rick perry has dropped dramatically. he's been second place -- >> according to a new poll -- >> mitt romney has regained his lead. not happy. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. leading off tonight -- >> i'm as mad as hell and i'm not going to take this anymore! >> well, that's the mood of the country right now. people are mad as hell, and they want their politicians to be angry too. maybe that's why republicans are swooning over chris christie. he's tough, he's gritty, he's hurting. and he reflects the mood out there.

can president obama catch christie fever and reflect that gritty spirit of the times? he may have to if he wants to win re-election. and we'll have to figure out tonight what herman cain meant when he said that african-americans have been, quote, brainwashed into voting for democrats. brainwashed. what's he talking about? plus, why conservatives hate billionaire warren buffett. e.j. dionne of "the washington post" write today that the right wing wants to shut buffett up for speaking the truth about how the tax code actually makes the rich rich or the poor poorer. he's coming here tonight. and michele bachmann is once again talking about how she's, her word here, submissive to her husband. she's looking to shore up her evangelical base, but is it too late? and let me finish tonight with why christie's so hot. i think it's because he's hurting like most people. we begin with who's got the grit to match the voting anger. republican strategist steve schmidt was the senior strategist at john mccain's 2008 presidential campaign. and john heilemann writes for "new york" magazine.

gentleman, let me just go to you. steve, you're the republican here. heilemann, you cover this party as well as the other party. chris christie, my hunch, my premise tonight. i think he's got something. it's irritability. it's like, don't mess with me. you take a shot at me, i'll shoot back at you. it's the angry guy or woman in traffic. life is congested today. we're angry. he's got that sense. >> he's real. he's tough, he says what he thinks. and i think the american people, who as you accurately pointed out, they're in a very bad mood. they think the country's going in the wrong direction. and they look at washington and they see a giant weasel pack. you know, in the senate, the house, politicians of both parties. he's someone who has approached the problems of his state with utter fearlessness, unafraid to take a position. and i think that people are just absolutely craving an authentic leader. and i think that's why he's resonating. >> that's why i think there may be something in this for president obama. he doesn't attack government

like these yahoos do all the time. he doesn't say, taxes, taxes, taxes, government, government. he says, shut up, lady. shut up, buddy. you -- get off the beach, buddy. he's angry generally. >> look. steve points out it's true of washington. i think it's true of a lot of big systems and institutions. a lot of people in america think the deck is stacked against them. they feel that way about the media, they feel that way about wall street. there is this notion that it's all a rigged game. and christie is basically kind of calling bs on that. and that is very attractive to people. more than any programmatic solution, the notion that you're calling it out and saying, this is all charade, we need to get real here. >> let's look at some of his greatest atty-tude hits. he has an attitude, this guy. >> get the hell off the beach in asbury park and get out. you're done. it's 4:30. you've maximized your tan. >> oh, you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security.

oh, i'm still here. i did not vaporize into the carpeting. >> you don't send your children to public schools, you send your children to private schools, so why is it fair to be cutting funds for public schools? >> you know what? first off, it's none of your business. doth bother me about where i send mine. >> you know what, tom? you must be the thinnest skinned guy in america. because you think that's a confrontational tone, then, you know, you should really see me when i'm pissed. >> you've got to explain this. and i'm going to be humble for five minutes. you're the pros. >> he's from jersey, don't forget that. >> why do people love, at least this week, this guy and the way he talks? most people on local television say, the consumer is always right, the bridge is the problem, not you. everything is the problem but you. he's saying to the public, basically, you're part of the problem. >> i think a lot of people are offended and sick and tired of all the political correctness, of leaders tiptoeing around, focus grouping, polling, what do

i say, worried about offending this one or that one. he's just real. >> is he the original john mccain, before you guys got to him? >> he's got a lot of those qualities. he says what he thinks. and when you look at republicans, part of the problem the party's had is we're not fighting for the little guy anymore. the reagan democrats believe that ronald reagan had their interests at heart. we were a party that could communicate to the ceo, but also to the guy who was sweeping the floor. and he's absolutely someone who has a blue-collar sensibility, the ability to put a northeast face on the party as a game changer, he's a very compelling candidate, and i think he suits the times out there. >> let's go to president obama. he says he doesn't watch these debates or pay attention, he must. what can they learn from this guy, in terms of his ability to connect? can a guy who's playing defense somehow shift to offense, meaning obama? >> i think he's going to have to. and i think it's one of the biggest mistakes they made.

when obama came to washington, the biggest mandate he had was, you know, this ephemeral thing, but it was change. change the system. this is all messed up. go in there and change things. don't play by the old rules. speak truth to power. and he came and became a washington inside player. and there are reasons why he did that. he wanted to get health care passed and pay the legislative game, but he became of this city and of -- >> a friend of harry reid's and nancy pelosi's. >> yes, and not the kind of person that steve's talking about, reagan democrats. working people in america want the impression -- and this is what bill clinton did so well, as well as ronald reagan. he gave them the impression he was out there fighting for them every day, against all the things, obama has never given them that feeling. >> what you just described about the president's complacent or compliant manner. here's the president hovering right now around 40%, actually, a bit below it in today's gallup poll, he stands at 39%. he's been that low for a few days now. he's at 51. but you're a republican. open your heart. would obama be better off getting a little tougher and grittier and stop being mr. nice guy? >> i think one of the problems

he has right now is, i think he's fundamentally overexposed, number one. and secondly, i think he's in a bit of a conundrum. it's important for him to point out the seriousness of the problems that he inherited when he came into office, but he's been in office for three years and you, i think you just eviscerate yourself from a leadership perspective when you're constantly blaming, you know, other people for the problems that were around. so i just think he's in a difficult situation. people are angry. i think he should be less political. i think, you know, he should be out there, focusing on the duties of being president. and that's always the best path for recovery. >> you agree with that? he shouldn't point out the fact that he walked into an auto industry that was dead, a banking industry that was sick, a group of american consumers who were scared to death and investors who are burnt? and he shouldn't point out what he walked into? >> he's done that a lot and people already know that. i think to your point, if he wants to be critical, if he wants to be fighting, he should be fighting his republicans who are being intransigent and keeping him from passing an agenda that would help people now.

but when he got out and got a little feisty yesterday, when he made this comment in front of a largely black audience, stop complaining, get out of your slippers, that's a very chris christieish thing to say. and that part of the party rose up and challenged him immediately. there were a lot of voices that were like, what is the president saying? >> well, maxine waters does. i don't know if she speaks for the whole right. >> but the democratic base is a little bit more politically correct and tends to get more offended when the president does things that a guy like chris christie can get away with in the republican party. harder for a democratic president to do those things when it comes to his base. it's just harder. there's more pushback. >> let me ask you a question. you've got two personalities running for president coming up in 2012. let's assume the republican candidate will be smart to be angry. i know mitt can't fake it very well, but he ought to be angry. if obama seems cheerful, is he off-base? >> i think at the end of the day, you have to be who you are. and i think at the end of the day, the president is an optimistic person. i think he's a nice person. he conveys nice, i think people

like the president. that's why it's a mistake for a rick perry, for example, to attack the president personally, as opposed to, you know, his policies. i think that angry candidates don't win. >> okay. >> at the end of the day. >> howard dean -- >> howard dean, for example, who's an angry candidate. but -- >> bob dole. >> the strategic use of anger, right, the strategic use of anger to suit the times, i think, is appropriate. and i think he is very much aligned with the zeitgeist of the times. >> let's take a look at this. here's how the republicans stand right now. there's been very little movement and it looks like it's frozen now until the next debate, whether christie gets in or not. let's take a look at this. mitt romney's at 23, but he's been at 23 for about five years right now. rick perry's fallen ten points to 19. that's movement in the wrong direction. look at this. herman cain is now in contention. he didn't just win that straw vote down there in florida last week. look at him! he's at 17. he's within striking distance. john, you covered this. is he actually a candidate now who could win this nomination? >> no. >> what's it mean to be up that high?

>> it means there's been a collapse in support for rick perry, that he's given some good debate performances, people like his specificity. >> what's stopping him? >> i don't think he's a serious or credible candidate. and he's very much like a lot of other republicans. michele bachmann was up at 17, and now she's at 3% or zero. below jon huntsman. donald trump was at the top for a while. we've had a succession of fad candidates, because there's a fundamental lack of satisfaction with mitt romney. you point out, it's correct, he may win the republican nomination, but he's been at that 23% for a long time. he's not been able to rally the grassroots and there's still a big part of the establishment that's not that comfortable with him, so they float. there's a free radical vote that lands on these people and goes away. >> the last few week, the president has been populist. i think he's beginning to rouse the troops. he's got to get above 40% before he gets to 50%. >> absolutely.

i think he's out there, i think he's rallying the democratic base. there's been, you know, a lot of, you know, second-guessing, hand wringing out there. and, you know, he's doing an effective job campaigning. but, you know, american elections are won in the middle of the electorate. and, you know, what's going to be interesting to see is how these messages appeal in that middle space. >> the last couple weeks have been good? he's getting back in the saddle? >> he's starting to show some of that fight and feistiness. the only thing that's going to help barack obama is whether he gets a republican who he can focus on and start drawing a clear contrast with some individual. >> steve schmidt, who ran the campaign for john mccain, i think you did a good job last time. i mean it. we were all rooting for you, by the way. and a lot of us in this business like john mccain a lot. >> of course, he's a great guy. >> we were tough on him last time, i liked obama, but we always liked mccain. if he's still mad at me, fine, that's the way it is. he ought to be mad at me. coming up, herman cain's rising in the polls, but what did he mean when he said -- he said one of these lines you better not say. he said african-americans are brainwashed into voting for

democrats. now, what's he talking about? let's have him say that. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc.

president obama's struggling in 12 swing states, all of which he won last time around. a new poll from the bipartisan group purple strategies finds the president's approval rating at 41% in those 12 states you see on the map there. that's not so great, but the republican front-runners actually do worse. mitt romney's viewed favorably by just 32% in those 12 states and rick perry's down at 24. so head to head, right now, mitt romney's at 46 and president obama at 43 in those 12 swing states. the president does a little better against rick perry. obama's up over perry 46 to 44. well be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." herman cain is coming off a win in the florida straw vote and he's surging in that new fox poll. but he's getting blasted for one of his latest remarks. yesterday on cnn, cain upset some african-americans while talking about his bid to win the republican nomination. let's listen to mr. cain. >> many african-americans have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view. for two-thirds of them, wolf, that is the case. now, the good news is, i happen to believe that a third to 50% of the black americans in this country, they are open-minded. i meet with them every day. they stop me in the airport. and so this whole notion that all black americans are necessarily going to stay and vote democrat and vote for obama, that's simply not true. more and more black americans are thinking for themselves. >> well, did he go too far with that comment? cynthia tucker is a pulitzer prize-winning columnist and michael steele is the former

chair of the republican national committee and a msnbc political analyst. let me ask you first -- well, i'll start with you. i don't know how to register these things. everybody says maybe they should be, maybe they shouldn't. black voters are brainwashed into voting democrat. does that say something about the vote or cain or what? >> well, it was -- cain was certainly condescending when he suggested that black voters only vote for democrats because they have been brainwashed. how condescending is that, as if black voters don't have the good sense to look at a party's platforms and proposals and decide who they want to support. but let's face it. herman cain, even if he were somehow to become the republican nominee, wasn't going to get a lot of black votes anyway. because of his policies. so it hardly matters that he offended some black voters. >> well, there's so many levels to go at this. i don't know why they go at it the level of political correct, wrong speech, or -- well, you start.

>> i'll take it from that point, first. because i think, in the context of running for president of the united states, there's a way to express a particular opinion with respect to how people vote. without getting everyone riled up. and i think what happens here, the point, which i think is a valid one, is lost in what people hear him say right out of the box. everything after brainwashed, if that was all he said, would be a part of a conversation, i think that would be important. but when you start the conversation by saying, well, the audience that i'm going after is brainwashed, guess what, that audience, you're not going after them anymore. >> anymore, okay. let's start after that word "brainwashed" to the question of voting patterns. let's take a look at the latest voting patterns. this is pretty pronounced here. 19818, the majority of african-americans have historically support democrats

for president. look at these numbers recently. of course -- look at that. barack obama came close to winning nearly all the black vote in 2008. i think he lost 4%. he was 95-4. so let me get to a couple levels. this is a fascinating question. brainwashed into voting "d," that would be stupid, but we weren't taught to vote mechanically to the democratic line. so it's to vote for democratic candidates because you historically believe they're on your side. what does that mean, cynthia, to you? why is it 90-some percent almost voting democrat? >> well, i think it is clear that black americans believe that democrats have the policies that help them. it's also clear that republicans have run on policies that are openly antagonistic to black voters. and it's not just policies. it's the so-called dog whistle in politics. it's the southern strategy. it's the republican party's going out of its way to send signals, to send signals to conservative whites that say, i

understand why you're upset about the civil rights movement. i understand why you are unhappy about those uppity black folk. those are the things that have -- >> there's a word. >> that have black voters running into the arms of the democratic party. >> there's so much wrong with what cynthia just said. first off, that belies the facts at this point in time. number one, the southern strategy died in 1992 when bubba went back to the democratic party in the election of bill clinton, pure and simple. there's been a national nightmare for republicans to cobble together the votes they need, you know, having won national elections, that's great. but look at the percentage of the white vote that they're getting in each of the successive elections, it's getting smaller and smaller, as more and more minorities become politically engaged, particularly in hispanics. the republican's party going to have a real problem. number two, we elected two african-americans to the united states congress in 2010. we elected african-americans to the legislatures around the country, including texas.

so this idea that the republican party can't speak to the african-american community is not necessarily valid. but to this point, it is. that the party has a real problem making sure that folks understand that with respect to those policies, economic empowerment, educational empowerment, general empowerment -- >> all right, one of those that you mentioned. here's one of the african-americans elected to congress. alan west from florida. let's listen to him. >> you have this 21st century plantation that has been out there, where the democrat party has forever taken the black vote for granted, and you have established certain black leaders who are nothing more than the overseers of that plantation. so i'm here as the modern-day harriet tubman to kind of lead people on the underground railroad away from this plantation. >> is this the only way you get quoted on television, using language that drives something crazy. "overseers." >> i have no idea why alan west, who has made a name for himself,

not playing the so-called race card, would decide to hold himself up as a harriet tubman, who's going to lead black people away from the plantation. that strikes your average -- >> who was harriet tubman. tell me. >> she was a very historic figure during the time of slavery who helped black enslaved folks escape from the underground railroad. >> and a republican. but that's a -- >> back in the days -- >> but this is -- >> back in the days of lincoln! and black folk voted for the republican party way back when. >> it's not way back -- >> the black vote has been solidly republican up until the 1950s. in fact, the last republican president to get a majority of the black vote was eisenhower in '56. he got close to 60% of the black vote. that's the point. >> let's not trash the republican party historically, because in the 1960s, when they actually voted for civil rights, the republican party was

overwhelmingly for the civil rights bill of '64. the key piece of legislation, dirkson led that fight. it was the southern democrats that held out against it. >> but that was a different republican party. >> since the '60s. >> and then in 1964, barry goldwater got the republican nomination and ran on a platform of states' rights, which was opposed to the civil rights movement. and that drove black people to the democratic party. >> you're absolutely right. dr. king went to the pulpit of his church and made it very clear where he was standing, because of the democrats -- >> let's get a shot here. 30 seconds. you can make your case. why are democrats -- why are most african-americans wrong to vote 90% democrat? >> well, because you're not leveraging the one asset that matters most to the political class. and that is your vote. if i give all my votes to one individual, at some point she will stop listening to me. if you pay no attention to my vote and i have no incentive to pay attention to you, guess what? i'm sitting out here --

>> and voting strategically. even though you don't agree with republicans, give them a little once in a while so they'll play ball with you. >> but make them come to the issues as you see them that's ultimately what elections are about. you're going to go fight for my issue. >> where should they go first? republicans go to your community first or -- >> listen, my first day on the job as chairman, i went to harlem if people ask me, why are you going to harlem, that's where the votes are. >> that's why you succeeded as chairman of the republican party. they didn't like you for doing that. did they like you doing that? >> some liked it, some didn't. that's the reality of politics. >> when jack kemp comes back, let me know. in spirit. >> i'm waiting. >> a republican who really wants -- >> not only has he passed on, so has that republican party passed on. >> i accept that. and i'm glad you're here. thank you, michael steele, my friend. and thank you, cynthia tucker. i love to see you argue. next up, turns out an endorsement from donald trump hurts more than helps. this is going to kill the trump story. apparently that man doesn't help. i know he creates publicity, but he maybe can hurt, but doesn't help.

and words between donald trump and the presidential candidate jon huntsman are getting a little nasty. let's catch that in the sideshow. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. [ monitor beeping ] [ sponge ] you've suffered some real damage. cheesy crusting. 3rd degree noodle trauma. the prognosis is bleak. you may need to soak overnight. nurse...! dawn power clean? it'll never work. [ female announcer ] dawn power clean with micro-scrubbing enzymes can give you the power of an overnight soak in just 5 minutes. [ sponge ] i give you a sparkling clean bill of health.

it's a scientific miracle! [ female announcer ] for money-saving coupons, visit dawn-dish.com.

back to "hardball." now to the side show. first up, the trump factor. it all started with a fox news poll released yesterday, pointing out scoring a dinner date with the donald might not be all that helpful to a twelve 2012 candidates. according to the poll, 31% of the people said that an endorsement from trump would make them less likely to support a candidate, with only 6% saying it would have a positive influence on their vote. so which candidate comes out on top with that development? jon huntsman. who has been seen nowhere with donald trump. when the poll was released, huntsman's spokesman added his own two cents, saying, "hoping governors romneys and perry's courtship of trump continues well into the winter. next season's best reality show might be rick, mitt, and donald

choppering to hawaii to examine the birth certificate." think trump was going to let that one slide? not before taking the issue to twitter himself this morning. "jon huntsman has zero chance of getting the nomination. whoever said i wanted to meet him? time is money and i don't want to waste mine." i don't know how huntman felt about that new, but here's what huntsman's spokesman put out, "unlike rick perry and mitt romney, governor huntsman isn't wasting his time with presidential apprentice. his focus is on real solutions to fix our nation's economy." well, i think we've had enough of that one. anyway, next up, let's go out to hollywood, as actor george clooney makes the rounds to hype up his upcoming political thriller movie, the ides of march." the question comes out, would george clooney make the leap into politics himself? he has an interesting concern about the whole idea. let's listen. >> you know, i don't know that anybody can do this cleanly. i spent about 16 weeks in an office on "k" street with

republican operatives and i with mary matlin, james carville, i worked with a bunch of them and i saw how difficult it was for anyone running in the political arena on either side to not have to shake hands with people that made them sort of not feel clean. >> wow, too many germs? so much for trusting the people. i guess he's worried about people he doesn't really like, not just people with germs. now for the big number. there's another face-off going on in congress and this one has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with gaining a following via twitter. and it looks like republicans are gaining the lead. believe it or not, with 86% of the house republicans getting the word out in 146 characters or less to just 75% of house democrats. but some members seem to be going to the extreme route here. which member of congress do you think is the most frequent to tweet? that would be california republican darrell issa, with an average of 13.6 tweets a day. 13.6, nobody else even reaches the double digits per day.

that's 13.6 tweets a day by darrell issa out in california. that's tonight's big number. up next, conservatives want to muzzle warren buffett by saying his taxes are lower than they should be. and lower than his secretary's. he's become conservative enemy number one by speaking the truth about the tax code in this country, the tax code under which the rich have gotten richer and the poor struggle. you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc.

any reform should follow another simple principle.

middle class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. that's pretty straightforward. it's hard to argue against that. warren buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than warren buffett. >> welcome back to "hardball." though president obama made that speech in the rose garden, it was effectively the kickoff to the 2012 campaign. and he made clear that fairness will be a pillar of economic reform in his 2012 message. today in a column entitled why warren buffett is conservative enemy number one, e.j. dionne writes, "maybe only a really, really rich guy can credibly make the case for why the wealthy should be asked to pay more in taxes. you can't accuse a big capitalist of class warfare, and that's why the right wing despises warren buffett and is trying so hard to shut him up." will obama's buffett strategy pay off? that's the question right now. e.j. dione is a columnist for "the washington post." and sam town house is the author of "the death of conservatism."

you first, e.j., and thanks for being with us. this thing about buffett, is this going to be big? the fight about the very rich paying maybe 15% in capital gains compared to a lot of people paying 35% in taxes? >> well, thanks for having me on, chris. and yeah, i think you can tell it's a big deal from the way conservatives are going after warren buffett. warren buffett is the people's capitalist, really. he doesn't dress fancy, he doesn't remind you of that banker on the chance card in mo monopoly and he has given us the simplest way to understand the unfairness of the tax code. you only pay 15% on capital gains. very, very rich people, particularly investors, hedge fund guys, that's where they make most of their money. a plumber, a nurse, a cop, they make their money through their labor. so what this is saying is if you make your money through capital, it's fine to be rich, but

shouldn't tax labor at a higher rate that you tax capital, and warren buffett crystalized it. >> what do you make of this, sam, in terms of conservative philosophy? is this protection of the very wealthy consistent with the history of the republican party, even its recent history? >> it's fascinating, chris. great to meet e.j. i've been reading his stuff for years, but i've never actually seen him up close. it's funny, if you look back at the first big republican party gains in the modern era and stay with me, they go all the way back to 1946, when robert taft was a great figure in the republican party and led the congress to their victory in 1946, the democratic president harry truman, taft wanted to cut taxes. but the emphasis was on the middle class and the poor. and he made it very clear, the wealthy, of course, pay more. this is the understanding, the business community always had. during the eisenhower years, it's fascinating, when william

f. buckley jr., the greatest of all moderate conservatives, started a new magazine, "national review," he looked for money from wall street and other very wealthy people. one of their arguments was going to be the injustices of a tax code, in which the very wealthy paid 90%. and the business people said, we can live with this. we pay a larger share because we make more money. we don't expect to be infinitely richer than anybody else. we'll pay the large share. and this was standard conservative philosophy, all the way through the 1960s as well. >> let's take a look at a town hall meeting in silicon valley. here's president obama. he took questions from the crowd, and one of the people in the crowd say something very much like warren buffett. >> i don't have a job, but that's because i've been lucky enough to live in silicon valley for a while and work for a small start-up down the street here that did quite well. so i'm unemployed by choice.

my question is, would you please raise my taxes? >> e.j., you know the fight we're starting here on this show. you know the very well-off people say to this people, why don't you just tell us what their retort is. >> well, the retort is, you can pay it in if you want. and the problem with that is, we're not talking about individual charity. we're not talking about what you put in the church basket or send to your synagogue. we are talking about what are our responsibilities to maintain the government of our country? and i think, thanks partly to elizabeth warren, we're having a different conversation now, where this isn't about punishing the rich, whether it's that guy or warren buffett, or somebody else. this is about the fact that if you're lucky enough to be born here, we didn't pick the country we were born in. you have a chance to make your hard work turn into something. and people who do better have a

responsibility to the upkeep of the commons, which allowed them to become rich. so this is not about hating rich people. >> the upkeep of the country. there's a nice, sort of household term e.j.'s come up with. the upkeep. keeping our bridges safe, keeping our roads worthy, keeping our electrical systems working, keeping our sewers working. that's called upkeep. shouldn't the people with the most money, you know, asked to be done the most? it seems to me that's common sense. it's not about punishment, it's about, go where the money is. >> well, can i jump in here? >> sure, you're in. >> well, part of the argument is that government actually does some useful things and the business community has prospered from it. so, of course, you're not simply taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to some lazy bum on the street. you're showing that we have a system that for all its failures actually made this country what it is. and that it's what you do to, you know, contribute your part

to it. there's an interesting corollary to this, too, because what we're really talking about is just a kind of reflexive hatred of government itself, all right? now, if you go back and look at republican and democratic debates in the kennedy era, something, chris, you know especially well, kennedy wanted to cut taxes, and it was republicans who actually opposed it. they thought it was fiscally imprudent. why? because they thought the government should be solvent and it should do the important things we go through the nixon years, you see nixon and daniel patrick moynihan coming up with a huge program to give money to poor people, a negative income tax, which came out of a very conservative economic theory, the theory of milton friedman, with the idea that this is one of the functions government has. >> let's take a look here what they're saying now. this summer senator orrin hatch of utah fighting for his life against the tea partiers out

there suggests that the poor aren't doing their fair share. this is crazy talk, but let's listen. >> i get a little tired of hearing the obama presidency talk about shared sacrifice. and i hear how they're caring for the poor and so forth. the poor need jobs. and they also need to share some of the responsibility. >> you know, just -- e.j. and sam, last thoughts. what do you make of michele bachmann in that last debate? i didn't think the moderators followed up and they should have. she said, i don't want to pay anything to the government. i shouldn't have to pay --ish keep every nickel i earn. that's crazy talk! isn't it? i mean, who is going to pay for the bridges, the wars, and the fence they want built across the mexican border? who's supposed to pay for it if you don't pay anything in taxes? e.j., then sam. >> and the other thing, by the way, and it's great to me what sam brings up folks like robert taft, in our history. but the thing about government is no one benefits more than government than the well-off, because what does government do? it protects their property.

it makes sure their contracts are enforced, makes sure things stay stable. and this notion that poor people don't pay enough. first of all, they pay a lot of their income in sales taxes. they pay property taxes directly or indirectly through their rent, they pay payroll taxes. >> we got to go. >> and this notion of beating up the poor on taxes is nuts? >> thank you so much. it's a great debate. i think you guys are winning it. thank you both. we need to know the republican party didn't always think this wacky way about this. >> up next, michele bachmann is backtalking about being or back talking about no backtalk here about being also somive to her husband. she's making a last-ditch play for the evangelicals. will it play off? that's ahead and this is "hardball" only on msnbc.

george allen doesn't want history to repeat itself. alan's running for the senate in virginia again and his campaign is banning so-called trackers from his public events. trackers are campaign workers from the opposing campaign who tracks their rivals using videos. so with nothing to show of alan himself, virginia democrats have edited together a web video of all the time their trackers have been shown the door by the allen campaign. >> he's with the democrats. >> if you don't mind stepping out -- >> is that a problem? >> i just thought it was a public place. >> well, you know -- >> wow. allen's 2006 campaign went off the rails when he called an indian american tracker me caca. we'll be right back.

we're back. yesterday at liberty university, michele bachmann was asked once again about comments she'd made about being submissive to her husband in their marriage. here's what she had to say. >> i respect him and when it comes to decision-making, we have mutual decision making, and, you know, at some point, you know, you have to make a decision. there's been times when we've made decisions that i didn't like. one of those decisions was after my first year of law school. my husband wanted to go in the ministry after my first year. i knew that god had called me to go to law school, and yet god had called him to ministry school and yet god called him to ministry. so i had to step back from law school and move with him so that we could go into ministry. and i will tell you, i'll be honest, there were nights when i

cried. i just said, lord, i don't understand this. why do i have to put my dream on the shelf. i also knew i needed to defer what i wanted reference to my husband. that was a good decision i made. >> she was speaking to a conservative christian audience yesterday but will this translate getting votes? michele bernard and dana millbanks, great commenter for "the washington post." i don't know where to begin except this submissiveness. she once said she studied tax law because her husband told her to. >> yes. >> this power in the marriage relationship, does this sell with some people o the male side? >> well, in her marriage. but what i find fascinating about this is there's a difference between what she is saying, what is that subminutes to her husband verse millions of american women who decide they'll go to graduate school after their husbands do or stay home and take care of children

>> it's called free will. >> exactly the point, free will. the big question, this is ironic, this is the big year of the republican women. when you look at the women who ran for office, nicky haley, christie todd, carly fiorina, none of these were running on women's issues. you barely heard them talk about husbands or children. you have to ask, why is she doing this? >> i grew up with old-fashioned parents. i understand to an extent, who's the boss thing, father knows best stuff from the '50s. when she let her husband tell her who to vote for, for example? where does this end, the husband is the power boss. >> if i were to say that we're following the bachmann rules, i would have such injury that the best makeup artist at msnbc couldn't handle it. but -- >> i'm laughing because it hits so close to home. most people watch this show, i'm guessing, think this is so strange, old testament --

>> 99% of the people are not the people michele bachmann's looking for. she's fallen down to 3% in the latest fox poll nationally. among tea party supporters in iowa, she's now out in front. that's the poll her campaign was circulating. >> but it's not going to elect her. if you look at, you know, gender differences and politics and who votes, most women who vote typically have voted democratic. women who vote in presidential election that have swayed to the republican party are not her demographic. they'll be looking at this saying, well, you say submit means respect then use the word respect. there's a difference. >> i agree. she's talking to a few thousand people, moss of the men, by the way, most of evangelical christians month who are among -- >> are they riding across the west in a wagon train, these people? where do they live? isn't it strategic, though? i would never question her religion. she's a woman of great religious

belief. isn't this emphasis on religion we're getting a reaction to the fact she's failed to get into the economic debate with perry and mitt romney. >> she's going back to what she knows. her whole message, sort of the headline of the speech was, don't settle. she's saying, don't settle for romney. don't settle for perry. there is evidence among the people she's tar getting, it is catching on. you know, she has an awful long way to go. to the extent it catches on, it makes her and anybody else unelectable. she's now -- herman cain has five times more voters than she does. >> this is the group of candidates who say they don't want shariah law to be adopted in the united states. we know that's never going to happen. i raise that to say, here's the conflict. people use religion in a lot of other countries to demean and to harm women. so, it's very weird in this context to hear a presidential

candidate saying, i willing submit to my husband. i became a tax lawyer because he told me on. >> i think -- i don't -- what's fascinating to me these economic times are so tough right now, people want to talk economics. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. when we return, let me finish with why i think chris christie is so hot is because people like him are hurting. he talks like a guy crying for help himself. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. [ ma

le announcer ] indulge all you want. now there's no need to hold back. new revolutionary scope dualblast obliterates strong food odors leaving your breath minty fresh. hey. [ male announcer ] so there's no trace of evidence... new scope dualblast.

let me finish tonight with governor chris christie. i wonder if the democrats might learn something about the fascination for governor christie. don't wonder, there's something solid and important here. look at him. he's not a man of great accomplishment. he's only been in office two years. nobody out in the country knows what he's really done in new jersey. it's not even some speech they may have heard him give or major statement he's made about the country. most don't really know what he's done or said that marks him even as a conservative. what we know about governor christie is the way he reacts to people. if someone criticizes him, he criticizes them. if he doesn't like the way someone's behaving, he goes after them. he's irritable.

and that's what people like about him. he's grouchy, gruchy. he doesn't mind you knowing it. he's ready to let you know about it. in other words, he's in the same mood as most of this country. that's what president obama needs to get a hold on. if president obama wants this country to listen to him, he has to get in touch with the mood we're in. retired people are watching their savings, worried about the lower interest rates, worried the money they saved is getting smaller each week. people facing retirement are worried that what they put away so far is not enough. fail failure to launch isn't just the name of a movie. people are staying with their parents after graduation. people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s are where a new consultant can show up and begin clearing people out overnight. when people see a man like chris christie showing his pain, they say, this guy gets it. he's hurting like i am. and this is why president ob