washington. let me start tonight with the threat to baghdad and to the entire american investment of lives and treasure in thoo country. the tens of thousands of iraqis who died in a war we begin in 2003. a question now for my fellow citizens of this country. what's the difference between the iraq we entered 11 years ago and the iraq of the future that now looms. saddam hussein, we went in there and installed a shia dpom nated country. now the sunnis are finding their way back to power. why wouldn't they? wouldn't we if we were them? is there any reason iraq once we left would not revert back to what they were before? that the people wh had the power before would not try to get it back? was there any belief that we were not creating an ally for shiite-dominated iran, an iran that iran is now in the process of defending. the iranian revolutionary guard

to ward off the attack on baghdad by the sunni-dominated insur jepts. finally, why did someone think it was in interest so shift the power as a counterweight to iran as an ally of iran. who is that genius? and if george w. bush was so out of it to embark on this american excursion into insanity in the first place, why is president obama or anyone else knowing now that we've achieved through all these sack fiss nothing, talking about doubling down with still more u.s. military engagement in turbulent messopotamia. iraq is falling apart. today, sunni militants vowed to march on baghdad. on tuesday, the insurgents took over mosul, yesterday took over control of tikrit, saddam hussein's hometown. today they attacked an iraqi security checkpoint just 31 miles north of baghdad. according to the wall street

journal now, the revolution guard forces are now assisting the iraqi army to try to gain control of tikrit. the white house says thr not considering sending troops back to iraq, but the president said he wouldn't rule out anything else. >> what we've seen over the last couple of days indicates the degree to which iraq is going to need more help. it's going to need more help from us and it's going to need more help from the international community. so my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. i don't rule out anything. because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either iraq or syria for that matter. >> meanwhile, speaker john boehner blamed the president for what's happening in iraq. let's watch him.

>> it's not like we haven't seen over the last five or six months these terrorists moving in, taking control of western iraq. and now they' taken control of mosul. they're 100 miles from baghdad. and what's the president doing? taking a nap. >> senator mansion, the president is taking a nap. so we're back to political gaming this whole thing. my question to you, when we look at the situation over there, as i just said, the sunnis were in power, we put the shias in power. the sunnis are trying to get back to power. the shias brought in the iranian national guard, the revolutionary guard to help them. how did we get in the middle of a civil war between sunni and shia that's been going on for 1,000 years that's going to go on for another 1,000 years and we got involved in taking sides. i don't get it. >> a lot of people don't get it. that's been predicted for quite some time. i often said this, if money or military mite would change that part of the world, we would have done it by now. to get us back into this, i

don't think anybody will come out of it. my fellow colleagues think we still should have had a presence and staid imperpetuity. i don't buy into that. do they have a will to depend their country? we have an awful lot invested in that country and the sacrifice our men and women and soldiers and families made is beyond anything else anybody else has done. not counting the resources we put there. now they're finding out they've taken our equipment, our supplies, our weapons and now moving into syria to reengage in that fight and use them against us, i'm sure. and someone said what should we do? they've suggested maybe air strikes. that's something i think would be more receptive if we think we can get the rest of the united nations involved with us to try to help them defend themselves. but they've got to show the will to fight. and i don't think, chris, there's any. i haven't detected any type of support to put troops on the

ground again back in iraq. >> you did use the term country. you say defend their country. you're using american terminology we both grew up with. it's nation against nation. but it isn't exactly that. it's the shia that we put in power against the sunnis that had power who are now supporting those trying to retake it for the sunnis. how do we say who's the patriot? how does it fit in that kind of context? that's what we're wondering shooting on either side. i don't know. i've ebeen against this from the beginning. sure, if we stayed there with 100,000 troops for 100 years, we will always be there. but mccain and others, who i respect, aren't they talking about 5,000 troops? would that stop an overthrow of that government? do we have any reason to believe that? a small contingent of u.s. forces not in combat somehow stopping these people, insurgents now from winning? >> if we haven't been able train

them and give them the sdpil skils and equipment to defend themselves now, right, wrong or indifferent, we've already made our bed. and if that's where we are, and we're going to basically see if we can hold on to what little bit of a country or a regime they have, i don't believe putting 5,000 troops on the ground, we'll ever get 5,000 troops out and i'm not that for that. chris, i don't believe we can change that hatred between these sects. i just don't believe that can be done. with that being said, can we help them gain control? how can they have a unified government to where they can all work together? in some form of a democracy. >> they don't want one. last question. how dire is it based upon the briefing you got from the administration in baghdad? are they worried baghdad might be taken? >> well, basically they think that -- oh, my goodness. it surely could. who ever thought they would move this quick and this fast. who ever thought four regiments would completely give up and not even fight? this caught esche by surprise. that was a surprise to

everybody. well, if that was a surprise, what makes you think they can defend baghdad. we have forces in baghdad basically that's protecting some of our people there, and we've got to make sure that they are able to be safe and if not, get them out of there it's going to fall inevitably. or if we're going to be able to defend and help them strengthen themselves to defend that area. are we going to divide the country? is it going to be split up? half of it going to syria, half of it going to iran? that doesn't make sense to me. >> as you know, our business, the media, hasn't been able to predict what's going to happen in richmond, let alone what's going to happen in baghdad. thank you very much for coming. joining us right now is u.s. congressman jim moran of virginia. and david corn, washington bureau chief of mother jones and msnbc's analyst. i want to start with congressman moran. you've been a critic of this enterprise of going in there. 186,000 people have died in that war with iraq, and here it looks to me like back to the future. the sunnis want power again. there was an ad today tragically

in "the washington post," full-page ad for humvees, lockheed martin. they're selling that humvee right there. and then we're getting a tweet today of a humvee in the control of the insurgents. there it is. we paid for the humvee, we gave it to that government over there. now it's in the hands of the insurgents because all the guys took off their uniforms, turned over the keys to the cars and ran. because i don't know why -- maybe they don't know why they were in uniform to begin with, except the weekly pay. there's talk of us somehow losing a war in iraq, which we should have never been in. >> well, first of all, the iraqi security forces are primarily shia. and they weren't willing to defend a sunni community. mosul or any of the others in sunni territory. the problem is that we have a government in there that doesn't have the trust or confidence of the iraqi people for good cause.

in fact, this guy could become another saddam hussein without the charm, if you can believe it. was you're absolutely right. you' been right on target for 14 years, chris. $2 later, well over 100,000 iraqi deaths. and we could be in far worse shape than we've ever been in terms of our own sdurt. because these guys, they have international ambitions. they're bringing in people from other countries. these are international terrorists. al qaeda kicked them out because they were so vicious. they're psychotic almost in their desire to kill. and unfortunately, that killing spree is recruiting a whole lot of people. even from europe, even from north america. this situation cannot be overstated. and it's far worse really as a security threat to us than it was under saddam.

but i do think that the shia forces are going to be able to defend baghdad. understand that there's only 3,000 to 5,000 of these isis troops. they're vicious, they're intimidating, but we've got far more troops. and we spent $14 billion in training and equipping them. >> congressman, hold on there. i want you to stay a bit longer. david corn who's been following this, you know, the irony is the united states senate and other people in the congress voted to declare the iranian revolutionary guard to be a terrorist organization. now potentially we're on their same side because they're in there defending the baghdad government, their fellow shia. this is so weird. >> you have people like john boehner and lindsey graham and john mccain saying we should do something. not boot ops the ground but air strikes, get more military equipment to the shia military that isn't fighting. and what's going to happen? they're going to be fighting right alongside the revolutionary guard the kurds and everybody else. where do you think that equipment is going to go? already there are reports that

isis, the beyond al qaeda extremists got equipment from what the cia was treeing to give out to moderate rebels in opposition in syria. they have so many more troops, the government's military in iraq than the jihadis. the question is not training them or giving them more equipment. it's what they're fighting for. what they're willing to fight for. and if 30,000 iraqi military folks can't defend the city themselves against 800, what can you do? >> you always wondering if they sold themselves as a true country or not or just the sunnis and the shia fighting a civil war that's been going on for centuries. mccain said he would fire his entire national security team. let's watch senator mccain. >> if i kound angry, it is because i am angry.

do declare a conflict is over does not mean that it necessarily is over. we see this all now torn asunder because of a policy of withdrawal without victory. and when those withdrawals and that policy was being orchestrated, the senator from south carolina and i and others stood up and said please don't do this. please leave a small force behind in iraq. >> you know, comingman moran, i hate to say this because i do respect john mccain's service to this country, but the reason we lost vietnam is we were eventually going to come home. if we came home, north vietnamese were going to be there .the viet cong were going to be there forever because that's where they belonged. and we were coming home. so sooner or later, they're going to have their way. nobody thought that through. mcnamara, the geniuses, the best and the brightest. here we are, and john mccain, i respect him, but here he is

wanting to ree r epete the same argument. we should stay there forever. whenever that is, a year later, 2014, a year after 2020, whenever that year after is, we're gone and they're back in power. why does he think the longer you stay, you don't have to leave eventually? i don't get it. it's a weird kind of argument he makes. >> i read his speech. but, you know, korea is, i think, a different case in point. he does cite korea. but with all of these countries, as they say, we have the watches but they have the time. they're going to outlast us and the attrition of our troops through ieds and the cost, of course, financially, this is a democracy. we're going to pull people out tlp but chris, this is a very serious situation. this isis group is now the wealthiest terrorist organization in the world. they looted the mosul banks for $430 million in addition to

taking about 200 caches of u.s. military equipment. now, i don't think they can get into baghdad, but with regard to john, senator mccain, you know, he backed going into iraq in the first place. bush 41 did not. it was bush 43, a very different approach to this. bush 41 said don't go into baghdad. leave saddam there because as bad as he is, he's probably better than the alternative. and it turns out bush 41 knew what he was doing. bush 43, unfortunately, didn't. and unfortunately to some extent senator mccain may not have known what he was doing when he pushed us to get into iraq in the first place. >> well said. let me ask, quickly. >> when paul wolfowitz testified before the iraq war, he said there's not going to be a problem. there's no history of ethnic strife in this country. they didn't know what they were doing. they didn't know the region, they didn't care. and there's no way that we're going to be able to send in air

strikes or limited amounts of military supplies that's going to change the general political dynamic. if you don't address that, nothing else matters. >> as i said a few moments ago, if we can't figure out richmond, we can't figure out baghdad. thank you, gentlemen. thank you, congressman. and thank you david corn. coming up, we all remember where we were 20 years ago. the murders of o.j. simpson's wife and her friend. the white bronco chase, the trial of the century. tonight, we have new information on the case we didn't know about then. a witness said he saw o.j. simpson disposing of evidence. plus, the hard right is triumphant over eric cantor's defeat this tuesday. now hungry for more victories to knock off more incumbents. and clearly they want the next majority leader for the house to be one of them. this fight for the republican party has gone national and not at all neighborly. and the texas state republican party officially believes that gays are tearing at the fabric of american society. governor rick perry now says being gay is being like an

alcoholic. and a republican candidate for state rep in oklahoma says gays should be stoned to death. nice talk. finally, let me finish with why i think the american people better grab hold of this decision. facing us right now in iraq. this is "hardball."

the number of people consistently liberal conservative positions have doubled. among those people huge numbers says the other side presents a threat to the country's well being. 2/3 of consistently conservative republicans say democrats' policies hurt the country. and 50% of consistently liberal democrats say the same of the republicans.

we'll be right back. at shell, we believe the world needs

a broader mix of energies, which is why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity, that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go.

>> the body of nicole brown simpson, ex-wife of o.j. simpson was found outside her overwhelm next to the body of an unidentified 36-year-old man. both have been stabbed. >> it was called the trial of the century and all began with the ghastly double murder of nicole brown and ron goldman 20 years ago. from the very start, the murder case was a media sensation. 95 million viewers watched the manhunt that unfolded four days later. the now iconic images of simpson in the backseat of that white ford bronco cruising down the freeway while the lapd carefully followed. all the way to simpson's home where he finally surrendered to police. the trial over the next 15 months was the first taste of reality tv, providing the kind of gripping drama and plot twists that are now the work of creative producers.

it started as a story of celebrity crime and punishment but was turned into a story about race, a powder keg issue in l.a. in the aer i 1990ed. o.j. was acquitted thanks to a dream team of defense attorneys who turned the trial into the referendum on the lapd's conduct itself, despite the mountain of dna evidence that seemed to implicate o.j. in the crime. an hour-long documentary premiered last night. josh, it's great to have you on. i have a lot of respect for your reporting. i covered that trial every night for two hours. i was mystified by the verdict like a lot of people. i thought the case was maeld, but i also saw the flaws in the prosecution. i saw the problems of credibility with the police and how they handled it. i saw johnny cochran's brilliant charisma at work, playing the

race card but doing it so deftly. and now you come back 20 years later and tell me stuff i never knew and the jury never knew. tell us some of the highlights if people missed it last night. >> prosecutors were convinced that the blood evidence was going to make the day for them. you had simpson's blood at the crime scene, the victim's blood inside his car and his house. they didn't put on other parts of their case that they could have put on. there was a woman who came forward who had seen o.j. simpson just a couple of minutes after the murders were committed. and she saw him driving in between where the murder scene was and where his house was. no question it was h it was simpson. he was in a white bronco. he cut her off. she came forward. she testified before the grand jury then sold her story to "hard copy" a tv show on at the

time and prosecutors decided that tainted her and they decided not to use her. >> but if she came across as credible to court and had something to sell to "hard copy" it would be even stronger. why discredit her? >> the producers of "hard copy" didn't buy her story. and there was never anything that suggested she had not told the truth about her story. she didn't tell prosecutors about having sold the story to "hard copy" which prosecutors thought exposed the woman to being attacked as a liar by the defense and it probably would have. but there's an argument, just put her on and see where the chips fall. there was a man the police found who was picking up his wife from lax. >> let's watch this. he saw simpson at the l.a. airport just hours after the

murder. here's a clip from your show last night. >> he has never told his story publicly until now, says he had a clear view of simpson. but simpson, he says, never saw him. >> he was carrying this little cheap gym bag. he only zipped it a few inches, just enough to get his hand in and was pulling things out and dumping them in the trash can. >> you think he was disposing of the evidence then? >> sure, of course i do. >> that witness has evidence. no reason to discount him. he has an entirely credible story. >> so credible that he was subpoenaed to testify. but like a lot of the prosecution's case, things wouldn't go according to planned. >> what happened to that witness? >> that's a mystery. skip was entirely credible. he couldn't have been accused of being tainted in any way. prosecutors decided no the to

use him because, i guess, they felt in their gut that the blood evidence was working with the jury and there was no evidence -- there was no reason to present witnesses like mr. junas even though his story then and now rings completely true. >> well, obviously simpson's defense attorneys, led by johnny cochran, it was brilliant, discredited the lapd detective mark furman, a key witness for the prosecution, after the add tape of fuhrman speaking to a producer of a movie using racial language. here's the scene from your show last night. >> this is mark furman on the tape. i heard it myself and it was chilling. >> it was mana from heaven. >> it was live ammunition for

simpson's attorneys. the defense maintained that furman was a racist cop who in an effort to frame simpson planted the bloody glove at his estate. >> the part of the defense i never bought, which was the idea that these guys have been jock sniffers for months, hanging around his house. they love the guy. at 2:00 in the morning, whatever furman's attitudes are decided at 2:00 in the morning he was going to risk his career, his life, everything so he can screw o.j. and he comes up with this glove. it didn't make sense in terms of self-interest. >> it's nonsense. i mean, they didn't even know where simpson was at that point. maybe he had an airtight alibi. to believe the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy to frame mr. simpson, you have to make all the stars line up correctly and you have to have this giant police conspiracy which there wasn't any proof of. by the way, i mean, detective furman, despite the charge

against him back then by the defense, and he was never found, there was never any evidence that he planted anything. never any accusation that he had. >> do you know if the jury -- i know there was mostly minor i tos on that jury. do you know if they believed immediately afterwards or weeks later, did they come to the conclusion that he was actually innocent, meaning he didn't do the killings? or did they come to the conclusion that the law -- the prosecution hadn't made their case? where were they between the two goal lines? >> for some jurors, this was jury nullification. this was an opportunity to strike back against what they saw as a police department that had not just ignored them but brutalized them and hurt them and treated them very badly for a very long time. but for other people, you know, we just spent a couple of minutes talking about what the jury didn't hear. you know, you can not blame the jury for acting on only the information that they were given. they were never told about the woman who saw simpson right after the murders. they were never told about what they saw, the guy who saw simpson at the airport.

and you've got to remember, you know, dna technology was brand-new back then. today shows like "csi" have sort of done prosecutors' jobs for them. juries take it on faith that dna evidence take means criminal guilt. 20 years ago they didn't. >> i thought cochran was brilliant to use the word contaminated. that was a brilliant word. >> back then that argument worked. >> it sure did. thank you so much, josh. great story here. up next, just how many states does the 170,000 spent by the character campaign actually buy? wait till you hear this waste of money. i think. this is "hardball" a place for politics.

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,

>> welcome back to "hardball." time now for "the side show" of course. the defeat of the house majority leader eric cantor in tuesday's virginia republican primary sent shocks throughout the political world, of course. but as you can see, it provided good humor for jon stewart and stephen colbert. >> who else created the tea party by stitching together dead ideas and then filling them with rage, giving it a jolt of power and letting it loose on the country side? terrifying of fire and science? who could ever imagine it would come back to kill its creator. who knows who it will devour next. we love you, tea party. stewart bad, stephen good. >> according to the sec campaign finance data, cantor's

re-election campaign spent nearly $170,000 among three restaurants. they all have steaks, of course. buzzfield couldn't help wonder just how much food that actually buys. more than $54,000 spent at bobby van's steak house will get you 1,086 order of the restaurant's specialty steak. or you could order every item on the food menu 54 times. every item! at blt steak, you could chow down on nearly 800 orders of their new new york strip, or just order the entire menu again, 29 times. the entire menu. which leaves you asking the question, is this healthy? and we'll be right back after this.

did you know a ten-second test could help your business avoid hours of delay caused by slow internet from the phone company? that's enough time to record a memo. idea for sales giveaway. return a call. sign a contract. pick a tie. take a break with mr. duck. practice up for the business trip. fly to florida. win an award. close a deal.

hire an intern. and still have time to spare. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business. built for business.

here's what's happening. sergeant bowe bergdahl has left germany and is on a u.s. military plane headed to the united states. he's expected to arrive in texas early tomorrow morning. the state department says u.s. citizens working as contractors in iraq are being relocated due to the advance of islamic insurgents. and brazil faces off against croatia winning the first phase of the world cup. protesters clashed with riot police in sao paulo ahead of the games. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." insurgents are mounting an aggressive ir surgeoncy in this country against the gop establishment. they're filling the vacancy left by high command on capitol hill, but also an oncoming republican primary series in tennessee and kansas that could cost them big seats. conservative radio talk show host mark levin along with laura ingraham were active in defeating cantor.

we want a constitutional conservative in leadership, not just the next guy in line. the tea party is intensifying its efforts to knock off three establishment gop senate income bebts. thad cochran in mississippi in big trouble. pat roberts in kansas, and lamar alexander all facing conservative challengers claiming momentum from that shocking cantor upset this week. and i think it matters. here's ben cunningham, president of the nashville tea party, backing joe carr's long-shot challenge to lamar alexander. the text messages and e-mails have not stopped flying. it's been an amazing shot in the arm. tea party principles simply, articulately, unapologetically and he got elected in doing that. it's just a great inspiration for everybody.

the former republican congressman in virginia is president of the bernard center for women. is it woman or women? >> women. >> that's the philadelphia accent, probably. policy and politics. tom, you haven't been on in a while. you're a reasonable moderate conservative i guess. you served for a long time with people like cantor. what does this mean? i think it's big time. i think the fact that a leader, the majority leader of the u.s. house of representatives gets knocked off, not scared, knocked off by 11 points, blown away. >> it's certainly going to affect behavior by other republicans who are still facing primaries this cycle. i think of the three senate races you put up there, and my gut is the only one that's going to be really close is mississippi. and we've known that for some time. the tea party national groups haven't really won anything this year. they went after mike simpson in idaho and came up way short. they did force thad cochran into a runoff in mississippi, but

virginia was home grown. that was just local groups going after eric cantor in that group. he's trying to be a more responsible leader trying to lead the way on issues like the debt kreel, opening up the government and those kinds of things. frankly, i think they wanted someone who would be in the president's face. >> you're papering over it, aren't you, that a lot of these guys like john mccain, last time around with j.d. hayward chasing him, went as far right as possible. mitch mcconnell is walking around with rand paul, arm in arm, trying to go as right wing and libertarian. they're cross dresing, if you will. they're headed over there to look like hard right people. and that's how they survive? >> it's been that way for 30 years when i first got involved. you kind of lean right in the primaries and you center yourself.

democrats do the same thing sometimes. >> the grassroots have moved to the right. they're very, very angry at this point. and i would just add this, chris. come november, i think this anger, if you will, is going to show yourself in the polls in a way that's going to hurt democrats. >> i agree. i think the whole country is moving right right now. it just seems like the anger and the steam is all there on the right. >> enormous amounts of anger and there's no room for a center any long per. >> what's your favorite moderate republican these days? give you an hour? that's too tough. i'll get back to tom with that question. christie looked all right for a while there. >> you can't really figure out who is sort of staying true to who they are anymore because we see people more and more having to say crazy things and be crazy in order to win.

you asked the congressman earlier what's going on. what's going on is that people are going far right. i spoke with someone earlier who worked with the cantor campaign and the convictional wisdom is this is a victim of the tea party. they didn't give the person who ousted cantor any money whatsoever. what people were telling him was they thought he was too liberal, he made a mistake in opening up the government. they saw that as being analogous to cantor being pro obama care. they didn't like the fact that cantor wasn't listening to him. it was local politics, it was not being out there with the district. it had nothing to do with the tea party. >> what about people like boehner who are clearly listening over that direction.

it seems like you can not get hurt in your party by being outrageously right wing in your attitude. boehner was saying the president is taking a nap. it seems like there's no limit to what you can get away with on the hard right. >> in 80% of the districts that's probably true. you have the other 20% where you knee to be a little bit more centrist because they're swing districts. but in an era where 80% of the districts the party primary is the doming and only factor and november is just a constitutional formality, this is the kind of behavior you're going to get on both sides. i think the democrat splits are masked right now because you do have a president to rally behind and their destinies are intertwined with that president. you take him away from this i think they break up into pieces just like the republicans do. >> i think we just got a bad taste for everybody. thank you, congressman. up next, the texas republican party says homosexuality tears at the fabric of society. now rick perry is comparing being gay to being an alcoholic.

and for republicans, it gets worse from there. this is "hardball."

former president george w.h. bush turned 90 today and marked the milestone by jumping out of a helicopter.

he was picked up outside of his home in maine. he was flown 6,000 feet into the air and he jumped in tandem with a retired army parachutist landing safely. unbelievable. 90 years old doing that. bush made the vow to do the jump five years ago and he carried it through, despite relying on a wheelchair when he's down on earth. we'll be right back.

>> the hits keep coming from the gop. on monday, we told you abchanges to the texas republican platform which already says that, quote, homosexuality tears at the fabric of society. well, to go even further, according to the associated

press under the new plank, the texas gop recognizes legitimacy and efficacy of counseling which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. that's in the official republican platform. that was just put in. rick perry was asked whether homosexuality was a disorder to which he answered while people may feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle, they have the ability to decide not to. and then he made this comparison. >> i may have the genetic coding that i'm inclined to be an alcoholic. but i have the desire not to do that. and i look at the homosexual issue as the same way. >> there were a few gasps from the crowd after perry's remark. >> well, governor perry then apparently confusing attraction, i think, with addiction. that's my commentary.

and in comments made last year on a facebook conversation thread, a republican candidate for the oklahoma state house agreed that stoning gay people would be the right thing to do. here's the exchange starting with the noncandidate who writes, so just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals presumably by stoning and you think people are taking over? ha ha. anyway, the republican candidate replies, i think we would be totally in the right to do it. that goes against some parts of libertarianism, i realize, and i'm largely libertarian. but ignoring a nation of things that are worthy of death is very remiss. joining me now is the executive direct torte of the log cabin republicans and msnbc political analyst joan walsh. elet me go to joan, just because we're familiar talking about these things. what makes republicans talk to much? why don't they just take the fit when discussing gender politics, gay issues generally, the

existence of gay orientation and identity. anything to do with this just seems to get them in trouble with everybody. >> not with their hard right older christian conservative base, chris. i mean, everybody in this country is changing but not that element of the base. and, you know, i want to say some people genuinely authentically believe this and other people pander, and i don't know which kind of person rick perry is, but i kind of don't care. it's a disgusting thing to say. it's neither a disease nor any kind of moral weakness to be lgbt. and i think he's got to know that. >> yeah, i wonder -- i think -- well, let you continue your thought. let me go to gregory i think people are born gay and i think a lot of people think they are. and i've asked a lot of friend. when did you know you were gay? pretty early on. it's not like something that comes in a flash. it's not learned or anything. >> it's not a choice. certainly not a disease. right.

>> but it could be genetic. but the idea of the genetic vulnerability to alcoholism may also be genetic, but they're not the same. putting them in the same pot is derogatory. >> that's true. if i could go back a little bit to your introduction and say if there's any silver lining here, that language about sexuality tearing at the fabric of society was removed by the platform committee at the most recent convention. but they put in this nonsense about exgay therapy. >> was that michele bachmann's influence? >> it was the texas eagle forum in particular that pushed this language. and, you know, when you look at the texas gop platform, instead of a single piece of paper that lists a bunch of principles that members of a party can coalesce around, it's been this albatross around the neck of a lot of candidates. it's this kitchen sink list of all these laws that members of the platform committee would like to see passed but they're not courageous enough to run for office themselves. they spent years -- >> well, you're a gay man. maybe you can explain.

i just think why do you think they go to the middle course, we can fix these people? >> i don't think that's a middle course at all. >> to them. to them. why do they go from tearing society apart to question can put you together. >> right. you're trying to look at the silver lining there. >> i'm trying to figure out what they're thinking. >> i think what they're thinking is that they're trying to appease a very small but very vocal segment of the texas gop in particular. what they're not saying is the larger picture, they're actually alienating the greater electorate in the state of texas and even alienating republicans within the state. we have delegates on the convention floor in texas. once they got to the convention and found out these planks of the platform were put in, they were irate. they wanted to speak out. they were not given the opportunity. >> why do they try to talk like this? why don't they say i'm not scientist.

>> because -- >> i'm not a psychiatrist. i have no idea about this genetic thing. i just spoke about. i'm guessing. >> because they believe it. i think you're right in the sense of -- i mean you're both right. it's an extremist position but it's their attempt to be what they consider, quote, christian, and say oh, well, you know, there might be -- okay, we're trying to work with the science of this. it may be innate, but it's innate like diseases are innate. and it's just awful. it's sort of back to the famous, infamous up a that reince priebus did. one thing they said, they didn't talk about a lot of policy in that, but they did talk about how more openness to gay rights was going to be crucial. not only in reaching out to the lgbt community, but to reaching out to young people, nationally and in texas. young people are completely put off by this kind of language. and that fell apart. republican welcome back to

which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

it's just common sense. that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club. the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. welcome back to "hardball." well, the hits keep coming from the gop.

on monday, we told you about changes to the texas republican platform, which already says that, quote, homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.

good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. in just a few hours from now, army sergeant bowe bergdahl is coming home. the freed taliban prisoner is flying from the u.s. military hospital in germany to the burk army medical center in san antonio, texas, and is expected to arrive some time after midnight. but a homecoming awaiting him. bergdahl has been called without any definitive evidence thus far, a deserter, a traitor, possibly a jihadi in the formulation of one fox news headline. this is what he will wake up to tomorrow after five years of being held by the taliban, in what we can only imagine to be horrific circumstances. much o