against what president obama says our foreign policy should be. obama shoots for the history books. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. like a ball player shooting from beyond the three-point line, president obama gave it his best for history. he laid out his legacy, what he believes he's done and still wants to do with the time left, with what power he can send to his successors to do. well, we know some of it, the historic economic recovery, since w's financial disaster in 2008, the health care program, his support for marriage equality, the climate deal with

china, the executive orders on immigration and what else is he going to do? will he close gitmo? prevent war with iran without waging nuclear war? last night barack obama gave us the first draft, if you will, of his claim to history. equal pay, paid sick leave, free community college, middle class economics, president obama made clear the fourth quarter is liberal legacy. >> middle-class economics works. it's time we stop treating child care as a side issue or as a woman's issue and treat it like the national economic priority that it is for all of us. this congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure that a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work.

send me a bill that gives every worker in america the opportunity to earn seven days of pay sick leave. it's the right thing to do. i'm sending this congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college to zero. >> to zero. that's pretty strong. jonathan chait, the man behind the truly great piece of work called "the obama history project." what an edition to that magazine. author the "landslide," gentlemen, let's talk, first of all, i'll give you free rein to talk about what you heard last night and what's the claim he's making. it seemed like it was his boldest state of the union, i thought. >> right. it was. it was his moment of vindication because his program has been in place for a long time. most of it was passed in his first two years when he had democrats in congress but the

economy has been terrible so it's been hard for him to take credit for the way he deserves credit for the long-term changes to america that he's been able to enact. now that the economy has really turned up -- and this is something that's only become evident in the last month or two, the economy is entering a rapid growth phase where people feel good about it. >> and wages are getting stronger. >> wages are getting stronger. jobs are going up at a fast rate. now he can say, look, i've done it all. look back at my work. >> let me go over to the other jonathan, jonathan darman. he's not being tony blair. he's being what we always call grown up, i call it liberal. a guy who believes in the positive role of government to move people at the lower end of the food chain, if you will, and saying this is the way i think, this is what i think everyone should be doing. >> yeah. i was really struck listening and watching the speech last night about how overtly he was

saying, this is how i want my historical narrative to be shaped. the first line was my fellow americans, we are in the 15th century. there was a grand, historical sweep and every issue that he talked about, he framed in this idea of transformation. the country, when he took hold of it, was on the brink of economic collapse. it's now heading into an economic boom. energy -- we had this dependence on foreign oil. now we have this huge energy book in this country. an issue like same-sex marriage talked about it as not long ago was a wedge issued to divide people and now it's the law of the land in the majority of american states. he really was saying to people, this is how i want you to think of me, as someone who came to this -- took hold of this country as president and really

turned it into something different in a positive way. that's the president he wants to be remembered as. >> don't say come to this country there. are donald trumps out there waiting to hear you say that. he'll probably be quoting you tomorrow as a slip, which i know it was. jonathan chait, here's a great phrase because i've felt this. his infuriating serenity. this president has no patience for public hysteria or the theater which i may be part of, whether it's the border crisis, his joy in golfing after that isis beheading, that was a bad moment for him, or the state of the american politics generally. let's watch him, the infuriating, what's it called? serenity. >> it's a serious disease but we can't give in to hysteria or fear because that only make it is harder for people to get the accurate information that they need. this isn't theater. this is a problem. i'm not interested in photo ops. i'm interested in solving a problem.

>> part of it is theater. part of it is how are you -- well, it's not something that always comes naturally to me. the important thing is, in addition to that, is am i getting the policies right? >> many of you have told me that this isn't what you signed up for. arguing with each other on cable shows, the constant fundraising, always looking over your shoulder at how the base will react to every decision. >> well, that's true. i think politicians -- i can't believe they love all the time raising money on the phone. i can't believe sometimes they have to be cartoonists on shows like this when they know it's complicated and pretend it's not. >> right. right. well -- >> but i want to ask you about -- what's it called? infuriating serenity.

because when he was 20 points behind hillary in the fall of 2007, i was going nuts. >> right. >> i said, when are you going to turn on the gas? when are you going to get going here? she's killing you? of course, axelrod and those people and gibbs were planning and strategizing how to win all of the delegates. >> it's not infuriating to me. it's infuriating to the people in the national media covering politics and what is happening that day seems really, really important. in fact, part of it is your job to explain it to people so politics is an engaging drama. >> on the other hand, he's taking explanation points off of everything. >> that's not how his mind works. he's a placid guy. he's analytical. he keeps his cool and i think that actually helped him understand what is important in the long run and he hopes people will see things the same way over the long run. >> jonathan, what's your take on the guy's cadence?

everything that happens, every ten seconds, he's much more comfortable with the long-term, i'll wait for it, we're all pretty anxious. he seems to have a different pace. >> i think what we saw last night was the upside of that. it's the same serenity. it's what allows them to take those risks in a room like that which is an incredibly high-pressured situation and play off the crowd and have those great moments and when he talked back to the people who clapped about him not having any more campaigns. that really takes a certain poise within you to be able to do that and he's remarkable at it. and i think that's actually an element of the theater that he likes. i was reminded, watching that speech last night, that this is a guy who likes politics. he's a competitive guy and he

likes this sort of show aspect of it when he feels like he's playing it on his terms. >> yeah. i think you're right. he's certainly liked putting down the other side last night. when he said, yeah, because i won both of them, that will go down in the scrapbook. there's no end to feeding the critics, his enemies, whether it's the scandals, public health scares, ebola or wild conspiracy theories that never seem to end with the president. let's remind ourselves what he's up against. >> people need to know how serious this is. to me, we may be starting to us auto the "i" word before too long. >> meaning impeachment? >> yes. >> this is a problem right out of washington headquarters and we're getting to prove it. we have 18 more interviews to do. >> you know, obamacare is really, i think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation

since slavery. >> imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers gets ebola. it's a big mistake to downplay it and act as if this is not a big deal, we can control all of this. this could be beyond our control. >> i believe that he's a muslim. >> you do? >> yes. >> how would you believe that here? how many believe that? wow. >> as the speaker of the house, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance? >> david, it's not my job to tell american people -- >> i think the display of crazy attitude against the president shows what kind of static to explain his role as president of the united states in history. but it also shows that no matter how disembodied the republican party is, no matter how many voices they put on last night, they all heard a little bit. they all distract a little bit, donald trump saying he's not from this country, it has slowed his story, it seems.

>> it has. you know, i think one of the things that we're going to see when he has a successor is are other presidents able to more connect than he has been in this fractionalized universe or is this the normal in this country? the president expressed this really noble idea of we're still one america. but we all do live in different landscapes and talk to each other in sort of closed silos and we're really going to have to wait and see how the president follows obama and deal with that. >> that's a long way off, jonathan darman. you're talking the spring of 2017. jonathan chait, what i liked about your article in "the new york magazine," because the people who live day-to-day, a lot of us do, daily journalists, i didn't realize how much power there was in what he's done so far and how excited we've gotten over ebola, not a single

casualty really here after something we thought was going to be a pandemic and we're jumping up and down like jumping beans. >> you forget these episodes after they recede into the past, even if we were terrified about it at the time, there's been episode after episode, define obama's presidency, this is it, his watergate moment, his katrina moment, it's now or never and nothing happens. sometimes because they handle it well, sometimes it's not that important and people are keeping their eye on the major pieces of legislation, the major executive change that he's really doing to change -- >> we're going to talk a lot more about that. i thought this week was an important week. jonathan chait and darman, thank you for the perspective of last night. coming up, after the president's defiant speech last night, look who's got a newfound concern. income inequality. all of a sudden mitt romney,

joni ernst, rand paul and ted cruz, the least able to believe that one. they are all talking populism like they are democrats. we'll see. are they for real? are the republicans populist? plus, the president's call to action was not so much about him as it was for the future. for republicans, the future may be, let's face it, hillary clinton. a true liberal like he's identified himself. and in politics and in sports, how far is too far to go to win? the new england patriots are going to the super bowl under a cloud of controversy that they may have deflated game balls to gain an edge. do you believe it? and finally, are the republicans, is mitt romney serious about closing the income gap between the little people and him? does he want that to happen? really? mitt? this is "hardball," the place for politics.

well, president obama hit

the road after last night's state of the union and he's going to some unchartered territory, at least for him. his first stop was boise, idaho, today. it's a state as red as it gets and obama has never been there as president, at all. kansas isn't any friendlier for democrats. neither state has voted a democrat for president since lbj's landslide in '64. "hardball" back after this.

welcome back to "hardball." we're watching the president's state of the union last night and the republican responses that fogged one theme emerged. everyone is a populous now. chuck schumer previewed it and pointed out that the republicans are fighting here on democrats' turf. >> they are no longer using the rhetoric, deficit reduction, everything is out of control. instead, they are appropriating the president's rhetoric. they are talking about middle

class, they are talking about job growth. now they are on our playing field. for a few years we had to play on their playing field. they are playing on our playing field. i wouldn't be surprised if things continue the way they are that they are going to come in a compromise with us. >> that's optimistic. senator rand paul and ted cruz. >> president obama offers more of the same policies. policies that have allowed the poor to get poorer and the rich to get richer. >> even if this president is not willing to help solve the physical and economic problems facing this country, that it's time to move on. >> newly elected senate joni ernst spoke about shoes and bread bags. >> growing up, i had only one good pair of shoes. so on rainy schooldays, my mom would slip plastic bread bags over them to keep them dry. but i was never embarrassed

because the school bus would be filled with rows and rows of young iowans with bread bags slipped over their feet. >> why are both parties talking populism and, of course, talking about the 47%, an infamous term from last time. congressman mulvaney -- it is true and president obama since the election of 2012, recorded by talking about how the republicans shouldn't bother with the bottom 47% because they are already takers, they live off the government and will never listen to us, is this an attempt to repair that damage, to talk about income inequality. >> chris, i was surprised about the clip played by senator schumer that we are playing on their grounds, such as fairness and opportunity. i'm not really sure if this is new.

it may be new for mr. romney but republicans have been talking about that in the four years that i've been in congress. >> but have you ever talked as a party about the problem of the gap between rich and the people less well off? >> sure. >> the gap itself is -- i've never heard republicans talk about something is wrong with the gap. certainly tax cuts to stimulate the economy, we know about that. but they never seemed to be bothered, your party, that some people are zooming into super wealth right now while most people are stuck with wages that haven't really grown. >> i think you're misconstruing the gap about redistribution which we don't believe in redistribution of wealth. but if you follow republican politics, as you have, we've talked for many years raising ordinary folks, raising the middle class.

>> thank you for coming on. it seems like the democratic party is very much a progressive tax system. you tax the people with the most ability to pay taxes and that has been a part of the progressives. it's also consistent with the word progressive tax. the president is pushing that now. $3,000 child tax care credits for people who need them and then, of course, being paid for by hitting the 1% at the top. he's been very clear about it. it seems to me that is a prescription for dealing with income inequality. that's a real one. >> look, two things. first of all, i don't know any democrats that we're talking about, income redistribution. but if i can just go back for just a second, i'll do it quickly, chris. you mentioned earlier the president going into idaho and then kansas, red states. >> sure. >> as is his faith tradition, you want to concentrate on people who you want to convert. and so i think that's why he goes into those areas.

but he has also been magnificent in converting people because now mitt romney, who i think has been converted, is doing the same thing that the president did in the campaign. look, people who are wealthy ought to thank god that they have gained that wealth in this fabulous nation of ours. and because they have been so blessed, they believe that they ought to share more with the well-being of the country. that's not wealth distribution. it's called, you know, paying your taxes equally. so i hope that we look at what's going on now as a conversion. people have been converted to the populism that we've been presenting, i think, now for decades. >> do you think the president was successful last night in moving the republicans to compromise or was he too sarcastic towards the inevitable joke back and forth about winning two elections? do you think he primed them for a deal or ticked them off?

>> well, i don't think what he said last night is going to have any impact at all. but what i think is important, though -- and i wish he hadn't said it but it's irrelevant now -- ronald reagan people need to remember in 1985 talked about the all of the bills he was going to veto and then said to the democrats, make my day. >> yeah. >> now, if that's -- if what the president did last night was taunting, so was what reagan said. and if i had a name for this place where we work, it would be in a religious term, the taunting tabernacle. >> well, let me go over to congressman mulvaney about that. the president had a piece of the action, too, taunting back to the people doing their sarcastic clap at him, he went back and whacked them and said i won twice and then put on a smile to make up for it. are you a little ticked off that he sort of won the night, that he was doing a victory lap in the end zone? what was your mood? you tell me.

>> well, the funny part about the clapping yesterday when he said he wasn't going to run again actually came from the audience and in the balcony and not from the members on the floor. that wasn't widely reported. >> really? i didn't report that. i thought it was coming from the caucus. >> no. our attitude is probably more disappointment than anything else. the president could have done two things last night. he could have said, look, i just got waxed in a midterm election. maybe it's time i start working with these folks or he could have said, i only have two years and i don't care about you folks and here's what i'd like to do. we'll continue to work through that in the house but if the president was trying to set the tone last night, it wasn't very productive. >> you know what, i think joni ernst, the new senator from iowa, made a good appearance last night. i don't think she hurt herself at home in iowa. but i wonder why it was a narrow prescription that he offered. the keystone pipeline, but why

is that the main and really only thing she really pushed as party spokesperson? >> i actually -- i agree with that. >> didn't say what she was for. give me something else you said you were for last night. >> sure. we've already passed a 40-hour workweek. we're going to pass repeal of the tax fairness. we never talked about tax fairness. mr. cleaver mentioned the rich paying more. the top 1% only earn 20% of the income. that's a lot. but they pay 40% of the tax. we want to talk about tax fairness. but back to joni's speech last night, i think the message was, we're willing to focus on things that are actually accomplishable in this congress and we opened the door to the president, look, why don't you work with us on keystone? he want to go and solve the larger problems. how do you solve the larger problems if we can't agree on keystone? so i think joni's speech was an invitation to work and i'm disappointed that it hasn't been accepted as that by the president. >> let me go back to congressman cleaver. i don't think there's a lot of

compromise. you have keystone, infrastructure spending which creates big jobs around the country and democrats, there is a compromise there. is there a compromise on keystone, about tax reform that somehow gives a break to the middle? >> i think so. you know, one of the best parts of the speech last night was when the president talked about working together and about all of the chaos and, you know, partisanship that we see today. but i do think we can work together. you know, i would compromise on some things i don't feel really strongly about seeing approved, such as keystone, if we could get something like the transportation bill where we can catch up with china on infrastructure. i would do that in a heartbeat. >> that sounds like -- you know, i think in this country and having been to china recently, gentlemen, and see how those trains go 300 miles an hour, you

don't hear a sound and that country knows how to get around and we're still running amtrack here which is okay but it's not state-of-the-art. thank you, congressman emanuel cleaver and congressman mick mulvaney. up next, ted cruz gave his own response to the state of the union. a little fun with mr. cruz in the sideshow where actually he belongs. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ♪

the obamas invited 22 guests to the speech, including a former cuban prisoner, an astronaut, a doctor. another one of the guests was the ceo of cvs, which explains why his speech was principled on one long cvs receipt. all right.

i'm holding half a tree in my hand. >> i love the cvs receipts, they always come with a deal. time now for the "sideshow." that was jimmy fallon. while the state of the union is generally a serious affair, there were highlights. dan pfeiffer seized an opportunity to taunt the republicans over an incident that happened last summer. they expressed their outrage over the president's wardrobe choice when he dared to wear a tan suit. they didn't like his tan suit. so he tweeted out this response, that the president would double down on the tan suit for the state of the union. "the president's suiting up for the big speech. tune into state of the union. #yeswetan." and her choice of footwear last night, joni ernst was wearing a

pair of camouflage shoes, a statement that may have played well to her gun-toting conservative base. and republican senator ted cruz forewarned that he had released what his office calls an impromptu response however cruz may have been a little too hurried because it accidently included a botched line that he meant to edit out but didn't. here he is. >> the president tried to say his policies are lifting the middle class and yet today, median incomes have stagnated for over a decade. let me start over. tonight, america saw a powerful

demonstration that it is time to move on beyond president barack obama. >> senator, once more, with feeling. up next, president obama's triumphant and progressive speech last night sharpens the battle line for 2015 and possibly passes the baton to hillary clinton. coming up here in a minute. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

hey what are you doing? i was thinking about taking this speed test from comcast business. oh yeah? if they can't give us faster internet or save us money, they'll give us 150 bucks. sounds like a win win. guys! faster internet? i have never been on the internet and i am doing pretty well. does he even work here? don't listen to the naysayer. take the comcast business speed test. get faster speeds or more savings, or we'll give you $150. comcast business. built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." the president took some steps last night to shape and define the points important to his party in the years to come. especially with the 2016 election which is coming on strong, by pushing free sick leave, free community college, infrastructure investments, tax increases for the wealthy. president obama is starting to pass the baton, i think, to his successor, which is probably going to be hillary clinton. let's watch. >> it's now up to us to choose who we want to be over the next 15 years and for decades to come. will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well? or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort? [ applause ]

>> well, that sounded like democratic applause coming from one half of the room there. the former secretary of state showed her support for the man she'd like to be replaced by tweeting "barack obama state of the union pointed the way to an economy that works for all. now we need to step up and deliver for the middle class #fairshot #fairshare. joining me right now to talk about it in our round table, joe madison, jackie kucinich, senior politics editor for "the daily beast" and david corn. it seems that the president -- cokie roberts said it was a democratic speech. of course it was. the government is going to play a positive role, give more of a tax break to regular people, get people in jobs, technical education through community

college, stuff for people who vote democrat. is he saying to hillary clinton, i want you to do the same thing? >> it's a familiar baton for her. if you look back at what she pushed in 2008, she talked about making the tax rate go back to the same one in the 1990s and she talked about a lot of the same things. we've seen her start talking more and more and more about the middle class and since senator warren has been around. >> 85% of democrats want hillary to run. this party is usually in disarray. democrats in disarray. it doesn't seem to be happening. >> you know, the interesting thing about obama is that i think he has always played the long game. he seems to have this vision that extends beyond the immediate horizon. it's been throughout his presidency. you've probably talked to him about it, i know i have. he's only president for the next two years and he's always had this idea that there is this debate in this country over values.

this is how he beat mitt romney. he turned the 2012 campaign into a debate about political values and what we do as the government together and applied that to the speech last night, a progressive populist principles. hillary clinton gave a speech a few months ago and she sounded just like, who? elizabeth warren. he's sort of paving the way because he wants his legacy to be this continuing discussion. >> he also knows that he's got a republican party in disarray. i mean, the reality is -- >> five voices last night. >> five. they are divided but this is the most important but not diverse. they -- really. they are divided but not diverse. >> you know, that's so true. they are all hawks. i mean, they are all hawks. >> except rand paul. >> one out of 150 guys.

we're going to war. we're going to fight there, in syria, in iran, we're going to fight everywhere. >> yeah. so i think he has them. he really absolutely has them right where he wants them. and after losing this election, it's kind of a weird thing to say. >> but he has. he does. because now they have to govern and this is what the american people are -- what are you going to deliver? you can't just keep saying no to -- you are not now saying no to the president. you're now saying no to values. >> yeah. >> although, i think the president was doing it last night, people work hard and play by the rules. if a young kid, 17 years old, is thinking of his future, if he has one, so he needs one and i think of boys especially and i'm thinking -- because i was one in some of those neighborhoods before they changed. the chance to go into crime is easy.

there's always going to be someone selling you on that. but to actually imagine yourself making really good money as a technical guy, a kid who can really imagine having -- being proud to have it, there's no doorway for that now. there just isn't. you know, he says community college, i wish they would bring it home and say not going back for photography classes or catching up with shakespeare but this is going to get you a job up to $100,000 a year. >> or a pathway to school. it's through the community college system. it's a back-door way to get an education. >> here's the thing. if you're a republican buy-in here, you can't just make attacks on the wealthy. it's the fundamental reason that some people are republicans and democrats, is the tax issue. there's not enough carrots in these proposals. >> what do you think about going after wall street like elizabeth warren? she says let's screw the big

people. she doesn't say it that way. let me tell you, joe -- >> she wants to play by the rules. >> republicans don't like government and you'd say democrats don't like big business. they don't like it. big corporations have a too easy ride and the average guy is getting hurt by it. >> i draw the line differently. i draw the line, republicans always talk about personal responsibility. personal responsibility. they do this to the black community all the time. personal responsibility. now, progressives, unfortunately, spend too much time talking about public policy. the reality is, it's a combination of both. that's the reality. so it's public policy to say we've got 12 years public education which made this country what it is today. it's now 12 years plus, too, because that's the only way this

country and it is young people are going to compete in a global economy and that's what i heard -- >> well, put that together because that's a good -- suppose a family is working hard, making very moderate income, husband and wife are both working, the kids get to the point where they've finished high school, they've done their homework, they got bs, maybe b pluses, maybe not. how's the government supposed to be right there meeting them at the age of 17? when the parents have done their job and is this kid going to do a liftoff or drop down, where has the government got to be there? >> the government has got to be where it was when gis came home from the war. >> that's what it has to be. >> the countries we compete with, if you look at other western democracies and emerging nations, a lot of them, they actually go to college with tuition assistance or there's much more free public colleges. in-state tuitions have exploded in this country. you used to be able to go to an in-state college.

>> will joe biden challenge hillary clinton? he says he hasn't decided yet. >> i don't think he will. >> why is he saying that he hasn't decided it? >> i think he wants to be relevant. >> it's his chance. he didn't say he was 2% but he said there's a chance. >> when will he say i've decided? >> after she gets in. >> the latest testament, if she gets in april, he's got a few months. if it wasn't for hillary clinton -- i think he'd be one of the very possible candidates for hillary. look at these numbers. 85% of the people are rooting for her to get in. the round table is sticking with us. we're going to get into this amazingly complicated for some people, mainly me, the new england patriots and whether they took the air out of the footballs. what does it mean? we'll be right back.

i will take beauty into my own hands... where it belongs olay regenerist renews to reveal new skin in only five days. without drastic measures. stunningly youthful. award-winning skin. from the world's #1. olay. your best beautiful.

man (sternly): where do you think you're going? mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm good all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this late today the senate voted down two amendments to the keystone pipeline bill stating human activity does contribute to climate change. the first amendment read, climate change is real. it failed 59 to 40. the second amendment went a step further saying climate change is real and human activity significantly contributes to it. it failed 50 to 49.

the senate did pass an amendment acknowledging the simple fact that climate changes over time. well, it does, doesn't it? that passed 98 to 1. what a meaningless waste of time. we'll be back after this.

we're back right now with a question every football fan out there is asking today. did the new england patriots cheat. the super bowl, the country's biggest sports and cultural event of the year, is just 11 days away. but questions are swirling right now about one of the teams taking the field. they said game balls were inflated significantly below the requirements. there's been no official from

the league which says it's still investigating. the patriots coach bill belichick said the team will cooperate with the league. but in the sports media, the scandal has been dubbed deflategate. one might be an accident, and three could be a coincidence. when the new england patriots come to the game with 11 of 12 footballs illegal deemed by standards, i want you to answer this. apparently two out of three before the game, the balls are weighed, tested for air pressure, made sure they were official. it's not a joke. it affects how you handle the ball. apparently in that two hours, 11 of the 12 game balls were deflated significantly. somebody did it. >> i'll give you 11 balls, i'll give you 11 balls, and then what will happen is, you're now in control of them. the team.

>> each team controls its own ball. >> in the nfl, there's an honor system. go figure. >> and at that time you can do -- apparently whatever you want to them. now, this is about physics. because what happens is, one, it's easier to catch. >> if it's less inflated. >> because it's palatable. >> in cold weather it's easier to throw. look, who was it, hall davis said if you're not cheating you're not trying to win. >> let's not -- >> that's what you hear on sports talk a lot. >> but the referees are getting their hands on the ball every play. >> that's the other thing. you would have to sit back and say, wait a minute, if throughout that entire game every time a play is run i throw it to the referee. and no one said anything. not one single thing. >> brady noticed the ball seemed to be more supple. something was going on there. >> and he went over and they tested it. that's when they said something's not right here.

>> what's interesting is they test the balls two hours and 15 minutes before the game. then they give them back to the teams. that means in those two hours, someone had to take, let's say proactive steps, to get the ball -- >> but you're talking about expediency here. bottom line, they won the game big. they walked away with the game last week. >> but what about -- >> but what about now? suppose this turned out -- okay, i deflated the ball. it helped us win the game. what can they do? still the message is to the ball players and to the team, if you get fined, you still get to the super bowl. >> this is all going right into the super bowl. >> let's say bill belichick got caught for cheating, fined half a million dollars and patriots lost two draft picks. >> it's not the super bowl. >> the sad thing now is, the super bowl is going to be about deflated balls. i guarantee you that's what you're going to see.

>> take a player out of the game. >> oh! >> are republicans serious about closing the income gap? really? let me finish tonight with this. i think the republicans, a lot of them at least, are getting zzzquil. the non habit forming sleep-aid that helps you sleep easily and wake refreshed. because sleep is a beautiful thing.

is there such a thing as a sure thing in business? some say buy gold. others say buy soybeans. i say, buy comcast business internet. unlike internet providers that slow down when traffic picks up, you get speed you can rely on. it's a safe bet. like a gold-plated soybean. reliably fast internet starts at $69.95 a month. comcast business. built for business. the word on income and equality. let me finish tonight with this. i think the republicans, a lot of them at least, are getting the word on income and equality. in 2012 rick santorum got it. recently mitt romney picked up on it. the reason for these conversions

differ. santorum running against romney the last time could obviously see the inability of his wealthy well-born rival to appeal to regular income republicans. he reached for what we used to call those of moderate income who believe in the conservative philosophy. mitt romney's conversion came after his defeat for president. he confessed to defeat the president in 2012 had much to do with him deriding the 47% of americans depending on government, the takers. he said he tnt have anything to offer them. well, anyway, the word is out now. if you're a republican and still wants to be president, and so many of them do obviously, don't let the democrats get easy dibs on votes of people who find themselves in economic difficulty. if you want to actually win, you have to contest for the people who are not better off. this one could argue that it's supposed to work, forces all

candidates to submit to popular thinking. working people need a break, if they think too much inequality in the country, they're going to vote that way, pick leaders that way. if you want to be a leader, start talking about income inequality. we have mitt romney out there talking like he's a version of pope francis or whoever else you think of as caring about this rich getting richer thing and poor getting poorer. jesus said we have the poor with us. they're not new to the scene, the poor people. let's be pragmatic, this isn't much of a bad thing, having the two parties out there talking the right talk at least about the income gap between the top and those worse off. the trick is to get both parties actually doing something together, or more likely competing to come up with the best program for people. it could be that someone, the president, the speaker, senator

mcconnell, mitt, someone in these conversations will come up with something that grabs not just the headlines, but truly gets to the problem of income inequality. because unlike some of the talk, it's real. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts now. >> tonight on all in -- >> they're cheaters. they should be punished for it. >> ballghazi, mounting suspicion that the patriots have cheated again. >> would you like to weigh in on that? >> i think i heard it all at this point. >> the substance and swagger at the state of the union. >> i have no more campaigns to run. my only agenda -- [ applause ] >> i know, because i won both of them. >> plus, the many, many