tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC November 8, 2013 12:00am-1:01am PST
hard-right bandwagon. well, this back biting, south against north, west against east, is not what you'd expect from a political party still reeling from its wild and crazy ride on the shutdown express. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evenings from new york. i'm chris hayes. an nbc news exclusive tonight. president obama sat down with our own chuck todd for a lengthy interview to discuss the maelstrom of criticism over the rollout of the health care website, in particular, the president addressed his repeated promise throughout the health care reform battle that people would be able to keep their existing plans. >> and some of those people like those policies and they can't keep it. what happened? >> well, first of all, i meant what i said and we worked hard to try to make sure that we
implemented it properly. but obviously, we didn't do a good enough job. and i regret that. we're talking about 5% of the population who are in what's called the individual market. they're out there buying health insurance on their own. a lot of these plans are sub-par plans. and we put in a clause in the law that said, if you have one of those plans, even if it was subpar when the law was passed, you could keep it. but there's enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans and now that may be all they can afford. so even though it only affects a small amount of the population, you know, it means a lot to them, obviously, when they get this letter canceled. and i am deeply concerned about it and i've assigned my team to see what can we do to close some of the holes and gaps in the law because my intention is to lift up and make sure the insurance
that people buy is effective. we are proud of the consumer protections we've put into place. on the other hand, we also want to make sure that nobody is put in a position where their plans have been canceled. they can't afford a better plan, even though they'd like to have a better plan. and so we're going to have to work hard to make sure that those folks are, you know, taken care of. >> do you feel like you owe these folks an apology for misleading them? even if you didn't intentionally do it, but at this point, they feel misled and you've seen the anger that's out there. >> you know, i regret very much that what we intended to do, which is to make sure that everybody is moving into better plans because they want them, as opposed to because they're forced into it, that, you know, we weren't as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place. and i want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position,
than they were before this law happened. keep in mind that most of the folks who are going -- who got these cancellation letters, they'll be able to get better care at the same cost or cheaper in these new market places. because they'll have more choice, they'll have more competition. they're part of a bigger pool. insurance companies are going to be hungry for their business. so the majority of folks will end up being better off, of course, because the website's not working right, they don't necessarily know it. but even though it's a small percentage of folks who maybe disadvantaged, you know, it means a lot to them and it's scary to them. and i am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me. we've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a sequence of this.
so ultimately, i think i'll be judged on whether this thing is better for people overall. >> chuck also asked president obama if there was any substance to a perception that the president is not always on top of things, whether it's healthcare.gov or the specific source of the intelligence gathered by the national security agency. >> the idea that somehow every president is, you know, looking at the raw intelligence and figuring out what sources those are, that's just not the case. you know, i think that my previous reputation was that i was this policy wonk that was digging into stuff all the time. >> you know us in the media, we have to change every six months, the conventional wisdom. >> right. and was immersed in the details. i think that stereotype is probably a little more true than the latest one. but, listen, when you've got a health care rollout that is as
important to the country and to me as this is, and it doesn't work like a charm, that's my fault. that's something that i've got to do some examination of how that happened. >> joining me now, ben la pope, former press secretary for president obama's re-election campaign, now a founding partner of the insight agency. ben, are you surprised by two things -- one, what's happening substantively in the individual insurance market, in which there seems to be a fair amount of disruption. whether that's coming from the law or the insurance companies is one question. and are you surprised by the level of represstension and backlash there has been around those cancellations? >> i think, no doubt, it was a surprise to the administration. look, there was 60% churn in the individual market beforehand. in many ways, these were sort of wink and a nod plans. they said they covered you, but they had astronomical deductibles, and once you got
sick, day dropped your coverage. and the goal of the affordable care act was to strengthen plans not on in that market, but across the board. >> but did you guys think -- when you were having these conversations, i would imagine that you were talking about the affordable care act every day, both in the white house and in the campaign. was there a sense there was going to be some iceberg you guys were going to hit where, look, these letters are going to go out, we're going to have to deal with the fact that there will be some people who are seeing their plans canceled, or is the number bigger because insurance companies have sort of taken advantage of this window to push people out of stuff? >> well, i think we always knew republicans, in particular, would do anything they could to take the law down. look, this is a republican party that's been against anything that the president's for. and they haven't presented any sort of alternative to strengthen these plans in the individual market. they're simply raising this as a problem. so i think the president went out tonight to reassure them
that there was better coverage at the end of the day. that there will be no more lifetime cap on these plans. they can't drop your coverage because you get sick. >> so the final thing on this, on this kind of promise idea, is that it does seem when you go back in time, and again, hindsight's 20/20, that you could have used language or the president could have used language, or anyone could have used language like, look, the overwhelming majority of you will see nothing change, or only improvements, as opposed to the "you can keep your plan," because there's some person on the other side of the "you." you know, it's a big country, there's 300 million people in this country, when you say "you," that's a kind of categorical problem that you can almost never keep in almost any circumstance when you're talking about legislation of this scope. >> sure. look wing the white house is always scared to death of getting something wrong. every speech went through a thorough vetting process. you had policy people look at it. you had research people look at it. everything was fact checked and everything was done to ensure
that it would be as accurate as possible. and unfortunately, that didn't happen in this case. and you've seen the president's credibility under attack over the past week. the most important thing to do in a crisis situation and the hardest thing to do is maintain your credibility. and i think the president went out tonight to restore that and outline the goal of the affordable care act, which is to provide stronger coverage for people across the country. >> i want to bring in jim manley, former spokesman for democratic harry reid. he worked in the senate for 21 years. now senior director at uga public affairs. jim, there's this meeting at the white house yesterday with a number of democratic senators who are up for re-election in 2014. the reports we have indicate that some of the substance of the conversation was about healthcare.gov, about the affordable care act. if you could imagine yourself in that room, what do you think was being said? you've been around democratic senators. >> i've been around a few of these myself. well, i'm not so sure i can say much on the air, because i'll probably get into swear words,
but i'm sure they were expressing the frustration that they were hearing from their constituents and from the american people about what exactly -- where exactly the white house is going and what does it intend to do to get this website up and running. but like i said, i'm not surprised that this meeting occurred. i would have been shocked if it had occurred a couple of weeks ago. but the fact of the matter is, it was, i believe, just a desire to try and hear the senators out, reassure them, and pledge that they were going to get this done and up and running as quickly as possible. >> i would like to hear both of you gentleman respond to this question. there's two ways of thinking about the politics of the
affordable care act as it plays out over the course of the next year. one is that, basically, spin, attacks on the program from the right-wing media or even the mainstream press, don't matter in the end. what matters is the thing works, more people benefit from it than don't benefit from it. and you know, when you're a week out from election day, basically, the policy itself at the core of it is functioning. and that's all that matters. and there's another way that says, no, actually, spin and perceptions can destroy something in people's minds, even if the policy underneath matters. which of those two do you think is ultimately true as you think about the next year? >> well, look, both jim and i are in communications, so i think it would be a little bit silly for us to sit here and say that perceptions of the law and its implementation don't matter. but i do think that with all the attention you've seen on a website, the white house has promised the that that website will work at the end of the month. and they're setting up alternative methods. whether that's seeing somebody in person or calling to allow you to sign up for a plan. and people will be access the exchanges and get on to the exchanges, and then they're
going to make an evaluation. is my health care stronger today than it was before or do i have coverage now that i can afford that i couldn't before? and that will be the calculation going into 2014. >> you agree, jim? >> yes, i do. but i'd phrase it slightly differently. look, at some point, this website is going to get up and running and the program is going to run like it was intended to do. and then, republicans are going to be in a world of hurt, because they're going to be positioned as taking away healthcare for millions of americans. and that's a bad situation going into 2014. so they can crow about this all they want right now, they've got no alternative, they've got no clear vision. all they've got is complaints, but at some point, that's going to change and they're done. >> in fact, part of what we're seeing in this entire story about the plan cancellations and we've talked a lot about how we think it's being poorly covered. but there is a lot of disruption right now in the market, and that's part of the affordable care act, it was designed to
minimize disruption. but part of what we're seeing, of course, is the power of the status quo. and jim, what you're saying there, once the status quo becomes the way people are covered under obama care, the power of the status quo switches from being on the side of the broken, current insurance market, to being on the side of obama care politically. >> not only politically, but, again, affordable coverage that people can depend on. which, again, republicans are going to be in the position of taking away. no more being ripped off by the insurance companies. from now on, they're going to be ripped off from republicans trying to undermine the president's program. >> ben, the president's approval ratings right now are right around 41%. they're about where george w. bush's were at this point in his presidency. they're far below where president clinton's were at this point in his presidency, which were up around 59%. a lot of that having to do with the economy. how do you see the president situated politically at this moment? >> well, i think barack obama
has been declared politically dead 12 times before in his career, and oftentimes, i think that's when he performs his strongest. when his back is up against the wall. i think the white house recognizes that this is a crisis situation and they're dealing with it like it's a crisis. they've brought in an outside crisis manager to manage the process of getting the website online. they're doing daily briefings. they've brought in outside technical experts to make sure we're testing this website every which way. but i think the republican brand is toxic right now if the american people voted for the president to find an economic path forward, invest in the middle class. he's fighting for that every day, and i think at the end of the day, that's the bottom line calculation that the american people are going to make in the months ahead. >> if you want to talk about fundamentals and perceptions, fundamentals are two people have jobs, are wages rising, do people feel they have a shot at some relative modicum of comfort, and that's ultimately the recovery and whether we have a recovery will be what returns
it all. thank you, gentleman. coming up -- >> marge, dear, would you kindly pass me a doughnut. >> doughnut, what's a doughnut? >> ahh! ahh! >> today, the fda announced it was banning doughnuts. i'm kidding. they voted to announce they were banning trans fats in doughnuts and everything else and caused the internet to freak out, imagining a world where doughnuts would never be the same. but there are bigger issues at stake. i'll explain them, ahead. [ female announcer ] 1 hour to go, 1 hour to whiten.
earlier today, chuck todd got to ask president obama about all sorts of questions, about healthcare.gov and the obama care rollout. the rest of us, we can only dream about what we'd ask the president of the united states. so if you could ask the president one question about the affordable care act, what would it be? tweet your answers @allinwithchris or face at facebook.com "all in with chris." 37 we'll be right back.
the fda, if they have their way, and it's likely they will, artificial trans fats will be banned from the food supply in the united states, and that includes your favorite canned and frozen and baked and processed foods. >> big news in the food administration today, which announced the first step towards a likely ban in the artificial trans fats, the deeply unhealthy substance found in popcorn and other processed products. artificial trans fats are based on partially high dronlg nated oils and have absolutely no health benefits, according to the institute of medicine, which determined there is no safe level for human consumption of artificial trans fats.
the fda said today that removing them from the food supply could prevent 20,000 heart attacks as well as 7,000 deaths from heart disease every year. new york city banned added trans fats in restaurants back in 2006. a decision mayor michael bloomberg said in a statement today faced initial criticism before gaining widespread support. we went searching for some fierce criticism of today's move by the fda, right-wing backlash about a nanny state, once again trying to take over our lives. but outside of some half-hearted complaints on obscure right-wing blogs, we didn't find much. much different than the outrage against bloomberg's attempt to dan sugary drinks in new york. sarah palin needed just a sip from a big gulp to earn rapturous applause from a conservative audience. >> oh, bloomberg's not around.
our big gulp's safe. we're cool. shoot, it's just pop. >> that is like the sis teen chapel of trolling. the disconnect between the outrage that greeted the soda ban and the lack of anger over today's news got us thinking about how we think what constitutes an unacceptable attack on our freedoms. one person who is upset about the ban, peter suderman. peter, give you trans fats or give you death? why are you not on board with today's decision? >> it seems like this is the sort of thing that really ought to be an individual decision. it also, you know, we don't know exactly what the fda is going to do here, but if the fda really plans to completely eliminate trans fats from this food supply, that goes a lot further than any of the city-based bans that we've seen so far. even new york's ban, supposedly, ban actually allows for small
amounts of trans fats to be used in recipes. >> so, i want to get at this sort of bedrock idea that this should be an individual decision, right? you have this product, you have this chemical. people have very limited awareness of what it is or whether it's in their food, a. it also is just massively destructive. i mean, we are talking about, you know, all the science on this says, this is really, really clogs up people's arteries, bad cholesterol, it causes lots of heart attacks. there is no safe level that can be found in it. like, if there was something in chewing gum that made one out of every six people who chewed it dropped dead of cancer 20 years hence, you would be on board with the fda banning it, right? this isn't some like hardline principle that, no, there should be nothing the fda should ban? >> well, i guess what i would say is that there's a couple of reasons we ought to be weary of this sort of, you know, completely hard and fast ban. one is that dietary conventional wisdom has really changed over the years. you go back a couple of decades,
the conventional wisdom was that you ought to eat a really low-fat diet, with low cholesterol. and now people are actually saying that, you know, that fat can be good for you, that you actually want to have fats, in particular, we've seen big shifts in the wisdom on saturated fats. you know, a few years before trans fats, saturated fats were the big thing that you had to avoid. and now we've seen research that shows that saturated fats not only don't cause heart disease, they can actually prevent it. this is the sort of -- this is one of the reasons why we ought to be wary of these bans on -- >> but the fallibility of the scientific literature at a given moment in time, right, to extend that, you know, you could use that to say, stop all sorts of smoking regulations, right? we've gotten things wrong before about the causes of cancer, so who knows that smoking causes
health conventional wisdom changing over time, really suggests that we ought to be cautious and that he ought to inform people of what we think is best right now and let them make their own decisions. that's what we're doing. it's reducing trans fat consumption already. the fda ought to call these policies a win. >> why do you think people freaked out so much about the soda ban and this was met with such a kind of, essentially, nonreaction. i came in the office today, we were having an editorial meeting. i was like, let's pull some great clips of them on fox news railing against it, but there was nothing. >> part of it, honestly, is just that we don't really know exactly what the fda is going to do yet. this is a fairly new announcement so once we have more details, i suspect there'll be more objections. >> i think it also has to do with what you and see what you don't. and people have an attachment to the reasons they hold. peter suderman from "reason" magazine, thank you so much. coming up -- >> the person that killed my son
is walking the streets today. and this law does not work. >> that was sybrina fulton, trayvon martin's mother, testifying before the senate last month. tonight in florida, another hearing took place that will determine the fate of that state's stand your ground law. i'll talk to one of the people who has led the charge to get that law repealed, coming up.
coddlers want you to give a criminal an even break, so when you're attacked, you're supposed to turn around and run, rather than standing your ground and protecting yourself and your family and your property. >> a subcommittee of the florida house of representatives voted on a proposed bill to repeal that state's controversial stand your ground law. the law allows for the use of deadly force if a person believes it will prevent death or create bodily harm to himself or herself. it's been on florida's books since 2005, but exploded on to national attention after the shooting death of an unarmed 17-year-old trayvon martin. the subsequent acquittal of the man who shot him. and though stand your ground was not ultimately explicitly invoked in george zimmerman's defense in that case, many activists believe these laws create an environment where such shootings are more common. and they begin to organize. a group of student organizers known as the dream defenders occupied the florida statehouse after the zimmerman acquittal,
calling for changes in the state's laws, including something called trayvon's bills. a package of bills that aims to change the way people are policed and treated in florida. they pushed and pushed until they finally met with governor rick scott, which ultimately culminated in a debate today over repealing stand your ground. that vote failed 11-2. this all takes on new urgency in the wake of the remeisha mcbride story. she got into a car late saturday night. her cell phone died, so she went to a nearby home and knocked on the door for help. moments later, she was shot in the head. >> i'm going to read you a sentence from the press release issued to us from the dearborn heights police. and it says, a 19-year-old detroit woman was fatally shot while standing on the front porch of the home. >> this is what police told the "detroit free press." this man's claiming he believed the girl was breaking into the home.
he's also saying the gun discharged accidently. so far, there have been no arrests. and right now, the prosecutor's office won't issue charges without more information from police. >> could i possibly do that? somebody knocked on my door and i pull my shotgun out and i shoot them while they're leaving off my porch, instead of finding out what was the problem. would i be standing here? no. i'd be in jail without a bond. >> michigan is one of more than two dozen states with some version of a stand your ground law. joining me now, phillip agnew, executive director of dream defenders. and phillip, first, i've got to get your reaction to the debate that happened in the subcommittee today. that debate over a repeal bill only happened because the activism of you and the dream defenders and folks down there, but it went down to a defeat. how are you feeling right now? >> it went as expected. so we knew when we got here today, based on the composition of the legislature that we were in for an uphill battle.
to be honest, the bill that was presented had a number of deficiencies and that's what we were there today talking about. it's about bad laws, bad lawmakers, and a broken system. and i think you played a clip, any recognize the voice, of miss marian hammer. and she was there as a motley crew of supporters. and it went as suspected. we knew what we were getting into, it was an uphill battle, but we'll keep coming back. >> marianne harp is one of the gun lobbyists for the nra in the state of florida. how do the defenders o. law talk about the law and the argument for keeping it in the wake of what played out so horribly and now infamously on the night that trayvon martin was shot? >> you know, they do everything they can to skate around that night and to avoid talking about that night. they talk about the duty to retreat and being in imminent danger and then being force to have the burden of proof put upon the victim. so the scope they're looking at it is very, very narrow. they speak to a very, very few cases.
and really, they act like anybody who wants to repeal stand your ground is actually wanting to attack a person's right to defend themselves. and we're not. we're protecting a person's right to defend themselves and if there's an opportunity to retreat, they have a duty to retreat. and we also feel if you're going to invoke a law, there shouldn't be automatic immunity. there should be due process of law. there should be an investigation that's happening. and that's not happening. there's a cancer in florida, and today we voted to let that cancer keep running while. >> you have been remarkably effective in making those lawmakers listen and pay attention to you. i remember when we first covered you when you started this occupation in the statehouse, it went a number of days and lawmakers didn't want to meet with you and then they finally did, and did they want this issue to go away? you've gotten this debate, you've got the vote. what's next? >> today was an example of the many reasons why our people need to develop independent political
power. what we saw today, we got a ticket to a theater and we knew what was going to happen at the end of the movie, but we had to stay there, because like you said, we were there 31 days and we fought for this hearing. but it really showed us the value of independent political power for people. and we're going to continue to build that. we have a pipeline bill that we're drafting and we're going to enter into legislation and hopefully enact into law during the next session. and in january, when any other laws come forward to amend or repeal or revise the stand your ground law, we'll continue to do that. and we said today, we're going to remember, remember the seventh of november. and next year, this time next year, after we've registered our voters, we're going to be going to the polls with the mandate and continue. and we're in it for the long haul. and we're going to continue to build independent political power, and then when we do, we won't have to come to places just to watch a show. we'll be actively engaged in our redemption. >> quickly, phillip, what is your reaction to the details coming out of detroit with remeisha mcbride's death?
>> it sounds strikingly similar to a number of case. you have jonathan farrow in north carolina who was in an accident, looking for help, and as was shot by police. it sounds strikingly familiar. it's a story i'm sick of hearing. in our communities, we hear it every day. the loss of a life, whether black, brown, or white is a sad day in america and we don't have any laws that should allow for the killer of that person to walk free. >> phillip agnew from dream defenders, thank you so much. >> thank you, chris. we'll be right back with click three. p [ mixer whirring ] [ dad ] hold it steady!
look! one select-a-size sheet of bounty is 50% more absorbent than a full size sheet of the leading ordinary brand. use less with bounty select-a-size. in new jersey, $25 million was spent on ads that included somebody running for political office. you think there might be a conflict of interest there? >> who could rand paul possibly be talking about before a senate hearing on sandy reconstruction? the passive-aggressive war between two gop front runners gets more passive and less aggressive.
plus, i want to share the three awesomest things on internet. we begin with a tongue twisting tweet i can't stop repeating. what is it, a ship shipping ship, shipping shipping ships. what is that, you say? it's a ship shipping ship, shipping shipping ships. the photo and the illiterate description were first tweeted about a month ago and garnered more than 10,000 retweets thanks to a popular thread on red it. and if you're still confused, here's a guide. this is a ship shipping ship, and what is it doing? it's shipping these shipping ships. if you have it tripping over your tongue, at least it's not this one, buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. that is a graumtly correct sentence. i would explain it, but we only have an hour-show. the second awesomest thing on the internet? what is the true value of twitter? if you take your lead from the stock market, it's billions of dollars. they launched their public offering to smashing success.
but twitter's true value is the ability to curse like a sailor. this is f-bomb, created by a science student, and what you're watching is a time lapse ability to track each and every f-bomb used on twitter in realtime. you can watch vulgarity on a global scale or volume some true american exceptionalism. is there a point to you it? not really, other than to point out that the planet likes to curse and some places like cursing more than others. you can click on each individual f-bomb to see the original tweets. like this one from los angeles, "i'm pretty sure i passed two-thirds of my midterms, bleep you, macroeconomics." and the third awesomest thing on the internet. you thought we would go a day without more rob ford news? >> i love crack cocaine. crack, crack, crack cocaine. >> first we should mention another rob ford video surface
today, this one showing an allegedly drunken mayor of toronto threatening to kill someone. some people weren't done with re-living mayor ford's crack admission. people like deejay steve porter, the man behind all those great nba and nfl remixes, he lent his definite touch to the rob ford saga. >> no, god bless, it's my mistake. i know, i have no crack left. i know that doing crock is wrong. rob ford, i'll do anything for more. i smoke a lot of it. i thank the people for support. >> it's disgusting, as i said before. >> rob ford. smokes crack, crack, crack. i smoke a lot of it. i smoke, crack, crack, crack, crack. i smoke a lot of it. your mayor has smoked crack. it is what it is and i can't change the past. >> move over, "what does the fox say?" you can find all the links on our website, allinwithchris.com. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] so how long have you been living flake-free
with head & shoulders? since before jeans were this skinny... since us three got a haircut. since my first 29th birthday [ female announcer ] head & shoulders. the number one dermatologist recommended dandruff brand. [ female announcer ] head & shoulders. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods.
newly re-elected new jersey governor chris christie is set to appear on four of the five sunday shows as his victory tour continues into the weekend. but governor christie is quickly learning, there is a cost to being anointed by the beltway press as a front-runner nearly three years before the next election. >> question for secretary donovan. do you think that sandy relief funds ought to be spent on tv
ads? >> reporter: that question from kentucky senator rand paul, ostensibly directed to the secretary of housing and urban development was really meant for new jersey governor, chris christie. >> new jersey, $25 million was spent on ads that included somebody running for political office. you think there might be a conflict of interest there. >> reporter: yesterday, at a senate hearing on sandy relief, paul took the hammer to the newly anointed 2016 republican front-runner, all without ever saying his name. >> new york did the same thing, which i still object, but at least they didn't put someone's face on the ad and their family, and it looks like a bioad. >> reporter: the new infamous ad paul is talking about is, of course, this gem. >> because we're stronger than the storm. >> you bet we are. >> reporter: but paul's attacks on the ads is just the latest flash point in ongoing intra-party war over the fundamental values of the gop. and it all started this summer in aspen, when christie
suggested those questioning government surveillance programs should hit down with 9/11 families. >> i love all these esoteric debates that people are getting in. >> senator rand paul, for example? >> well, listen, you can name any number of people and he's one of them. i mean, these esoteric, intellectual debates, i want them to come to new jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans. and have that conversation. >> those comments touched off a very illuminating, very public republican party rift. libertarian upstart wing of the party versus the establishment hawks. >> they're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending and they're give me, give me, give me. give me all my sandy money now. >> reporter: chris christie, of course, shot back. >> i find it interesting that senator paul is saying, accusing us, of having a gimme, gimme, gimme attitude. so if senator paul wants the to look where to cut spending to
afford defense, maybe he should start lacking at cutting the pork barrel spending he brings home to kentucky, but i doubt he would, because most washington politicians only care about bringing home the bacon. >> thus began the great bacon war of 2013. >> this is the king of bacon talking about bacon. >> reporter: but all this talk about pork actually got at a conflict, deep within the republican party, over spending and the growing national security state. >> my problem with some of the more liberal members of the republican party is, they're not willing to cut spending other places in order to preserve national defense. >> reporter: rand paul is a tea party hero, and the most notable skeptic of the security state in the gop. he's a leading voice against the nsa and the man who led the nearly 13-hour anti-drone filibuster. chris christie has already planted his flag as a hawk. the next leader of the john mccain wing of the party. the battle between these two men will be one of the most clarifying in recent memory. they are two of the most
important voices in the republican party, they have different world views and approaches, and they apparently can't stand each other. >> i will support whoever the republican nominee is. >> chris christie included? >> whomever wins, and that would include chris christie. >> joining me now, amy davidson, senior editor at "the new yorker." josh barrel, politics editor at business insider, and ana marie cox. i am deeply rooting for these two to emerge. deeply rooting. you too? >> well, the debates in 2016 might be even crazier than the debates in 2012. and one wouldn't have actually thought that that was possible. >> yeah, exactly. i think that -- and what i like about it is, i think that the -- people underestimate about chris christie, how much he is going to ally himself, ana marie, with those parts of the gop infrastructure that is the kind of residual neocon part of the infrastructure.
i can already see it happening. it's partly because he's from here, and partly because that's where a lot of the institutional money that is going to be backing him is from. do you see that happening? >> yeah, i think that's true. i mean, he is a party insider in my ways. he is a career politician. he's actually a former registered lobbyist as well. you don't get much more inside than that. i also think he's going to continue to do that, because chris christie really is a triumph of style over substance. i mean, he has wooed new jersey voters, largely on the basis of personality. he has policies that they disagree, that a lot of o new jersey, actual voters, don't like his policies. but he's triumphed on personality. he actually reminds me a lot of george bush. and i think he's also much like george bush, much more conservative than most journalists would like you to believe. >> i totally agree with that. and i think, also, the dynamic between these two men is about to hit a very interesting point, as christie's national platform emerges, which is the sequester that's coming down the pike, in
which people are going to have to choose. i want to talk about that right after this break. y first. but with less energy, moodiness, and a low sex drive, i saw my doctor. a blood test showed it was low testosterone, not age. we talked about axiron. the only underarm low t treatment that can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting and increase in psa.
ask your doctor about axiron. earlier in the show, we asked you what you would ask the president about the affordable care act. we've got tons of answers posted the our facebook and twitter pages, like kathy from facebook, whose question to the president would be, "how can i help?" michael from facebook would ask, "if the healthcare site is not up by the end of the month, what do you intend to do about it? extend the mandate? push back to mid-december?" and laura with the question on many progressives' minds, "why not single-payer?" ve learned how to stretch my party budget. but when my so-called bargain brand towel made a mess of things, i switched to bounty basic. look! one sheet of bounty basic is 50% stronger than a full sheet of the bargain brand. bounty basic. the strong but affordable picker upper.
female narrator: sleep train challenged sleep train challenged its manufacturers to offer even lower prices. but the mattress price wars end monday. now, it's posturepedic versus beautyrest with big savings of up to $400 off. serta icomfort and tempur-pedic go head-to-head with three years' interest-free financing, plus free same-day delivery, setup, and removal of your old set. when brands compete, you save. mattress price wars end monday at sleep train.
♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ we're back. i'm here with josh barrel, amy davidson, and ana marie cox. josh, we should pay less attention to problems overseas and krons trait on problems at home. among republicans, 67% agree in 2007. by 2012, it's up to 86% agree. there's going to be a really interesting moment in january when the next year of sequester
comes up. and it goes after defense spending very hard. and it's going to be really interesting to see people in the republican party take a side on the sequester, which will be this kind of forced choice. >> i think it will be interesting, but i think it's a foregone conclusion what the answer is going to be. when democrats talk about getting a sequester unwinding deal, they say, oh, there are these republicans who really care about the defense sequester. people like john mccain and buck mckeegan. and those are the two names we're saying over and over, because the list isn't much longer than those two names. so, yeah, i think there's been a shift in the republican party, partly because there's a democratic president, partly because the iraq war has gone quite badly in a way that all political parties seem to recognize now. i think there's not a lot of appetite among most republicans for more wars and for more military spending. so i think in the primaries, i think christie will rhetorically be aligned with the hawks, but i don't expect him, for example, to pick a fight over the sequester or anything nearly that specific. i also think it's probably a position of mostly convenience, where he is now.
the hawkish elements in the party are not really in the grassroots. >> no, yes. >> they're the same sort of people who don't care that much about restraining government spending. they're more moderate on their domestic policy positions. and these are natural allies -- >> those are his people. >> right. but when you look at what people running for president say about foreign policy before their president, it's often a completely useless guide to what they actually do. both george bush and obama. >> but it is notable, ana marie, how much the party has been wrenched away from john mccain in this respect. >> well, yes. i think he was one of the least popular rshl candidates within the party base that they've had. and i think, again, christie, i agree with josh on almost everything he's saying. i think the republican party is probably not going to protest too much, the sequester. i think they found what they think is a really winning issue in just this harsh, harsh, harsh austerity method that sounds good to people until the things that they need or want or affected. i also think -- again, i go back to the chris christie, george w. bush comparison. i think that he will say lots of different things about foreign
policy. i'm not sure what's going to wind up being the truth. >> we cannot talk about rand paul without the latest revelation. when rachel first did the thing on rand paul, i said, oh, that's embarrassing, that's funny. then a few more things came out and i said, oh, there's some staffer out there who's just cutting corners and they should fire that staffer and this is embarrassing. his reaction to it has been completely unhinged. like, i do not understand why he has lost so -- he -- more instances of plagiarism in rand paul's book. he then gives an interview to "the new york times." he said, we're going to do from here on forward that will make them leave me the hell alone is give out my college paper and put out footnotes. and "the washington times" has canceled his column because they found instances of plagiarism and he is moving his column to breitbart.com. >> i don't think it's entirely coincidental, also, that he's gone after christie in this week, when he would like to talk
about anything else. but he's been really, i mean, one of the best moments this week is when he was so upset at all the attention christie was getting, that he began attacking the idea that christie had in his speech, that everything was messed up in washington. and you had rand paul defending washington, defending the washington process. i think this goes back to the whole idea that there are these different ideas in the republican party. every time, lake, when christie tried to give a serious speech about foreign policy, then just veered off into this battle with paul. when paul, in his own way, tries to make a point about government spending, it then just gets deranged. and in the end, each of them tries to define himself against the other in a serious way, and they just end up brawling. and that's all they get defined as. and that's maybe all that's going on in the republican party. >> but i've also, this week has made me come to deeply question rand paul's basic, competent manage of his own office and staff.
>> i would say one thing about that. yes, you should question it. however, i think this is more common than you might expect within the conservative space. i mean, i work for two different conservative think tanks. >> do you mean the plagiarism part? >> no, if you work for a think tank and some elected official is plagiarizing out of your report, you're not going to go attack the -- you're thrilled. the idea that you were paid to get out there has gotten out there in one of the higher profile ways possible. so i think paul's been in an environment that he can get away with this. normally, the way people get caught for plagiarism is the author comes forward, but none of the authors were upset. so it may have led him to think inside this conservative bubble, well, the authors don't care, so why -- >> only plagiarize from think tanks that will be overjoyed that rand paul is giving a speech that's a huge chunk out of a kato position paper. amy davidson from the new yorker, josh barrel from the business insider, and ana marie cox from the guardian u.s., thank you all for your time. that's all for "all in" this evening.
"the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> thanks very much for joining this us hour. behold the peaceful transition of power. the transfer of power between people who disagree with one another strongly, but who agree that the democratic process, the vote of the people, is what decides who gets to hold office in this country. the peaceful transition of power between politically opposed forces is really our most noble display of the challenge and the majesty of our democracy. it's also really, personally awkward sometimes. so, yeah, hey, i'm the new guy! really? you're the new guy?! okay. you were the awkward new guy once, too, big guy. transitions can be very awkward. and it's not just awkward transitions for presidents. this was the tiny little ou