>> dr. mary gail, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> you're welcome. is income inequality job one for both parties? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. we're seeing a new phenomenon in american politics. yes, people are angry about stagnant incomes, have been for a while, but now there's something more. they seem to deeply resent it that billionaires are getting even wealthier. according to a new "new york times"/cbs poll, a huge majority of americans now say income inequality is getting worse and it must be dealt with now if 75% american life and politics. wealthy to pay more taxes. america and 57% say governments should be doing more to reduce the income gap.

as you'd expect, this number breaks heavily along partisan lines. howard dean was a presidential candidate. michael steele was the president of the republican national committee, and also served as lieutenant governor as maryland. governor, this is a ripe conversation, front page of "the new york times." my question, it's a biggy, has it changed? everybody knows that incomes have been stagnant for the middle class now for 25, 30 years now, at least. but now is there a new attitude, not only are we getting hurt, we're getting screwed, but the rich are doing really well, in the billions, and this has got to stop. >> i think this goes back to the great recession of 2008, when wall street did some really unethical things that were easy to understand. when you create a vehicle that you know is going lose money so john paulson could make money shorting it, people get that. they don't know what carried interest is, but they get that. >> who's john paulson? >> a big hedge fund guy.

a very big hedge fund guy, who just gave $400 million to harvard yesterday. >> and neither one of them needed it. >> that's right. >> so i think -- and i find -- i think you're going to find this in the republican working class, not just the democratic working class, it's not, let's screw all rich people. i don't think they resent wealth. that's never happened in america. but they resent cheating, especially when they -- who get hurt by it. >> what do they care more about it? what does a person care about, who has big student loans. or kids, they're still trying to help out. do they care more about getting a break on student loans or helping -- >> no, they want the get to break on student loans. they want to do better for themselves. that's job one. but they resent what's happened in america. and i think you laid it out in the opening. it's corporations who have too much political influence. a lot of it has to do with -- >> the koch brothers. >> a lot of it has to do with citizens united, as hillary talked about when she opened a campaign. >> michael, here's hillary first and you can jump on the way she handles this. among democrats, hillary clinton is out there going after ceos

and hedge fund managers in particular. and she knows these people. and here she is. >> the deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. and, there's something wrong with that. there's something wrong when ceos make 300 times more than the typical worker. and there's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that i saw on i-80, as i was driving here over the last two days. >> that's amazing to hear her talk like that, from the tool shop there. but it is really true. your thoughts, michael? >> no, she makes a valid point. you heard rick santorum, in his announcement, again, frame i thought probably the best framing of the economic argument by a republican candidate. sort of blue-collar, grassroots oriented, but here's the reality, when you're talking about a hillary clinton and anyone. what are you going to do about it, as you take a check from them for your super pac, what are you going to do about it as

you take a check for your own campaign, as you, you know, hobnob with these same folks. >> why do these people give money to people who are talking against them? >> because they know they're not going to do anything about it. >> are you that cynical too? >> no. i think you take it because it's legal and you've got to raise as much money as you possibly can. >> but they're still not going to do anything about it. >> what's changed between 2008 and now? >> here's bernie sanders. he's charged up the anti-wall street rhetoric to 11. here he is. >> there is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. this grotesque level of inequality is immoral, it is bad economics, it is unsustainable. this campaign, starting today, is going to send a message to the billionaire class.

and that is, you can't have it all. you can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. >> i think he's got something. on the republican side, former texas governor rick perry, when announced he's running for president today, came out, guns ablazing, on the challenges facing many americans. you won't believe what rick perry says here. here he is. let's watch. >> i know you face rising health care costs, rising child care costs, skyrocketing tuition costs, mounting student loan debt. i hear you and i'm going to do something about it. to the one in five children in families who are on food stamps, to the one in seven americans living in poverty, to the one in ten workers who are unemployed, underemployed, or just given up hope of finding a job, i hear you! you are not forgotten.

>> i'm running to be your president. >> you don't think things have changed? watch this. his remarks, governor rick perry, stand in sharp contrast to the way he, rick perry, was talking even last year. he told "the washington post," as recently as december, we grapple with income inequality here in texas. bibically, the poor are always going to be with us in some form or fashion. just a few weeks before perry gave that interview, the "houston chronicle" ran this headline, texas income inequality gap continues to grow. howard dean. it seems like they're getting the message. this is texas talking. >> well -- >> it's not ted cruz -- >> there's a lot to be said here. first of all, under perry, almost a quarter of texans had no health insurance and 22% of children had no health insurance. this is the big problem for republicans. they have no history, at all, in caring anything about ordinary working people. >> now, that's not true.

>> that's absolutely true. tell me one thing. one single thing that a republican has done in the last four years that's helped working people. tell me one? tell me one. >> oh, the last four years. i thought you meant at all. look, we haven't run the government in the last four years. you have the democrats controlling the government -- >> actually, the republicans -- >> there have been this can proposals and tax cut proposals -- >> yeah, for who? >> for everybody! >> tax cuts for the people who make a billion dollars a year. >> your own president supported those same tax cuts, those bush tax cuts you're still again. you have to demagogue on the issue, but you have one key point. whether it's rick perry or elizabeth warren, how do you do this? if you start penalizing people in this country because they're wealthy or make wealth, that is the wrong message. i don't think you want that message out there. >> can you respond to that? >> -- wealth in this country. >> how would you equalize income? >> the first thing i'd do is forgive 50% of all the student loans. secondly, i'd commit to debt-free college.

that's the most important thing you can do for the middle class. >> what would be the pay-for there? >> get rid of carried interest. >> the tax break the people in the hedge fund people make. >> that's a good answer. what do you think of that question? take it away from the very rich who make money on wall street -- >> we're not asking to take something away from the rich. we're just asking to level the playing field. >> but, either do that or you know what you do, you allow a mom and dad who's writing a tuition check to take that off their tax return when they file their taxes. >> the republicans always want to do that. in 2012, republican presidential candidate rick santorum, who's back again, praised income inequality as a good thing. here he did go. >> there is income inequality in america. there always has been, and hopefully, and i do say, there always will be. why? because people rise to different levels of success based on what they contribute to society and to the market place. and that's as it should be. >> does that sell anymore? the idea that people work harder

make more money and that's just the way it is. >> no. because that's not the reality for most folks. >> i think that's a big change. >> that's not been the reality for 40 years, as we talk about income stagnation, wage stagnation. you can look at the trend license. >> even bill clinton, who was a masterful politician, say, people who work hard and play for the rules, that was good enough then. but now people who work hard and play by the rules don't think they're going to get a break. that's dangerous for a stable society, when people start thinking that. >> i agree. but i still think we're a lot better branded for this fight than the republicans are. >> oh, we'll see. >> yes, we will. i'm looking forward to it. >> we'll see. i think rick perry and rick santorum have something to say about that, as will others. and i think they understand, to your point, they understand the dynamic, because they're listening to those republican voters and democrat and independent voters as well. they get it. and let's see how they frame -- >> look how far your party has gone since mitt romney and his 47%. tell me i'm right. >> you're absolutely right. there's ban sea change and it's

long overdue, but there's more to come. it's not just on the income side of it, it's on the other sides as well, from foreign policy to social policy. >> anyway, the republican fallback plan is to blame the whole income inequality mess on president obama. no surprises. >> we should be asking the president if he is truly concerned about income inequality, how come it's worse under his watch? >> it is true that the top 1% are doing great under barack obama. today, the top 1% earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928. >> you're going to hear a lot over the next couple of years from the liberals. they're going to tell you that the greatest challenge facing american workers and american families is income inequality. now, folks, sometimes i think the greatest challenge we face economically is intelligence inequality. >> where is he going with that? is that shockley? william shockley?

>> intelligence being smart about how to deal with some of these issues. to be honest, we have, both parties have let this issue set on the back burner for a long, long time and to her credit, elizabeth warren and others have sort of put this out in front. but the question still remains, do you do -- are you going to solve this problem solely on the back of the people who make a billion dollars. >> we used to think all boats rose with the tide. >> you got to have a vote today, chris. and that's the problem. >> are you messing with my metaphor? thank you. thank you, sir, for that correction. i have to think about it, though, it's deep. i mean it. let me think about it. howard dean, thank you, sir. coming up, hillary clinton's taking on the republicans bent on rolling back voting rights. she's calling for 20 days, catch this, of early voting in every state as a standard. it's going to make it easier for people to vote and that's what she wants and that's what we all want, i think. plus, there are new calls out there for a viable independent third party candidate for president next time. but voter beware. third party campaigns generally

end up playing spoiler like ralph nader did to al gore. and ted cruz goes too far, even for him. he makes a lame crack about joe biden, just as the vice president is mourning the death of his son. and now cruz called the joke, saying it was a mistake in timing. finally, let me finish with what the fall of the berlin wall tells us about america in 2015. this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ screaming ] rate suckers! [ bell dinging ] your car insurance goes up because of their bad driving. people try all sorts of ways to get rid of them. [ driver panting ] if you're sick of paying more than your fair share...

[ screams ] get snapshot from progressive, and see just how much your good driving could save you. breaking news now. a massive data breach has compromised the personal information of some 4 million current and former federal employees. officials say the breach happened at the office of personnel management. a congressional aid confirms to nbc news that the breach could potentially affect every federal agency. "the washington post" says the hack happened in december and was first to report that chinese hackers were behind this cyberattack. we'll be back after this.

my name is jose lopez. i'm a troubleman in san francisco. i've been with the company for 29 years. a troubleman restores and troubleshoots electrical issues,

getting customers' power back on. we're 24/7, 365 days a year. i love my job. going up in the bucket and seeing all of san francisco, it's an exhilarating feeling. i was born and raised in san francisco. this is where i live and there's a sense of pride in providing great power to our customers. when i go out there and get their power back on, there's a great sense of satisfaction. together, we're building a better california.

welcome back to "hardball." hillary clinton today pulled out voter restriction efforts in recent years. there have been a slew of new laws out there, put in place across the country, including stricter voter i.d. rules, cutting down early voting and limiting voter registration efforts. the effect is to make it more difficult for people to vote, especially low-income and minority voters in big cities. in other words, democratic voters. well, today, hillary clinton blew the whistle on those shenanigans and called for a 20-day early voting standard nationwide as well as universal automatic voter registration. let's watch. >> what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people, from one end of our country to the other. here in texas, former governor rick perry signed a law that a federal court said was actually written with the purpose of

discriminating against minority voters. in wisconsin, governor scott walker cut back early voting and signed legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote. in new jersey, governor chris christie vetoed legislation to extend early voting. and in florida, when jeb bush was governor, state authorities conducted a deeply flawed purge of voters before the presidential election in 2000. today, republicans are systemically and deliberately trying to stop millions of american citizens from voting. what part of democracy are they afraid of? >> according to the brennan center for justice, 21 states have imposed new voter restrictions since 2010. in 14 of those states, 2016 will be the first presidential election the restrictions will

be implemented in. i'm joined right now by michael waldman, president of the brennan center for justice, just mentioned, and julia brown dianis. julia, first question to you. what do you make of hillary's proposal, 20 days of early voting for every state, as a standard? >> i think it's a good standards. we need standards in this country. right now we have a patchwork of laws, so one state from the next, you're voting differently, you have a different amount of time. a lot of her agenda actually was covered by the president's bipartisan committee, looking at voting issues. so, so that's important. and there are good things in there. most importantly is she took it to the gop, to their front doorstep, to texas, where they have tried to disenfranchise millions of voters. and two is that she put this issue of voting rights on the agenda for this presidential election. so those are important pieces. >> michael, let me ask you, this is what you may call a gopher pitch in baseball, easy, down the middle, and high. why do the republicans seek

restrictions on who can get the vote. why do they want to reduce the size of the electorate? >> i better not swing and miss or i'm in trouble. you know, throughout american history, people who see change and demographic change have tried to stop the clock. and it's the rising electorate that's affected most, by these various proposals. but they really have stalled in many instances. and what's interesting is, we're now seeing in the states, just as much new legislative effort to expand voting as to cut back on it. and that was -- >> who's doing that good stuff? >> well, you see that, for example, in the state of oregon. just a few months ago, passed a law that was a breakthrough for automatic voter registration. automatically, you go on the rolls at the dmv. and what secretary clinton did today, i agree, was very important in putting this at the heart of the political debate and points to some solutions. in particular, the universal automatic registration idea, would really shift the paradigm.

>> how would that work? would that be when you get your driver's license at 16, or what -- when -- you don't register -- you, you still register for the draft, men do, i guess. when would you become registered under that system? >> as i understand it, there are a lot of ways to do it, but you could make it so that you have universal -- everybody who's eligible to vote is on the lists. the states already have computerized voter rolls. it's a matter of getting people on the rolls when they turn 18 and keeping them there. and that, chris, would add tens of millions of people to the rolls permanently. it would cost less, and for people who really are worried about fraud, it would curb those opportunities, too. it really is a game changer, and judith is right. it's a bipartisan idea, recommended in many respects by the bipartisan presidential commission. so that would be a very significant breakthrough measure, if enacted. >> is there any chance of getting that through in even liberal states? >> well, i mean, as long as we don't get into the scary, you know, phantom called voter

fraud, yes, we should be -- >> well, there has been voter fraud. i grew up in a big city. come on, there's been some voter fraud over the years. there's been some in chicago. >> but it is so rare. and the thing is, we have the republican party trying to use fear as the reason. but, really, their reason is that they want to manipulate the voting rules so that they get particular people get to vote and particular people don't. and they're trying to hurt people of color -- >> what did mayor daley of chicago mean when he told jack kennedy in 1960, on election night, with the help of a few good friends, we're going to carry illinois. i'll leave that with you. >> it was voter -- it was sort of machines and it was the people behind the table, not the voters themselves, doing the fraud. so that's what actually is going on throughout most of street. >> i agree. i think that's probably the case. the boys, as they called them, out there. yesterday, i interviewed mark alice, a lawyer to the hillary clinton campaign. he's filed a suit against several states, trying to stop their voter restrictions,

including the state of wisconsin. and here's what he had to say about a new law there. let's watch. >> in wisconsin, as you mentioned, they cut back on the number of early days of vote, the time of day one could provide early vote, and they banned early vote on the weekends. now, why would you do that? what reason would the state of wisconsin have to say that people can't vote after work or people can't vote on a weekend, other than to simply make it harder for someone to vote and therefore less likely to do so? >> well, the republicans in wisconsin had the answer. they justified that law, cutting back early voting, as a matter of fairness. they say people in rural areas in wisconsin with fewer resources might otherwise feel shortchanged. senate majority leader scott fitzgerald said, it's difficult for people to turn on channel 6 in milwaukee and there's a shot of someone voting during a time when it's not available to people in rural areas. judith? >> so open up access to everyone. that's the thing. they can make up all these

pretextual reasons, but really what this is about, is trying to make it harder for particular pockets of people to vote. if you look at north carolina, where we have a trial going on in july, there's a law there that cut back early voting. 70% of african-americans used early voting. >> for souls to the polls. >> in 2012. >> and thank god there are republicans in pennsylvania, my home original state where i grew up, who are so candid about this, michael and judith. here they go. we got watch a couple of these guys in action. in recent years, they said a number of local republican leaders have let slip their true efforts. >> voter i.d., which will allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania, done. >> do you think all the attention drawn to voter i.d. affected last year's elections? >> yeah, i think a little bit. i think we probably had a better election -- think about this. we cut obama by 5%, which was big. a lot of people lost sight of that. he won, he beat mccain by 10%. he only beat romney by 5%. and i think probably that voter i.d. helped the bid.

>> the law is going to kick the democrats in the butt. if it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks who wants the government to give them everything, so be it. >> and it just so happens that a lot of those people vote democrat. >> gee. >> you know, the sarcastic guy there, i mean, michael, isn't it great that people are your best witnesses from the other side. >> it's like they were drinking truth serum before they went on. i said, these laws affect people of color, they affect young people, poor people. finally, a government program that works as intended, you know? look, the gao, the government accountable office, very respected by both parties, found that when it looked at these laws, that it really did bring turnout down. and when you look at the texas case, there there's a voter i.d. where you cannot use your student i.d., but you can use your concealed is carry gun permit. >> wonder how that would help?

which party would that help? >> but, you know, what's interesting -- one of the things -- >> it's hilarious. i'm sorry, we've got to go, michael, on this segment. but you're great and you've come a long way from a speechwriter for president clinton. >> yeah, yeah, i try. >> you're doing great work. i mean it. thank you, judith browne dianis, thank you both. up next, the made-for-tv show between two heavyweights. this is "hardball," the place for politics. when a moment spontaneously turns romantic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is 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. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally and you may now be covered. contact your health plan for the latest information.

welcome back to "hardball." in 1968, this country was divided, reeling from political assassinations, civil unrest over vietnam, and the rise of the counter culture. and that summer, as the republicans and democrats held their party conventions, two renowned public intellectuals faced off in a series of heated debates on live television. william f. buckley jr. of the right, gore d. value of the right.

a new documentary out in theaters next month, "best of enemies," tells the stories behind that made-for-tv showdown, exploring how two partisan heavyweights came to define the modern era of political discourse. here now, in its national debut, is an excerpt from the trailer. >> to help us extract meaning from these conventions, two of america's most eloquent commentators, william buckley and gore vidal. >> william buckley was the first moderate to see that ideological debates were cultural debates. >> mr. buckley, do you think mini skirts are in good taste? >> on you, i think they are. >> the people at abc asked him, is there anyone you wouldn't go on? and he said, the only one i can think of is gore vidal. >> we are all prostitutes in one sense or another, if ethically not sexually. >> for buckley, vidal is the devil.

he represented everything that was going to moral hell. >> two visions of america clashing. >> each thought the other was quite dangerous. >> freedom breeds inequality. i'll say it a third time. >> no, twice was enough. >> he's always to the right and almost always in the wrong. >> i confess, that anything complicated confuses mr. vidal. >> they really do hate each other. >> i'll sock you in the [ bleep ] face and you'll stay plastered. >> i knew them both and i'm joined right now by nbc news historian, michael beslish. that was, dare i say, the genesis of political argument on television. >> i think it was. ion, everything we say now. and that was 1968, when abc was doing this because they had to liven up a republican convention. first of all, where nixon was

pretty much of a shoo-in, and also, it was said at the time, abc news was fourth out of three networks. they were trying anything. and they were amazed that these debates got these enormous numbers. >> the way that he handled that young girl in the mini skirt question was certainly out of date. you can't pull that today. >> i think the lawyers would have descended from the ceiling. >> calling each other guys name. one guy called each -- made one reference to his sexual orientation. didn't show that there. clearly from buckley's point of view. and the other guy called him a crypto-nazi. we think it's tough now. >> though, that was pretty bad. but, you know, the other thing is, you know, the producers that put these guys on, they knew that both buckley and vidal, essentially, detested each other personally. buckley, particularly detested the way that vidal lived his life in all sorts of ways. and the other thing was that they disagreed about all sorts of issues, but they did it at very high intensity, and this was actually at a very high level. >> you know, i missed that era, because in the old days, you could actually go home at night, stay up late and watch dick

cabot and you would have norman mailer on arguing with one of these guys or arguing with cabot, and an intellectual discussion about politics was pretty eloquent, you know, what have we lost? i don't feel responsible entirely for this loss, but i tell you, i do think i want to say something, i always do about bill buckley. in the 1950s, when he took over the conservative movement, really modernized it with the national review, it was anti-semitic. >> and he wanted to take that -- >> at the end of that. and as an irish american and an upscale one at that, he just said, end of that! >> absolutely right. >> and he also, i think, gave it an intellectual life, even though he would defend -- he didn't so much defend joe mccarthy as he didn't like his enemies. >> i think that's the best way of putting it. and you know, kudos in the end for putting someone on abc someone who was actually as smart and substantiative as buckley and turns out vidal was too. >> beats some of today's dogfights. thank you for rising the level of discourse.

i can't wait for that movie to come out. up next, new calls out for a third party. want to have trouble, here it comes, third parties. but all remember how differently things would be if ralph nader, my hero, wouldn't run in two. that's next with the roundtable. you're watching "hardball."

in original, and teriyaki. [bell rings] man, making commercials is boring. that's why you need xfinity. their cloud dvr lets me watch all my favorite shows anywhere. it's perfect for me because i do a lot of commercials. fast denim. comfortable fit. thanks, mama. that was me before dermasoap. parfum di edwards. for men. with a personal dvr library you can take anywhere, xfinity is perfect for people on the road. [container door opening] ♪ what makes it an suv is what you

can get into it. ♪ [container door closing] what makes it an nx is what you can get out of it. ♪ introducing the first-ever lexus nx turbo and hybrid. once you go beyond utility there's no going back.

in 1980, independent john anderson siphoned millions of votes away from jimmy carter. in fact, i watched it happen up close on air force i, as carter lost big to randle reagan. in 1992, ross perot gobbled up nearly 22% of the popular vote, practically gifting the election to bill clinton, who won with only 43% of the vote. and oh, how history would have been different if ralph nader had stayed out of the election in 2000. well, third party candidates can decide elections. will 2016 be one of those years? we've seen it before. well, the headline in the daily beast proclaims 2016 needs a third party. while a recent gallup poll found that a near super majority of americans say a third party is needed now because republicans and democrats do a poor job representing the american people. well, the left already has an

independent among them. and he's among them. his name is bernie sanders. we're seeing libertarian and evangelical uprisings on the right. if jeb bush is the nominee, then will one of those groups bolt? anyway, the roundtable tonight, ruth marcus, columnist and editorial writer with "the washington post." perry bayson sr., political reporter with nbc news. and susan page is the washington bureau chief with "usa today." ruth, my question to you is, let's say that he pulls a turnaround and comes back, jeb bush beats the polls, comes back and wins as the establishment candidate, wrong on common core, wrong on immigration, wrong on about everything, with the right, with the tea party crowd, will there be a walkout and will they find their candidate elsewhere? >> i don't think so. i think this is a party who has not had the white house for two terms and definitely wants it back. it's going to have gone through a bruising primary process. hillary clinton, who i think will be the can eventually democratic nominee, as does everybody, will not have gone through that kind of bruising

process, and this is a party that wants the white house and that knows how to follow a line. i don't think you'll see a serious third party challenge. >> in a recent town hall meeting, jeb bush was confronted by one of those 1992 perot voters. >> governor, i voted for your father once and your brother once. >> what happened on the other time for my father? >> well, ross perot was there. >> and you got clinton. yeah. not my choice. >> well, that was sticking it to the poor guy, wasn't it? do you want to stand up at my meeting with your little speech. i'll shove it at you. you got clinton, mr. republican. >> yeah, that was interesting. i think that could happen. i mean, the thing is, you could see the ingredients for a third party challenge, clearly. >> it's called the tea party. >> yeah. but you don't see the person who's going to do it. that doesn't mean there isn't a person who will step up. sometimes at this point, this far out, you don't know.

i think it's entirely possible that jeb bush, if he runs true to what he talks about on immigration, on common core, that he may well see a challenger of somebody peeling off from the party. >> i can see a mike lee, perry. i can see a smart guy on the right. just say, you know what, i don't want this to happen again. we've been running moderates like mccain and mitt romney and we're not doing it again. we're going to rebel. >> i don't think so. mike lee is pretty much a party guy. i think it's the other way. if a huckabee or santorum somehow won the nomination, i can see bloomberg or a huntsman, a liberal republican deciding to run that way. that's where the third party could come from. >> if they go too right. ruth, what do you think of that? >> bloomberg wants to. >> and perry makes exactly to point i was going to make about the money. you need two things in order to be a third party candidate. you need somebody with a big fat checkbook to help you or a lot of people. >> he is the fat checkbook. >> but bloomberg is mr. checkbook. >> he would get good coverage, too, wouldn't he? >> from new york, knows the media base well.

>> yeah, we've got all these billionaires that are writing big checks for this campaign. and i just think -- i think you can't dismiss out of hand the idea that somebody would be mad about what the people is saying and be willing to keep writing checks to keep the debate going. >> i agree. that's what i'm positing here, there's a good chance of an explosion. we've seen candidates on both sides of the aisle make some noise about running as independents. mike huckabee has proclaimed that he will leave the republican party if they don't fight against gay marriage. here he is, staking his claim. >> if the republicans want to loose guys like me and a whole bunch of still god-fearing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue and while you're at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn't matter either. >> right. >> because at that point, you lose me. i'm gone. >> right. >> i'll become an independent. i'll start finding people that have guts to stand. i'm tired of this. >> well, that's fairly clear threat there, isn't it? >> he didn't say he was going to run.

>> well, he can't put it in writing if he's still trying to get the republican nomination. you've got to at least tease it a little. anyway, bernie sanders talked openly as running as an independent and he's running in the democratic primaries right now. behe told supporters back in january, there are millions of people out there who feel that democrats have not been strong enough in standing up for the wokking class, the middle class of this country, and taking on big money interests and that suggests running as an independent. >> hillary's talking about big money every day. she knows there's a desire in the country, among the left, to have somebody take on big money. i know she's taking all this money from the wealth and so on, but hillary had heard that. now, in terms of talking about huckabee, notice he said two things. if the party abandons gay marriage and abortion, that's not going to happen. jeb bush talks about abortion all the time. so, he's set up conditions that are not really realistic. the republican nominee is going to be somebody who's opposed to abortion rights in almost all -- >> so here are four options we've come up with here. everybody says, mike lee will not run against a bush nomination now.

okay, will bloomberg run against a nomination of somebody on the hard right? >> that's possible, i think? >> not yes, but i don't think that's where we're going to end up. >> will huckabee run against the party -- will bernie sanders run if hillary's the nominee? >> no. because he's already running the democratic primary to make his point. >> this is the most useless panel i've ever had. >> i would disagree, chris. >> you disagree with my desire for drama and craziness. >> i think there's a dynamic to these things and things take off and hillary clinton is definitely talking now about the deck is stacked, but when push comes to shove, will she take positions that will satisfy? people are really pulling her to the left on things like trade. i can't tell you who it will be, but i think it's possible we would see challenges from both sides. >> and how about a platform fight on the floor. >> that would be fun. >> if you don't sign on to anti-trade positions, if you don't sign on to minimum wage of 15 bucks, we're bolting. >> only perry and i are useless. just for the record. >> my name isn't no-drama obama. anyway, thank you.

the roundtable staying with us. and up next, the tasteless timing of ted cruz. this is one we can agree on. he called it a mistake to make a joke about vice president biden the other day. well, this is "hardball," the place for politics. heroes charge! ♪ ♪ (lightning strike) ♪ (kiss) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game download heroes charge now! you learn something new every day. when i was 15,

i learned how to make pizzas from a real italian. when i was 20, i learned how to make pizzas from a real greek. at 53, i figured out how to put two countries, into one pizza. the greek pizza is back. with basil pesto, black olives pepperoni, feta cheese and banana peppers. a large for $12. and try our new garlic knots or our new cinnamon knots for just $5 more. better ingredients. better pizza. papajohns.com. well, that accidental anthrax scare is getting even bigger. today, a lab in rhode island reported receiving a shipment of live anthrax, bringing the total to 52 labs in 18 states, and three foreign countries. the pentagon still doesn't know

how those shipments got out, who's to blame, and how much worse the situation might get. but pentagon officials do say they're certain there's no risk to public health. and we'll be right back.

we're back with the roundtable, ruth, perry, and susan. while there's a time and place to set politics aside, let's agree, and allows humanity to rule, and clearly the loss of a child is one of those times. this week on the campaign trail, texas senator ted cruz department get that message. he made a joke about vice president joe biden that he's made many times in the past, saying that with biden you don't even need a punchline. of course, the vice president is

mourning the loss of his son, beau, this week, who died over the weekend of brain cancer. cruz later posted an apology on his facebook page saying, it was a mistake in timing. and now today, another texan, rick perry, with the best of manners, entered the 2016 presidential race. >> among our great people, there is a spirit of selflessness that we live to make the world better for our children and not just ourselves. >> well, it's a tale to have two texans vying for the white house. ruth, i think it's fair, i'm going to let you comment on ted cruz's joke, that he somewhat, in a posting, he didn't even do it like a man and come out and say, i shouldn't have said that, he posted something and said, it was a mistake in timing, to make fun of the vice president at this point in time. >> people who give speeches tend to give the same speech. let's give him the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't thinking when he did it, but you have to -- when you do something like that, my view is, you should apologize, at least in

the same forum, in the same manner that you made the speech. caitlyn jenner. raheem prophet muhammad chris universal where you don't connect with the reality of other people in the planet? >> i think it's thoughtless. surely no one could not care about someone who suffered the loss of a child. one thing, putting these two texans together, one thing that strikes me, rick perry made a fair number of mistakes last time around. >> oops. >> one advantage is he knows you're always on. he knows you're always responsible for what you say -- >> but that was during a debate. >> i'm not saying equivalent

things but make mistakes and that's something he's learned. ted cruz is learning the first time. this is advantage of running a second time, you know if you made an error like that, we all made mistakes, you instantly correct it and immediately apologize as objectively as you can. >> that's the ideal, if you can think of it in realtime and fix it. perry's rollout was very impressive. he seemed to put his 2012 oops moment behind him and took a swing at ted cruz' infamous green eggs and ham late night rendition on the senate floor. let's listen. >> leadership is not a speech on the senate floor, it's not what you say, it's what you have done. >> you know, some people, we were talking about it in the green room, susan and i and i'll run the this by everybody, do you think this guy will be the sleeper? this nomination is not locked but i believe they want a governor. they want someone different from obama with executive background

clearly up front. your thoughts as governor? >> i don't think he's a sleeper. i think he has and showed in the last campaign tremendous skills as a retail politician. he could really connect with voters in iowa, new hampshire might be a harder case. for the benefits susan was mentioning the last time around, that's a pretty devastating clip that he's carrying around on his back of the oops moment and it's not as if there are alternatives. we got governors. we got sitting governors and former governors and senators and southerners and all the white guys you can possibly want. i don't quite see where his breakthrough moment comes. >> you have kids, right? >> i do. >> do you ever trip up on the number of the kids. >> never, ever, ever, ever. >> bruce, chris, michael, i mean -- >> if you have more, you know. >> you have a hard time getting to my name, anyway. >> i'm glad perry is running. perry, if you meet him personally is a really charming guy, nice guy, funny guy,

reporters like him, everyone likes him. i don't think he gets a second chance. >> how about the glasses? perry, the glasses, do you think they help? >> yes, it makes him look different from last time. but last time we over estimated him. he announce head was immediately the front runner. this time people are under estimating him. there is no front runner here. there are 15 people who could be able to compete, and i think perry is maybe just barely in that group of the top ten who will make it into the debates and we'll have a chance to the see if you can have a second chance for a first impression. >> do people want a class act like him sm. >> depends what you're talking about. >> i think they want scott walker. >> someone that can beat hilary. >> that's exactly what they want. >> they don't want oops in the general election. >> that's a practical thought. if i would worry about that mentality this is who wins, not november doesn't count. 50 years ago texan lyndon

johnson was in the white house and since then the lone star state turned deep red and the two texans in the race, cruz and perry will fight over the big money and big suburban vote. in a statement today, cruz welcomed perry to the race saying governor perry is a friend and patriot, he served the state of texas with honored dignity, integrity and compassion. texas is a better state because of his principle leadership and the gop primary will be better because of his candidate. what staffer wrote that? >> sounded like on obituary. >> thank you-all. when we return, let me finish with the lessons i learned covering the fall of the berlin wall, lessons that apply to this country right now. you're watching "hardball" a place for politics. don't just visit new york. visit tripadvisor new york. tripadvisor not only has millions of real traveler's

reviews and opinions, but checks hundreds of websites, so people can get the best hotel prices. to plan, compare & book the perfect trip, visit tripadvisor.com today.

let me finish tonight with this, people don't mind being used, friend of mine once was, they mind being discarded. when i was covering the fall of the berlin wall, i interviewed germans and asked why the communist system was failing and why so many were rushing to the west and so many more were hoping for a change and what struck me is it wasn't the theory of communism that failed but the practice of the east german government. it was the true believer whose were turning against the system. why? because the people that kept the system working, the school principals, the factory managers and grownups saw how they were being made fools of in their

daily lives. the currency was a joke and not permitted to enter major hotels and they didn't accept local meaning the currency of east germany. if they wanted to buy a car, they had to wait 18 months and got a hopeless smoking junker for the waiting. if they wanted to travel, they had two countries that would accept money, hungry and poland and if someone had hard currency from the west like the west german mark, they were bumped aside. i learned a lesson, don't humiliate the people who believe in this system, don't humiliate especially the people that keep the system working. the united states is hardly in a position of life behind the old iron curtain but there are lessons here. if people have it tough, they don't like seeing those at the top having an easier and easier and they believe in free enterprise as long as it works to create a decently fair society. people get angry and rebellious when they see the system that

held their trust serve the interest of the few but not of the many and their own interest and that's "hardball" for now because it is and thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> i'm running to be your president. >> rick perry returns. >> it's not what you say, it is what you have done. >> and a campaign announcement sweatier than a yoga class, rick perry announces a second run for president. tonight, why this time could be different. then, hilary clinton goes to war for early voting. >> stop fear mongering about a epic fraud. >> the mississippi family facing arrest for cheering at a high school graduation and the troubling take away from the fox news duggar interview. >> again, this was not rape or