have of the statements of the guy who ran against him and then endorsed him? that's kind of a bank shot for

democrats. i'm not sure it will help them that much. >> let's play that out one step further. you could say the tea party candidates aren't likely to win primaries, but in a sort of roundabout way the tea party is winning the primaries because establishment candidates are embracing their rhetoric, agenda, in some cases embracing their staff. so this gets me to the question if republicans do end up winning back the senate this fall, what does that mean for the last two years of the obama presidency? we all assume sort of the house is going to stay with the republicans, so it's not like democrats are likely to get a majority of the entire government, but what's the difference between having a democratic senate and republican senate after this election for the president? >> potentially really enormous, steve. the control of the calendar of the senate, of any legislative body, is really what having a majority status is all about. when harry reid's not deciding what gets to the senate floor and mitch mcconnell or someone else if mitch mcconnell happens to lose to alison grimes is deciding what gets to the senate

floor, that's a massive difference. all these things that the house is passing, all these really conservative things having to do with women's contraception and a number of other issues, harry reid is bottling all that stuff up right now. if the republicans have the majority, they'll bring votes on all that stuff. they'll pass very conservative budgets, they'll be able to put poison pills in appropriations bills that obama has to sign and make him swallow hard and sign some stuff that he doesn't want to sign. they'll look at the environmental protection agency, they'll look -- you can be sure at the new consumer financial protection bureau, which the republicans hate, and they'll try to really poke holes in a lot of these things. i mean, it could be a really, you know, the last four years of obama's presidency with a divided congress have been a real slog. the last two can be a lot, lot worse. >> well, we've also been talking about the role of obamacare in these elections. senator mary landrieu is touting the merits of obamacare and touting on the unpopularity of

bobby jindal, who opposes it. louisiana's decision not to expand medicaid leaves 242,000 people uninsured and she calls that, "the jindal gap." she added, my opponent offers nothing but repeal, repeal, repeal, and even with the setbacks, we're seeing benefits for thousands of people in louisiana. i think the benefits people have received are worth fighting for. howard, i'm kind of curious how widespread is that kind of rhetoric going to be? in louisiana you talk about the path for victory for democrats there is a democratic constituency, particularly in new orleans, if you can really crank up the vote and motivate those voters, you can win as democrat in louisiana. maybe in a state like kentucky, georgia, some of these other states, it's more about winning over swing voters. are we going to hear other democrats talking as mary landrieu is on obamacare? >> you have to be very careful, especially in a red state, yes, a democrat can win, but louisiana is fundamentally a red state these days.

you don't mention obamacare. you don't even necessarily mention barack obama, but you talk about the benefits of the law that are tangible. children up to the age of 26 on their parents' plans, no pre-existing condition requirement for insurance. the way other health insurance plans that people in the private sector have had and will have, a way they've been improved, medicaid. i think the problem in a place like louisiana is, as good as that pitch is, and by the way, it's derived directly from a q & a that barack obama gave the other week, do-nothing republican congress, democrats trying to help you. that's the formula, but the problem in the midterm is getting those people to turn out. now, vote hauling and voter turnout was invented in new orleans by dutch morial, you know, a generation or two ago, and mary landrieu is going to need the best turnout operation that new orleans has ever seen in order to win that election. doing that in a midterm is not going to be easy.

>> morial, landrieu, these legacies, these dynasties. thank you, howard fineman and michael tomasky. coming up, latest on the bridge gate investigation. also, rand paul keeps on speaking truth that few republicans are willing to admit, that ronald reagan exploded the deficit and the gop may be overstating voter fraud in pursuit for voter i.d. laws. and if you're sean hannity, do you really want to pick a fight with jon stewart? that's what the news anchor has done and here's the reason. >> the court isn't on bundy's side, even the constitution isn't on bundy's side. who the hell is on this guy's side? >> have you thought about why you think your case has resinated so much with the american people? >> hannity! finally, let me finish tonight with why it's so hard for republicans to admit the convenient truths about one of their heros. this is "hardball," the place for politics. t you.

cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment is right. cialis is also the only daily ed tablet approved to treat symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like 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 free 30-tablet trial.

if you are concerned gun yesterday we told you that the state legislative committee investigating chris christie submitted four people at the heart of this investigation. you have pat foye, executive director at the port authority, michael drewniak, christina renna, who worked closely with bridget kelly, and william pat schuber. in just a moment we're going to talk to loretta weinberg, but

first, let's take a look at big questions surrounding these witnesses. first up we'll start with michael drewniak. as christie's spokesman, he was in constant contact with the governor. would have been his job to understand who gave orders and who enforced them and protected the governor during a p.r. crisis like this one. in november after bill baroni presents the now discredited traffic study defense, "most importantly, government was not brought into this." drewniak is also the guy who personally tells christie on december 5th that wildstein is sitting on explosive information that his staff in trenton and campaign manager both knew about the plan to close the lanes beforehand. christie tells drewniak he has no recollection of wildstein's comments. a few days later, christie tells the press that none of his staff was involved.

then there's christina renna, who told the christie's administration lawyers that the head of the christie campaign was sending trenton mandatory directives to brush off certain mayors that weren't in favor with the administration. in other words, he was sending payback orders. there's pat schuber, one of christie's commissioners at the port authority. loretta weinberg reached out wanting answers about the lane closures. finally, there's pat foye, the new york appointee at the port authority that put a stop to the lane closure fiasco and alerted federal and state laws were likely broken. on top of all of this, there's yet another twist in the ongoing battle between dawn zimmer and the christie administration. loretta weinberg and brian murphy, msnbc contributor, former managing editor of politicsnj.com. i used to work there, too. senator weinberg, i'll start with you.

first, just a more basic question, because we saw bill stepien and bridget kelly refuse to comply with the subpoenas and that was upheld by a judge. we have word from christina renna's lawyer she will cooperate, but do you know about the other three here, do you know right now whether or not they are actually going to appear and answer your questions? >> as of this moment i don't think we've gotten official answers from any of those folks, but i can't manage that any of them would want to take the fifth to protect themselves from speaking to a legislative committee, but i am confident that they will appear, but i can't say that as a fact at this time. >> so, you know, in these four names seem from reading the master report, reading the memos and all the other accounts of this, take you in sort of four different directions. drewniak, the spokesman, is sort of interesting to me because you

have, as we said in that intro, that exchange where he did tell the governor wildstein had told him that he, wildstein, had contact with the governor and told him about the lane closures while they were happening. also apparently wildstein told drewniak, you know, there were e-mails showing bridget kelly and bill stepien had knowledge of this. it seems drewniak's a particularly key witness for you. what are you hoping to hear from him? >> well, you know the old story about what did you know and when did you know it. you know, i find it kind of interesting, everybody knew by october 2nd when it appeared in the press that pat foye said laws were broken here. what did they do, who looked into it, and if they didn't, why didn't they? so i think those are all questions we need to put in front of these witnesses and others that we will be calling in the not too distant future as we continue to work out this schedule. but there's a lot of issues

around here that we need to hear directly from these folks. what did you know, when did you know it, and why didn't you do anything about it. those are three, i think, important questions. >> so those are the questions, brian, that senator weinberg is interested in getting answered, so when you look at these names, we talked about drewniak, renna, schuber, pat foye, are you particularly interested in hearing from one of these? is there one you're particularly interested in? >> i think christina renna's going to be an interesting hearing. the interview memo that came out from the interviews she did with gibson dunn for the christie exoneration report, her interview memos are really fascinating and give us an interesting picture of what the office bridget kelly worked in, how that office functioned, how it was used, how it was blended -- sort of no difference between the campaign and the governor's -- official

state-paid actors in the governor's office. that will be really interesting to see how that worked and how it was used and what kind of directives they had and why she thought that there might be a list of people out there who they shouldn't talk to. >> and senator weinberg, i want to just follow up on something that was reported, too, that we have these four names, but also your co-chair in the committee seem to be saying bill stepien and bridget kelly, that the committee, you guys, might serve them with a narrower subpoena. i'm wondering, is that accurate, and how does that mesh with what the u.s. attorney may or may not be up to? >> well, we are considering that. if you remember in jacobson's decision, she said that a narrower subpoena would be considered appropriate, at least that's what i understand in her decision.

so in a way, she sent an invitation that we have another bite of the apple with both of these people by issuing a different kind of subpoena. we've not made a final decision on that, and our -- with my co-chair, we are considering it. >> all right, chris christie's solution to government corruption is apparently to crack down on the whistle-blowers. christie's office has unveiled -- requiring government employees to immediately blow the whistle on suspicions of misconduct. if they don't, they could be the subject of prosecution themselves. pretty clear who this law is meant to draw attention to, hoboken mayor dawn zimmer. in response, zimmer's firing back in a letter to lawmakers, she writes, a law that threatens those that do not come forward immediately could be more likely to result in the covering up of misconduct rather than exposing

it and gave newly published entries to her journal, which may explain why she didn't come forward. she writes, we decided that christie has friends throughout the u.s. attorney's office, therefore, not much chance in getting help from them and it could create a nightmare for us. brian, i'll start with you just on this rule of law that christie is proposing here. it looks to me like pretty clear cut p.r. move. aimed at dawn zimmer and more generally at the idea of looking like he's trying to crack down on any future corruption here, but what kind of message do you think this sends and how do you think this is being received by voters in new jersey? >> you know, the funny thing is, that the penalty christie's proposing is a disorderly person's offense, which would give you six months in jail. you know, the thing about dawn zimmer coming forward i think that we have to remind ourselves of and what we learn from this

diary entry in the passage just before what you quote is that she had a conversation with the town attorney about the threat that she had alleged from the lieutenant governor and about how to respondent respond, and according to their diary, their decision, right, and it's not just an impulsive move, it's a reasoned legal decision. she didn't feel she had anywhere to go to, and that was after consulting with counsel. that's one of the reasons people want to talk to the u.s. attorney's office. it strikes me as if you know -- if you know anything about how politics work as a structure, you know that there are certain offices that are powerful and this is not a golden age for the little guy. she's entirely correct in saying this seems it's designed to punish people and make it is harder to be a whistle-blower. >> you mention the name of the development attorney for hoboken

and who dawn zimmer says she spoke to when this happened with lieutenant governor. we reported a few weeks ago the hoboken city council voted to free him. anyway, thank you brian murphy. we're fresh out of time, sorry, senator weinberg. up next, david letterman meets his replacement. stephen colbert out of character. side show is next. this is "hardball," the place for politics. .

[ male announcer ] identity theft ... it's one of the fastest growing crimes in america. in fact, there's a new victim of identity theft every...three...seconds. so you have to ask yourself, am i next? one weak password could be all it takes. or trusting someone you shouldn't. over 100 million consumers had their personal information stolen in recent retail store and online security breaches. you think simply checking last month's credit score can stop identity thieves now? that alone just isn't enough. but lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. as soon as the patented lifelock identity alert system detects a threat, you'll be notified by text, phone or email. ♪ your response helps stop thieves before they do damage to your identity... helping to keep you safe...

with three powerful layers of protection.

claims of voter fraud. you're watching "hardball," the

place for politics. back in 2007, 2008, and 2009, the future kentucky senator blasted reagan for raising the debt, even compared him unfavorably to his predecessor jimmy carter. video was uncovered by david corn at "mother jones." people want to like reagan and what he had to say most of the time was a great message, but domestic spending went up at a greater clip under reagan than it did under carter. >> he didn't do it. wasn't anything personal against him. i think his philosophy was good, i just don't know he had the energy or follow through to get what we needed. >> why did the deficit rise? because spending rose more dramatically under a reagan than it did under carter. you say, well, reagan's a conservative, carter's a liberal. not necessarily always what it seems. >> rand paul was right the deficits bloomed, but most

people don't expect to hear that from someone who is talked about as a leading republican contender for the nomination in 2016. david corn is with us, along with michelle bernard. author of "moving america toward justice." david, i'll start with you. you have a knack it seems for finding these types of videos. this is another very interesting find here. look, there's the history of what reagan actually was, but if i were trying to come up with the top five, top ten list of how to lose a republican primary, saying anything critical of reagan would probably be number one on my list. can rand paul distance himself from his own comments in the past, can he get away from this? >> he may try to distance himself, but if he does run for president in 2016, i'm sure a lot of people will try to undistance that distancing. as you noted in your wonderful intro, after late as he's come

under attack from the gop mainstream establishment for being an intervention skeptic or what they call an isolationist, he's tighter and tighter tried to wrap himself in the banner of ronald reagan. not too long ago when he wasn't that big of a fan, and so, you know, it wasn't just once. if people go to motherjones.com, it's a plug, and look at the video, it's not one speech, it's multiple speeches. it was a constant theme of his. in fact, when he was selling his dad, ron paul, as a 2008 presidential candidate, he said my dad, while he supported reagan in '76 and looked forward to his presidency in 1981, he voted against the first reagan budget and this is why you should support ron paul now, so it's a very stark libertarian point of view that he took to heart. he really meant it, and i think ron paul's problem in the next year or two is going to be again and again defending what he's

said in the past and really believes, which is often outside of the gop mainstream, which is very far to the right anyways these days. >> michelle, it does strike me, obviously, these clips didn't get that much attention when he said them, nobody knew who rand paul was in 2007, 2008, 2009, but he's going around making this case and in 2010 goes and wins a republican primary as supposedly the more conservative candidate in kentucky, wins the senate seat. you know, talking this way at least at the start of his political career didn't seem to hurt him. there's been sort of this whole sort of revisionism on the right and in general, this revisionism of what ronald reagan is and really was. has that accelerated on the right in the obama years? what is ronald reagan mean to the republican party now and conservatives now that maybe he didn't six or seven years ago? >> you know, i think what you see today is that there's almost

sort of -- there was a schizophrenia, for lack of a better term, within ronald reagan and what he stood for. today what you'll see is a lot of republicans and conservatives, quote/unquote reagan democrats, barack obama, has praised ronald reagan for being a transformational leader that richard nixon was not, but there's a ronald reagan remembered as the enthusiastic president that gave us america on the shining hill and talked so much about america's promise and cut interest rates, cut inflation, you know, won the cold war and did so many wonderful things, but then there are the elements of the republican party and conservatives that revered ronald reagan for the things we don't like to talk about that are also an important part of republican history, you know, there's an argument to be had that ronald reagan took the republican party from basically nothing to what it is today when he gave his infamous states

rights speech back in 1980. it was his first public speech that he gave when he was running for the presidency. he gave it at a county fair in mississippi where white segregationists used to hang out, just a few miles away from where mississippi civil rights workers were murdered, and he sat up and he said i believe in states rights and i'm going to return states rights back to its proper role in american government. he took over the presidency and quickly dismantled affirmative action. his civil rights commission revoked its endorsement of the proposed civil rights amendment at the time. did all kinds of things, including vetoing the civil rights restoration act and was the first american president to do so since back in 1866. you see parts of the republican party that like reagan because of the states rights mantra he made very fashionable again and could allow people to be segregationists and be racist by saying everything is better if we do it through this mantra of

states rights. >> thank you, david corn and michelle bernard. up next, the brewing left/right mismatch. jon stewart versus sean hannity. this is "hardball," the place for politics. . [ thunder crashes ] [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

"hardball" has been reporting about the group born free, which is working on the ambitious goal of stopping the transmission of hiv virus that causes aids from mothers to their children. born free is working with the

fashion industry to help raise money, and this morning some of those designs for featured on the "today" show. 100% of the proceeds will go to the subsaharan africa. if you want to help, you can find more information on our website, msnbc.com/hardball or born free's website, bornfreeafrica.org. be right back. 

we're back and we're wondering would you pick a fight with the biggest, baddest, toughest kid in the schoolyard? well, sean hannity just did that. he's had just about enough of being on the receiving end of jon stewart's humor and he's decided to fight back.

monday night stewart took aim at hannity again, this time for supporting the antigovernment nevada rancher cliven bundy and his family in their standoff over grazing fees for bundy's cattle. >> so the law isn't on bundy's side, the court isn't on bundy's side, even the state constitution isn't on bundy's side. who the hell is on this guy's side? >> have you thought about why you think your case has resinated so much with american people? >> hannity! >> it seems like something about this bundy feller is blinding hannity to all the things that would normally drive hannity mad with rage. if you want to challenge the amount of federal land the government owns in nevada, fine, make your case to the voters. if you want to challenge the concept of grazing fees, fine, but hannity's puffery and armed friends don't -- >> i guess maybe i'm a little bit like the founding fathers. [ laughter ] >> dude, you're a welfare rancher trying to pull off the world's largest cattle dine and dash.

>> and then last night hannity fired back, calling stewart a hack and an obama apologist. >> he's kind of obsessed with this program. i know things are tough with stewart, his army of 50 writers that they have, they just can't give their viewers the facts, they have to spin the story, they want to joke, they want to laugh, every way they can. stewart and his friends at comedy central are the chief apologists to the obama administration. cliven bundy is not a domestic terrorist. did jon stewart ask barack obama about his friendship, this unapologetic domestic terrorist? let's say, bill ayers, bernadine dorn? he sat on boards with bill ayers. the more i think about it, i guess i can't expect a comedic hack and his army of writers, i can't take them too seriously.

has done. nancy giles and john fugelsang with us. nancy, everyone on cable news kind of lives in fear of being skewered by jon stewart. but it looks to me like jon stewart baited him and he's taking it. does he know what he's getting in? >> i don't think he does. and the comedy is built in whenever jon stewart opens his mouth. jon stewart's a comedian, doesn't pretend or pose to be a journalist, and all he has to do is to show hannity's ridiculousness is get the clips where sean hannity will completely violate what he's fighting for with the bundies. bundy is a taker. this is by their own definitions, this is a guy who's sponging off of federal land. i'm paying the taxes that help him sponge. i mean, i'm not one of the americans that find this story compelling. i want them to pay, you know what i mean?

>> i think it's safe to say that hannity is a common target for stewart and "the daily show." earlier this month, hannity took stewart to task over his views of spring break. >> let's be honest, we've got some of our own problems right here in america. >> every year, thousands of college students pack their bags, they head to the beach, and beach destinations for the most coveted week of the year. that's spring break. we continue to expose what's really going on in spring break in america. >> yes! america's oldest hall monitor, sean hannity. dedicated not one, not two, but five different shows on the horrors of spring break. but there is one thing you would like them to know, they're doing it wrong. >> what we used to do, when we were young. we would put a boom hole, open it up, put it up and that was calling shotgun. >> jon stewart spends a lot of time making fun of fox, makes fun of this network and cnn, but he seems to have a particular affinity when it comes to sean hannity.

and is it because the hypocrisy there is a little more blatant, that sort of lack of self-awareness about what he might have said 15 minutes ago about versus what he's saying now? >> absolutely, don't give jon stewart for hannity being hilarious, steve. let's look at this. we've had a great role reversal here. you have jon stewart standing up to responsible law and order and sean hannity standing up for a lawless, socialist welfare queen. sean hannity has one job, to keep people that are wrong about everything for the last 20 years to think they're right about everything. his show is an iv drip for denial. and sean hannity's job is to keep megan kelly from stealing more of his staff and keep the audience as angry as possible. he's loving it. i have a satellite dish in my house to get sean hannity in the nonfiction version. and one thing about the bill ayers thing, sean hannity polishes his know every time olner north comes on the show. you know, niche.

here's the body count, bill ayers, zero death, george zimmerman, one. oliver north sold weapons to the iranians. sean hannity loves lawlessness when it suits him. >> from sean hannity to niche to oliver north. thank you, nancy giles and john fugelsang. we'll be right back. . ♪ oh-oh, oh, oh, la, la-la, la-la, la-la ♪ ♪ na-na-na, na-na-na-na-na some things just go together, like auto and home insurance. bundle them together at progressive, and you save big on both. ♪ oh, oh-oh, oh, oh hey, it's me! [ whistles ] and there's my dog! [gasps] there's my steps! i should stop talking. perfectly paired savings. now, that's progressive.

that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due.

and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. go to comcastbusiness.com/ checkyourspeed. if we can't offer faster speeds or save you money we'll give you $150. comcast business built for business.

let me finish tonight by giving rand paul some credit. we talked a few minutes ago about those critical comments he made in the not-so-distant past about a man in today's political party that practically regards as a saint, ronald reagan. it's an inconvenient revelation for paul, who's clearly focused on winning the presidential nomination in 2016, which is why his office was quick to put out a statement lavishing praise on reagan and shift the blame in spending of his on to the democratic congress. but it's a reminder of how thoroughly, quickly, and misleadingly history, revised

and rewritten. the view of ronald reagan expressed a few years ago was the view a lot of conservatives expressed when ronald reagan was actually president. as paul pointed out, the national debt absolutely did explode on reagan's watch. we hear conservatives tell today, the first budget passed exploded those deficits, triggering a massive economic resurgence. but in reality, unemployment spiked to over 10% in reagan's send year of office. his approval rating plummeted, his party was drubbed in the 1982 midterms, and the cries of betrayal from the right were loud. richard viguerie said, it's not a very conservative administration. it seems like every day, they hit us with something that makes us mad. and it wasn't just the deficit that made conservatives mad at reagan. it was a whole host of issues from school prayer and abortion to diplomacy with the soviet union, where they believed that reagan wasn't living up to the promises he'd made them. at his lowest point in early

1983, there was an effort to recruit of conservative primer challenger to run against him in 1984. quote, what infuriates conservative leaders, "newsweek" wrote at the time, is how far they are from achieving their agenda, even though a man they thought of as one of their own sits in the white house. of course, the full scale mutiny never actually occurred. the economy did bounce back by 1984 and reagan rode a wave of personal goodwill to a landslide re-election victory. even as the 1980s wound down and he prepared to leave office, there was a strong sense on the right that reagan's presidency had been a missed opportunity. and that is why in 1988, a former republican congressman, who'd been one of reagan's earliest and most ardent supporters bolted the party and decided to run for president as a third party candidate. he explained his decision this way. i want to totally disassociate myself from the reagan administration. and that former congressman's name was ron paul. what ron paul's son said about ronald reagan a few years ago was once a fairly common sentiment on the right. the reality of the reagan

presidency w a lot more complex, a lot less conservative, and a lot more interesting than ambitious republican politicians are allowed to admit these days. 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. there is a brand-new set of polls out today, possibly the most significant of the 2014 cycle, and it shows something that many political observers would have never anticipated just one month ago. not only is obamacare working, there is mounting evidence it is winning. and it's winning in the hardest place for it to win, the hardest place for democratic candidates. it is winning in what could be considered the geographical epicenter of the tea party. it is winning in the heart of red america in the deepest recesses of anti-obama politics. in four southern states, "the new york times" polled