lloyd warned him about where he wouldn't be able to get served when he was on the road. the last line of karen russell's e-mail to me, said, quote, we've come a long way. bibi or not bibi? that's the question. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. ground zero in a historic challenge now set for 11:00 tomorrow morning to president obama's leadership of this country, in an act of backroom partnership, speaker john boehner made an under the table deal. whatever everyone thinks of bibi netanyahu, he's not here to bring unity to american policymaking. he'll use charm and references

to wartime churchill, beneath the charm and beyond it will be his purpose here tomorrow in the capitol tomorrow morning. he wants to kill the 11th hour to stop iran from building nuclear weapons and the united states from another war in the middle east. speaking to aipac at its conference today, prime minister netanyahu defended his speech before congress tomorrow. here he is. >> my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama or the esteemed office that he holds. i have great respect for both. >> well, many american lawmakers disagree with that, they believe netanyahu's speech so meant to be disrespectful. congressman john lewis said "i think it's an affront to the president and state department what the speaker did" meaning inviting netanyahu to speak behind the back of the president. here's what some other lawmakers have said.

>> i think that it's inappropriate, number one. let me just say that. for mr. netanyahu to be speaking before congress on tuesday. i won't be there because it's a political game that the speaker and, unfortunately, mr. netanyahu is letting himself be used there. >> i think it was just a bad calculated move on the part of bibi as well as obviously on the part of john boehner to do this at a time when we are negotiating a deal that we think is going to be good, not just for israel but for our country and the other countries involved. >> i am offended as an american. i cannot think of any reason as to why someone who differs with my president should be coming to my country, my congress, in order to attack my president. >> according to the latest nbc/"wall street journal" poll, many americans take issue with the speech. saying they should not have invited the israeli prime minister without asking the white house. newsweek found 54% of israelis

believe netanyahu should not speak to congress at this time. many former senior security officials in israel have also spoken out against the speech. here they are. >> netanyahu is doing it not in order to talk to the congress, because he knows that talking to the congress now will change nothing. he's doing to the people in israel in order to gain one or two more mandates. so netanyahu is ready to sacrifice the special relations between israel and the u.s. for gaining more few votes before elections in israel.former head of mossad. other criticized netanyahu for how he's chosen to represent himself. here's senator dianne feinstein over the weekend. wn nenysays he speaks for all jews.

does he speak for you? >> no, he doesn't speak for me on this. he doesn't at all. >> does that bother you when he says he speaks for all jews? >> yeah, i think it's a rather arrogant statement. i think the jewish community is like any other community. there are different points of view. so i -- i think that arrogance does not befit israel, candidly. >> always the grown-up in th conversation. joining me to discuss this, congressman steve israel, a democrat from new york state. marc ginsberg, former u.s. ambassador to morocco. jeremy ben-ami, president of j. street which describes itself as a pro-israel and pro-peace organization. nathan diament of the union advocacy center. erel margalit, a member of the israeli knesset from the labor party. i don't know where to begin right now so i'm going to start with steve israel because you're

the top democrat here. what do you think? is this good for america, good for israel, the speech in the way it was put together by boehner? i don't know who came up with this idea. i have theories about it. what are yours? who came up with the idea of sneaking this invitation past our president? >> boehner. the issue for me is not bibi. the issue is boehner. look, let's be blunt. this was a trap that john boehner tried to spring on democrats in order to create the perception of daylight between democrats and the state of israel. and, chris, you've been in politic, i'm in politics. i know one thing about politics. when you know that your opponent is setting a trap, avoid the trap i'm not going to fall into that trap. i'm going to the speech. i have been to israel more times than john boehner has been to a golf course and i will not allow him to define my relationship with israel or the perception of my relationship with israel. >> let me go to erel, you sit right here. what do you think about this speech? >> i think it's a mistake because i think of instead of bringing people together, it splits between the u.s.

administration and the israeli government. it creates a split between the republicans and the democrats in congress and i think just because we want to fight the notion of a threshold nuclear state of iran, we need to bring people together instead of setting them apart at this moment. >> was this purpose of setting this speech for a political goal of bibi netanyahu to get re-elected on march 17th? this is two weeks before the election. this is right on the edge of the election. is this to get him the votes he needs to get the governing majority in the knesset? >> i think so. we're in the lead right now. the labor party is in the lead. three weeks we want to present a new israeli government that would have a very different vision for the country. right now netanyahu is losing on the g ise,in economy issues, losing on a lot of fronts in israel. this is one front he claims to be in the lead. i think a lot of israelis are calling his bluff and are

thinking this is not the right manner in which a national security issue should be dealt with. we should unify people together in israel. we should unify people together in the united states which is our closest ally, which we rely on if we want to move things forward even if we have some disagreements, we need to discuss them in a manner of partnerships. >> let's do it right now. nathan diament, your view. of the speech and the way it was put together and the issue of iran and the arms debate right now. >> right. well, look, the way the speech was put together is clearly regrettable. should have been done much more carefully and in consultation ideally with the white house. the sad thing is we have a serious issue on the table now which is iran's drive to become a nuclear weapons, and the political circus around the speech, how it was set up, debate about the speech, is it about the israeli elections, so on and so forth. what's happening, we're getting distracted from the negotiations going on and whether we're in fact going to stop iran from

obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity. >> isn't that what the administration is trying to do? >> some think the administration is more than happy to have the distraction because if they had to answer questions -- >> isn't their ambition to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon? >> yes, however, the administration has clearly shifted the goal posts. it used to be the administration talked about we're going to have iran dismantle its nuclear capacity. now we're talking about how many centrifuges can they keep and what is the monitoring going to be? >> marc ginsberg, ambassador to morocco under president clinton. i don't think any american president, left, right or center including this president of center left, would be able to survive in office if there were nuclear weapons in the hands of the ayatollah. everybody agrees, it's how you avoid that happening. >> the ghost of ahmadinejad hangs over this entire trip. the israeli public genuinely has legitimate concerns about iran's nuclear ambitions. there's great reasons --

>> we had them about cuba. >> of course. >> when they had a nuclear weapon. >> the fact of the matter is that iran is a country that is constantly threatening israel. not only with nuclear, potential nuclear weapons but also with hamas and hezbollah. the problem is that mr. netanyahu has done precisely what everyone who's just come before me said. this entire issue, turned it into a political issue and when he speaks to congress tomorrow, the issue to me is not what he says tomorrow, but has he in any way, shape or form managed to do anything that would make israel safer as a result? i have serious doubts and you heard general dagan who is the former head of mossad declare as did 180 other generals in israel, mr. netanyahu has elections on his mind more than he has iran on his mind. >> let me ask you, jeremy, sir, i haven't met you before but you know your stuff. isn't the goal of netanyahu to get re-elected? everyone wants to get re-elected in politics. we'll get a scorecard handed to him march 17th. if he wins that day, all the argument we're having here about

the inappropriateness of this speech, arguments about iran which is more important than any of this, he wins if he gets elected. isn't that what the game here is politically? >> clearly the fact the speech is taking place two weeks before the election would indicate the timing of the election is more important than the timing of the speech. you have to think that he could have put this speech off for 2 1/2, 3 weeks and come here and made the exact same case. if it wasn't important to do it right before the election. similarly for the republicans it would have been easy to get a bipartisan and include the administration in it if they wanted to. >> here's the president with an interview with reuters late today. he downplayed talk of a rift between the two countries in contrast to what his national security advisers said just last week. president obama called the speech a distraction rather than permanently destructive to the relationship. let's watch it today. >> as a matter of policy, we think it's a mistake for the

prime minister of any country to come to speak before congress a few weeks before they're about to have an election. it makes it look like we are taking sides. the concern is that not only does it look like it politicizes the relationship, but what's also a problem is when the topic of the prime minister's speech is an area where the executive branch, the u.s. president and his team, have a disagreement with the other side. i don't think it's permanently destructive. i think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. and our focus should be how do we stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon? >> nathan? >> i think it's important to realize there are three clocks that are running here. only one of which we've talked about. one is the israeli election clock. the second clock is the negotiation clock and the negotiations are at a critical phase right now and people are looking to see what's going to

happen in this month of march and could argue for why the prime minister felt he needed to come sooner rather than later. >> okay. good for the clock. what can he -- there's a shot clock here. i agree. what can he do about the talks between us and the iranians and the europeans between now and them cutting a deal? why does he want to put a kibosh on it now? let's look at the deal, see if it's good for israel, good for america then move on. why does he want to screw it up now? everybody knows that's what he's doing here. he can wait. >> the prime minister clearly thinks he's -- >> you admit he's out to screw the talks up? >> he said at aipac this morning -- >> he doesn't want there to be any more negotiation between the united states and iran. >> he believes a diplomatic solution is a better solution than the alternative, obviously military action. >> he has not said that. >> yes, he has. >> look, we know that the prime minister's view is that he has not tabled any alternative to negotiations. he had threatened to use military force against the nuclear program of iran several years ago. he decided not to do that.

in the absence of him offering an alternative for constructive recommendations to the administration, what is he doing here, chris? he's trying to kill the deal. he's trying to empower the congressional republicans to pass legislation that would require the president to submit a deal that the administration may not want to submit to congressional approval. >> let me go to steve israel on this. i'm impressed when things happen i don't think are going to happen. i tell you, i got the feeling, to use a street term of some recent currency, that the president was dissed by this whole thing. when i see members of the black caucus who have been around for a long time, coming out with such passion, i believe that the members of the black caucus who are the most reliable supporters of this president, believe that their president, our president has been disrespected by this act. you can see it in their faces. >> well, it was a disrespectful act and it badly backfired. here's why. first of all, nobody's talking, as your other panelists have said about the substance of an iran deal, a deal that i'm very

skeptical about. they're talking about an invitation to a speech as if we invited the person with, you know, the bad uncle to a wedding that nobody wanted invited. and secondly, if the strategy was to try and pressure members of congress to oppose the deal, in many respects it's had the opposite effect. i'm skeptical about the deal. i talked to my colleagues. i suggest to them that they should be skeptical. and now many of those colleagues who were skeptical or at least undecided have taken the optics of this and the invitation and the disrespect and they're now saying, well, you know, i may be for this deal because of how partisan this process was. so if the strategic objective was to move people into the, against the iran deal column, it actually has had the opposite effect and that's the true tragedy and irony of this botched partisan invitation by speaker boehner. >> you're always nuanced and smart. thank you, steve israel. ambassador marc ginsberg, my friend. thank you. jeremy ben-ami. nathan diament. and erel margalit.

coming up, president obama versus bibi netanyahu. we'll get to the human politics of netanyahu and the speech tomorrow versus the president. the prime minister is coming to congress tomorrow sounding like churchill. you can bet he's going to quote churchill. the president is calling him a distraction. no worse than that. i think he thinks it's worse. think the president is getting softer on this kind of thing politically and rhetorically. i don't think he looks this guy. who's winning this thing? plus, here's one thing we learned about jeb bush and chris christie from this weekend's cpac conference. the dog doesn't like the dog food. bush and christie don't stand a chance with this crowd. scott walker, he may be the republican to watch right now. watch him. he's the sleeper. how will john boehner get out of the straitjacket he's in right now? he can't fund the department of homeland security thanks to the red hots. let me finish with a big will the red hots walk out of the republican party or take it over? take it over. this is "hardball." the place for politics. new crest hd gives you a 6x healthier

mouth and 6x whiter teeth in just one week. it gets practically every detail. that's why it's called hd. try new crest pro-health hd. i already feel like we're the most connected but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here.

well, it's a busy week at the u.s. supreme court today. today the court heard oral arguments about redistricting and whether it's constitutional for a state in this case arizona to take its legislature out of the redistricting process and give it to an independent commission. i'd do that. on wednesday, it's the big one, oral arguments in the case of king vs. burwell. the question there is whether the irs can expand tax credit subsidies, subsidies to cover insurance purchased through federal exchanges? and if the court rules against the law, millions of americans will likely lose their health insurance. and we'll be right back.

the days when the jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over. today, we are no longer silenced. today we have a voice.

and tomorrow, tomorrow as prime minister of the one and only jewish state, i plan to use that voice. >> pretty strong. welcome back to "hardball." more now on the hottest political fight in the country right now. israeli prime minister bibi netanyahu versus president obama. bibi is taking the fight to the president's home turf tomorrow when he addresses a joint meeting of the congress that was organized behind the president's back. it's a snub to the white house, to the president's national security adviser, susan rice warned would have dire consequences. >> there has now been injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, i think it's -- it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship, and it's something that -- >> it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship. >> well, charlie, take my point. it's always been bipartisan. we need to keep it that way. >> president obama appeared to back off that rhetoric today, telling "reuters" that the address is a mistake but not

permanently destructive. my question, who will win this fight? i'm joined by three pulitzer prize winners as par of msnbc's seven days of genius festival. unfortunately, we have to call you people geniuses. you don't have to say a word. we're exploring the people, ideas and innovations that are changing today's world. the genius panel, eugene robinson, kathleen parker. and connie schultz. as i mentioned, all three are pulitzer prize winners. is this a typical fight, bibi gets re-elected on the 17th of march, that's it. big casino. he's won. he's won his argument. he's won the argument having come here. he's won his argument about the fault lines in this iranian peace deal. >> well, first of all i don't think we know he's going to win it all. in fact, this could really backfire on him. what i think we're watching right now are two men, the prime minister of israel, and the speaker of the house who let their political ambitions trump

the best interests of their countries. this should not be happening right now. i don't think there's any guarantee that the prime minister is going to win having done this. and i think -- >> what could obama have done to avoid this tussle? he didn't know about it. it was scheduled without him. >> that's exactly right. everything's changed. the lowest voter turnout since 1944 in the midterm elections. it looks like the republican leadership feels absolutely no pressure to do the right thing, period, and feels no reticence in turning this into a partisan issue when it wasn't. >> well, i guess i'm partisan here because i think it was all boehner's decision along with dermer, ambassador to israel. kathleen, you disagree. go ahead. >> no, no. i know the republican argument would be they feel like they need to hear from netanyahu. as far as all this concern with protocol, first of all, when did we start caring so much? secondly, and i understand why the white house is upset about it because it does come at a time when they're trying to do something very serious which is negotiate with iran.

but the -- the speaker has asked before for netanyahu to come. in 2011 he did go to the white house because he was worried about messing up then negotiations with iran. the white house did not respond for a month according to the speaker's office. when they did, they basically said, it's your call. so he might have felt that it was not necessary to give the -- to consult with the white house this time but i do know that he did give him a heads-up. the white house was notified before this went public. now, albeit, only an hour before. but there was some time to shuffle the papers. >> that's not noticed, kathleen. you know that's not noticed. >> that's the -- >> i'm doing the genius thing. >> bibi got the invite, the president did know about it, he was in a situation, it was partisan. not one moment has he thought, i better put this off until after my election, put it off until we see this paper from iran showing their nuclear weapons program

from happening. i'm not walking into a situation that isn't partisan. he hasn't done that. he's had plenty of time to consider. >> whatever he knew beforehand going into the deal, he obviously decided just to keep moving forward. right? >> yeah. >> he wasn't going to back up. that that would be a bad idea. you know, the question, this is actually a big gamble for netanyahu because of the political situation back home in israel. because of the sensitivity of the relationship between israel and the united states. that special relationship. it is the, you know, number two job of any israeli prime minister is to protect that relationship. >> what's boehner's game? there's one jewish member of the republican congress and a lot of evangelical christian conservatives. i think this has always been aimed, republican party's move of the big love of israel, evangelicals, who look upon israel in biblical terms, not current terms and are gung-ho about this issue. >> you're not talking about the in-timers, i hope?

>> no, no, i'm talking like the people about huckabee. they're not nuts. they see a political ambition there. they look at that as a political opportunity. >> they also see that israel is, you know, we need to be their ally. we need to support them in what they do. >> we are. >> i was relieved to hear our u.n. ambassador samantha power earlier today talking at aipac about the fact that is an eternal relationship that's not going to be muddled by current politics. >> connie, let me bring you in. get in here. go ahead. >> the word relieved. of course, we know we're going to protect israel. this is not going to damage the long-term relationship between the united states and israel and i don't think it -- it's so political, so heated right now and such a distraction from what we should be focused on right now which is negotiations are iran. >> let me just say, i'm relieved for the public to hear this. you understand? >> any one of you three recognized geniuses -- sarcasm,

sarcasm alert here -- believe that any president, left, right, or center, could leave with iran having nuclear weapons? so my point is all parties agree they have to prevent this from happening. obama is trying an 11th-hour effort to do it without going to war. >> there's a distinction between his position and netanyahu's position. the president has always said iran will not get a nuclear bomb on his watch. netanyahu wants iran rolled back from nuclear capability. >> how does he do that? how would you do that? >> well, that's the question. >> except bombing them? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> even bombing sets them back two years. nobody thinks it's going to do it permanently. if israel bombs, we do it together, or we're alone? rohanni, all the secular people have said, they've insulted us, we're going to go with a nuclear weapons program. >> if we get to where we need to get, why isn't that a great thing? except for the fact there are these timetables then we are not

even approaching the icbm program. >> i know. >> and so what good is it? >> that's a good point. >> you have to have timetables. if you don't have timetables, you don't have any motivation to reach agreements, right? we can't just be arguing here. they do have to have the timetables. they have to force the deadlines. >> okay. let's do a little predictions here because i hate it when the media -- you guys are the commentators on the media -- acts like they're surprised when they know it's coming. there's an old rule of warfare, the best position to be in is attack from a defensive position. bibi goes into the speech tomorrow pretending to play defense which he will be because of the criticism. he knows exactly where it's coming from, the left and center left. the newspapers, editorials. he knows where it's coming from. so he just directly says, jokes a little bit about the controversy and then he says something about, you know what, another guy was here once defending his country, his name was winston churchill or something like that. and then he gets to the issues, while he's got everybody's

interest, he says, now, let's talk about this deal that's afoot. i don't see how he loses tomorrow. it's like reagan saying there you go again to jimmy carter knowing what carter was going to to in attacking him. he knows the attack line against him tomorrow. how does he lose tomorrow? >> he was charming today and will be equally charming tomorrow. i would like to hear what he has to say before i judge his speech. at the moment 54% of israelis believe he should not have accepted this -- >> do you think he'll surprise you tomorrow? >> i don't think the content of his comments surprise me. depends on how his tone goes. >> he loses in one context, the context that really matters to him right now is back home in israel. march 17th is the election. does he win or lose there? the polls as kathleen says do suggest that people there think this is not the greatest idea. >> okay. connie, is your senator husband going to go tomorrow? >> well, i don't speak for my husband, but i will fell you i know he's going to be in attendance. as for me, i'll be surprised if i hear any humility coming out from the prime minister. i think the question is what does he lose? what we ask, what could he

possibly win by doing this? >> would sherrod brown make a good vice presidential running mate with hillary clinton? >> i knew you were going to do that. >> i'm as predictable as bibi netanyahu. he's a philly guy. >> i wish you were quite so predictable. he's not running for vice president, chris, no matter how many times you champion him to do so. >> all you have to do is say yes. it would be great. a little bit left to hillary would be good. >> he's great even now. thanks for reducing me to a spouse, chris. >> you would say that. congratulations on all geniuses. pulitzer prize is something you should wear as part of your middle name like a cardil. eugene, pulitzer prize winning robinson. kathleen pulitzer prize winning parker. and connie pulitzer prize winning schultz. thank you all for coming on in all seriousness. all this week msnbc will feature more of the special project, 7 days of genius. for more information, log on to msnbc.com/genius. why not?

when we come back, no love with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. 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 symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com

when we come back, no love for jeb bush from the clown car convention that is cpac. the straw poll results are in and jeb didn't make the top four. he didn't finish in the money at all. plus how the energized red hots on the right wing of the republican party are making it impossible for john boehner to do the job he promised to, which is govern. it's all ahead with our roundtable. you're watching "hardball." the place for politics.

the conference call. the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." it's cpac, political conservative action conference, is any indication of who the gop wants to take on hillary clinton in 2016, then the right wing is on fire these days and the establishment choices are looking pretty weak. just take a look at the results of the annual cpac straw poll over the weekend. rand paul won the straw poll for the third year in a row with 25% of the vote. third year in a row. scott walker came in second. ted cruz came in third. jeb bush came in a distant fifth with 8%. that's 1 in 12. new jersey governor chris christie who republicans beg to run in 2012 came in tenth. that was a pretty bad

performance. he got 2%. 1 in 50. and the dismal support for the moderate wing of the republican party was reflected by the reception for jeb bush. hear the noise. hear the noise. >> by the way, jeb bush, any supporters? you supported in-state tuition prices for those children of illegal immigrants that weren't citizens. [ boos ] wait a minute. hang on. >> we should give them a path to legal status where they work and make a contribution to our society. that's what we need to be focused on. >> a lot of reaction. >> joining the roundtable right now is the "washington post" opinion writer jonathan capehart. lauren victoria burke. and paul singer is the washington correspondent for "usa today." we haven't had you on before, lauren. i know it's cpac, but i sell another '64, another goldwater year, don't care about winning,

want to show their gutsy attitude of anger against illegal immigrants, immigrants generally and anger against the republican establishment. they don't like people like bush or boehner. >> i think scott walker, he's the star, the it guy right now, the person who won the straw poll has been doing compromising with democrats which would be rand paul. that's the thing people forget in this. the straw poll does matter. i think it does matter rand paul is the only person who has reached out actually to democrats and, yeah, sure, scott walker is ahead now. he's the it guy now. he's kind of the jeremy lin of the moment, the guy that's the star now. >> the what? >> the jeremy lin of the moment. he's kind of the star right now. my thing is it will be somebody else next week. >> somebody who believes he's the sleeper -- >> i'll put an asterisk next to the rand paul win. pauls always win straw polls. >> don't libertarians show up? >> and college kids. of course, rand paul is going to win. >> it's the reason why hillary

and i both in our own separate ways were for goldwater as kids. there's something attractive about libertarianism, you're healthy, you're young, everything looks like blue skies, i want to be a libertarian. >> the "c" in cpac stands for conservative. it's no surprise that chris christie is way back, that jeb bush is way back or that he was even booed. >> is this richie havens -- >> we can't -- >> i get you. is there another republican party besides cpac? where is this moderate republican party? >> the money party. there's a money party and the money party is not the cpac party. i mean, the folks who are lining up their money to give to either jeb bush or the more serious i guess we'd call them establishment candidates, those guys aren't at cpac ranting and raving. they're sitting at wall street, around the country on golf courses talking quietly and writing large checks. >> don't you think it's

interesting the thing jeb bush gets beat up for which is being too moderate, rand paul is actually the person who's reached out, who's joined on legislation with cory booker, who's doing criminal justice reform. he's the person -- >> where is he on immigration? the red hot -- >> he's doing red meat. i think he's doing red meat on immigration. you have substantive issues. >> jeb bush. she's married to a woman from mexico. his kids are basically hispanic kids. they look hispanic. he speaks when he speaks about states in the union, he speaks about latinos with a spanish accent. appreciation and assimilation and spanish role in our society to the point of practice, using the accent. he's like a local anchor person who does that. no politician i know, so-called anglo, does this except him. >> this is the thing i think will be beat for jeb bush if he can make it through the primaries and win the nomination. >> where does he win the primary? which primary does he win with that very pro-immigration -- >> that's a very good question.

i don't think -- he has to win something before he gets the -- >> he could win in iowa, i think, certainly could win in new hampshire, right? >> right. >> in rick santorum or huckabee takes the religious conservatives in iowa -- >> there's money to be made here. you're new to this show. there's money to be made. i think even coming in in the money is good for him in iowa let alone coming in first. yesterday on "fox news sunday" scott walker was put on the spot over his evolving position on the hot topic of immigration. here he is. >> over the years, you have supported comprehensive immigration reform and a right to citizenship for people who pay penalties. this for the 11 million people who are in this country illegally. >> can you envision a world where with the right penalties and waiting periods and meet the requirements, where those people could get citizenship? >> sure. yeah. i mean, i think it makes sense. >> question, isn't that amnesty? >> walker says, of course, he opposes amnesty, but his position on immigration has

changed. he said it's changed in the last couple years. here it is. >> my view has changed i'm flat-out saying it. candidates can say that. sometimes they don't. >> you've changed from 2013? >> absolutely. i look at the problems we've experienced over the last few years. i've talked to governors on the border and others out there. i've talked to people all across america. the concerns i have is we need to secure the border, we ultimately need to put a system in place that work, legal immigration system that works. getting them e-verified and tools to do that. i don't think you do it through amnesty. >> they have to get the hispanic vote. the outreach thing reince priebus has been talking about is -- >> they don't want black people voting. >> how about that? how about that? >> you're saying they spend more time on voter suppression and voter i.d. laws than you can imagine. 36 states. reince priebus is leading the band on this. you say, welcome in, by the way, you can't vote. >> politicians, obama evolved on gay page.

>> people do evolve. let's not be cynical. >> i'm cynical for a living. >> you've been living out there carrying the banner for equality 30, 40 years ago? >> this is the thing. you know, somebody -- he has -- >> hillary clinton went from a goldwater conservative to being an anti-war liberal under eugene mccarthy. guess who else did that? me. people do change their politics as they grow up. >> sure, you can change your policies as you grow up, but i'm getting shades of mitt romney here. >> right. >> you're for something then you're against something because you need it politically. >> too quick? >> yeah. and then you're going to change it back because suddenly you realize the party needs latino voters, need to make the party open and welcoming to hispanic voters? >> saying he's against a path to citizenship, or wanted other components to be part of it? if he wants the other components, he's right in the american mainstream. if he wants it all, path to citizenship, stop the illegal hiring of people, that make sense. that's my position. i'm not sure he's excluded the path to citizenship, has he? >> i'm not sure. that's part of the problem.

>> stay here and work in some way. >> i think the word comprehensive should still be our guide. do it all. do it all. the roundtable is staying with us. up next, john boehner is in a bind and it's going to be hard for him to get out of it. he's in trouble. he's in real trouble. this is "hardball." the place for politics. can we do something about this? (doorbell) woah. it's a swiffer sweeper. it's working like a magnet. ohhh! shed all you like, wolf.

well, just when you think you can predict the future, you can't. senator barbara mikulski, longest serving woman in the history of congress is retiring. the five-term democrat first took office in 1987.

before that she served ten years in the house of representatives as a congress person. mikulski has been a reliable progressive voice and 1 of 11 senators to vote against the '91 and 2002 war resolutions against iraq. good for her. her retirement could open up the door for maryland's former governor martin o'malley, chris van hollen or donna edwards or former lieutenant governor, our own michael steele. don't do it, michael. we'll be right back.

we're back. republican discourt in the house of representatives was on full display on friday when speaker boehner and his fellow leaders failed to post a three-week funding extension for the department of homeland security. 52 hard core republicans and members of the freedom caucus

turned on boehner because it did not block immigration initiatives. they tried to down play their s with the hard line members of their congress. >> we have difference of opinion on hardline strategy and tactics. >> obviously our members have a lot of differences on how we want to go about tactics, but our goal is the same. >> the keyword here is tactics. now just four days to go, boehner must find a way to bypass the hard liners and risk shutting down the government and the department responsible for keeping american's safe. in your order across the table here, how does boehner get out of this, it seems to me he is in a straight jacket.

either he goes with the crazies and shuts down the department of homeland security, a department they created, the republicans, or he buckles and the party hates him. >> it already seems like they hate him. something interesting happened on friday night. pelosi said vote for this tonight and we'll get a chance to vote for it next week. now it turns out because of the story in other places is there a miraculous house rule 22 that is sitting there that says if senate resolution is defeated, then anyone in the house can bring it up and you can vote on that senate resolution that is a free bill.

a democrat can bring it up. >> is this going to work? >> no. it's not going down. he has to put the clean bill on the floor. he has 221 republicans on january 6th when he was elected speaker. i don't know what he was afraid of. >> he is afraid of a democratic majority leader. >> he has to be afraid. something like that emasculates his speaker ship. if he goes to a back door rule, this is a pass to get around me. this is what we will do and i will twist some arms and get the votes or i'm not your speaker. make the decision, people. he has to go to his caucus and bust some heads. >> reagan got through the 1984 tax reform bill, it made everybody happen by going around the house. he went right to conference. you can do it with little

gimmicks. >> reagan was powerful. the wall street journal issued a scathing critique of the republican-led congress today. saying they need to do soul searching about the purpose of a congressional majority. do someone else to do this thankless job or start to impose order and discipline and advance the conservative cause. >> honestly anybody who wants to show like mitch mcconnell said responsible leadership, this will drive them nuts. they look like they can't run a two-car train. >> they have members that don't want to ride in the train. >> we have to show that we're not scarey compared to the 213th congress. >> harry truman pulled a political upset and had a congress just like we're

watching. they blew it by '48. every night they said this congress is behaving just like that. all they do is benghazi and crap like that. hillary will be able to exploit this like harry truman. when we return, let me finish with a big question. will the red hots walk out of the republican party or take it over? you're watching hardball, a place for politics. about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ ♪ bundle ♪ ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby ♪ and that's how a home and auto bundle is made. better he learns it here than on the streets. the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive.

if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business.

let me finish tonight with the clear signs that the right wing of american politics is not happy with the established republican party. ask yourself the obvious questions. is john boehner part of the conservative base or apart from it. is jeb bush part of the republican base or apart of it? and finally were it not for 19th century history, would anyone call the conservative dominated party the party of lincoln? the facts are there in front of us. the strength of what securities the republican congress is centered now in the south, believed that his election was reason itself for civil war. where is it weak? where is it lost in space of belief? no longer the vote for civil rights and voting rights for the

mid '60s. their ambition has been a push to limit voting rights especially for minorities with voting i.d. requirements. this is what they did with poll taxes. the question is how will this movement end up. will the right wing push the bush-boehner club, or will they put them in their plaits, taking votes and bouncing candidates, crust, huckabee, and carsons into the back seats. the speaker's defeat on homeland security, the weakness of bush in the polls come to a division. for the first time in a half century i can see the right doing the bouncing and heading for the wild political horizon. i'm concerned about the political advantages, not caring whether they honor the single dazzling prospect. so what will it be?

a walk out by the right? or a takeover not seen since gold water days? that is "hardball" for now. thank you for being with us, "all in" with chris hayes starts now. tonight on "all in." shocking new footage of another office involved shooting. and the white house puts out a plan to curb police violence. >> the moment is now for us to make these changes. we'll talk about all of it with ben crump. then, the netanyahu campaign comes to america. fact checking his predictions on iran. plus the latest on vladimir putin and the murder of his top political foe. and as balm care returns to the supreme court, why republicans