All In with Chris Hayes, Transcript 1/13/2016

Guests:
Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Rand Paul, Hooman Majd
Transcript:

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: January 13, 2016
Guest: Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Rand Paul, Hooman Majd

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voice-over): Tonight on ALL IN –

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That`s why we need to reject
any politics that targets people because of race or religion.

HAYES: Striking back at the politics of fear.

GOV. NIKKI HALEY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Mr. Trump has definitely contributed
to what I think is just irresponsible talk.

HAYES: Tonight, how Donald Trump is responding to his State of the Union
rebuke.

The suspicious origins of Ted Cruz`s new attack.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have no idea what calls
are made to whom.

HAYES: And my interview with Senator Rand Paul.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We need to be careful of
letting the voice of the Republican Party be someone who thinks that all
immigrants are rapists or drug dealers.

HAYES: Then, 20 days from Iowa, Bernie takes the lead.

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, I`m not nervous at all.

HAYES: And there are shades of 2008 in the new Clinton attack on Bernie
Sanders.

CHELSEA CLINTON, DAUGHTER OF HILLARY CLINTON: Senator Sanders wants to
dismantle Obamacare.

HAYES: Senator Bernie Sanders joins me to respond when ALL IN starts right
now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes.

Last night, something almost completely unprecedented in recent American
politics took place in Washington. For as long as there`s been an
opposition response to the State of the Union, a tradition dating back to
the 1960s, it`s functioned as a rebuttal to the president`s message, a
competing vision of the future for the country.

But last night, both President Obama and South Carolina Governor Nikki
Haley delivering the GOP response agreed on one essential theme – the
danger of the politics exploited and you know leashed by GOP front-runner
Donald Trump.

In a soaring and expansive speech meant to counter the Republican
candidate`s narrative of an America in inexorable decline, the president
took a direct shot at Trump`s rhetoric.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: And that`s why we need to reject any politics, any politics that
targets people because of race or religion.

This is not a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of
understanding just what it is that makes us strong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Notably, that was one of only three times when House Speaker Paul
Ryan applauded. The others about the lineup of the armed forces and a joke
about keeping the speech short. Ryan`s clapping is actually significant.
Thanks in large part to Donald Trump, the Republican Party found itself at
a crossroads. Can the GOP continue to grow and adapt to a changing
America, or will it be a party defined fundamentally and, this is
important, explicitly by demographic fear and identity-driven grievance?

Speaker Ryan already picked a side. Recall that after Trump first
announced his proposed Muslim ban, Ryan went out of his way to condemn it,
declaring it un-American.

Last night, speaking on behalf of her party, South Carolina governor, whose
own parents immigrated from India, showed pretty clearly where she stands.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALEY: During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call
of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation. No one who is
willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should
ever feel unwelcome in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: In case there`s any confession, Haley confirmed on the “Today” show
this morning, Trump was indeed one of those she was talking about.

Her remarks last night, one acclaimed from the establishment ring of the
party, including three presidential candidates whom Haley said called to
congratulate her, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie. Last night, RNC
chair Reince Priebus clearly enthused, tweeted, “Great job, Nikki Haley.
Fantastic balance and substance. Our party is the new, young and diverse
party.”

But the response from conservatives has been substantially less
enthusiastic. And before Haley even finished, she was already panned on
Twitter.

Talk radio host Laura Ingraham, “The country is lit up with a populist
fever and the GOP responds by digging in and criticizing the GOP candidates
dominating the polls, not smart.”

From right wing troll Ann Coulter, “Trump should deport Nikki Haley”.

And from Breitbart reporter Katie McHugh, citing Haley`s birth name, “I for
one am shocked Namrata Randhawa Haley has no clue about America`s heritage
and dissed it for political points.”

Joining me now, Robert Costa, national political reporter for “The
Washington Post” and MSNBC political analyst.

And, Robert, for all the bluster, for all the talk about Donald Trump, I
saw this Rich Lowry tweet today that sinks up with things I`ve been hearing
from some folks I`ve been talking to which was this, “From my
conversations, GOP establishment mood on Trump moving from fear loathing to
resignation, rationalization, i.e., he`d run better than Cruz and slam
Hillary.”

Are you hearing the same?

ROBERT COSTA, THE WASHINGTON POST: Many in the Republican establishment
had hope Governor Haley`s speech would be a breakthrough moment. But what
we saw today from the reaction on the right is that it was a fleeting
moment. And it only further revealed the divide within the Republican
Party and the fecklessness of the Republican establishment encountering the
message of Trump.

HAYES: Yes, that to me seems – I mean, there`s two things seem to be
going on. One is, I don`t – you know, I`m not a member of the Republican
establishment. But if I were, and I was talking regularly, the people in
their base that are – that believe this actually do believe it. And they
just don`t seem to get that. That somehow this is false consciousness or
this is confusion or people are just riled up, as opposed to genuinely held
beliefs about what they want America to look like. Do they get it?

COSTA: They get it. And they`re so hesitant to really make a forceful
case for their own argument and diversify the party, to not be the party of
Trump. One piece of reporting I picked up today, I asked aides to Leader
McConnell in the Senate and Speaker Ryan, did they put a hand on the scale,
did they ask Governor Haley to make this kind of pitch against Trump and to
do it on one of the biggest platforms of the year.

Aides to McConnell and Ryan said they did not. They did not have any
involvement in the speech. That shows how the party is trying to balance
here. They don`t want to get the wrath of the GOP base. At the same time,
they want to reassure the general election voters this is not their party.

HAYES: What I`m hearing from you, the establishment has a fundamentally
shrunk from the fight. I mean, for all the Jeb Bush calling Donald Trump
the chaos candidate and running ads against him, I was looking at ad
figures today. You`ve got huge amounts of money being dropped on anti-
Rubio ads in Iowa. As far as I can tell, I don`t think there is a dollar
being run against Trump in Iowa.

COSTA: Very little money being spent against Trump. Some of the biggest
people in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the Koch
brothers, Americans for Prosperity, they`re on the sidelines. What we`re
watching now is not a financial war but a political and messaging war. And
it`s one that`s done even indirectly, Chris. They didn`t mention Trump by
name in the speech.

HAYES: Yes. So, the question here is, does anyone put their money where
their mouth is, right? I mean, if people – and I`ve been reading tons of
stuff from conservatives and Republicans, the center right folks, about
this is an existential crisis, we could be looking at a breakup of two
parties, this would be the end of the modern Republican Party. If the
stakes are actually that high, you would think some of the very wealthy
people that are involved in that part of American politics would pony up
some money to try to stop that from happening.

COSTA: Based on all might have reporting, I don`t see it happening at all.
In fact, to me the Republican establishment is getting ready to weather a
Trump or Cruz nomination, to endure it, to perhaps even support them. And
to not see the party split apart.

HAYES: That is really amazing. Robert Costa, thank you very much. Very
useful.

COSTA: Thank you.

HAYES: With the Iowa caucuses less than three weeks away, new evidence
today the race is a complete toss up. Donald Trump just three points
behind Ted Cruz, among likely GOP caucus-goers, within the margin of air.
A lot tighter than a week ago when Cruz held a more comfortable edge,
suggesting Trump`s assault on Cruz`s Canadian birthplace may be having an
impact.

Meanwhile, Trump has gone from insisting he`s just raising concerns to
declaring Cruz disqualified from the race. Tweeting today, “Sadly, there`s
no way that Ted Cruz can continue running in a Republican primary unless he
can raise doubt on eligibility. Dems will sue!”

As we discussed at length on the show, Cruz has been sticking to his
strategy of drafting off Trump as long as possible. But now, he finally
appears to be making his move. According to a report by “Real Clear
Politics”, some Iowa residents got a phone call Monday, testing the
effectiveness of a few different lines of attack on Donald Trump, including
one depicting the mogul as, quote, “a New York liberal pretending to have
conservative values.”

And yesterday, Cruz had this to say in an interview on talk radio.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think he may shift in his
new rallies to playing “New York, New York”, because, you know, Donald
comes from New York and embodies New York values. And listen, the Donald
seems to be a little bit rattled.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HAYES: What a coincidence. In an interview last night, Cruz dodged a
question about who commissioned those message testing calls in Iowa and
then he was asked to explain his attack on Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: As a life-long New Yorker, what do you mean, New
York values? What are you getting at there?

CRUZ: You know, I`ll tell you. The rest of the country knows exactly what
New York values are, and I`ve got to say –

KELLY: We love the pizza and the bagel. Is that what you`re going for?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: I`m joined by MSNBC`s own Alex Wagner.

Here`s the best part about this. The day that he`s doing this – the New
York values attack on Donald Trump puts out an ad of himself in a duck
blinding camo with “Duck Dynasty” dude.

ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC: Right.

HAYES: We get this from “The New York Times”, that he didn`t disclose a
$500,000 loan from Goldman Sachs for his first Senate campaign while his
wife is working there.

WAGNER: This is where Ted Cruz is really dancing, for most of this race, I
think a lot of people have thought he is secretly the wizard behind the
curtain that understands the base in a way that no one else does, whether
it`s his calibration on the NSA and surveillance, or his reluctance to
outwardly attack Trump. We felt like Ted Cruz is playing the long game.

But this doesn`t seem like a long game strategy, right? To propose that
you are camo wearing Duck Dynasty” inheriter to that throne while
exploiting Donald Trump for his New York ties and then having the biography
he does, which is someone who went to Harvard and someone who went to
Princeton and someone whose wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs,
and someone who took a half million dollar loan from Goldman Sachs.

That seems strategically imprudent at the very least.

HAYES: Well, but here`s the thing that`s been remarkable about him, is he
has sold this idea of like, aw, shucks, Ted Cruz, man of the people,
despite that bio. I mean, this guy has punched every single ticket in the
American elite. I mean, everything, you know, Supreme Court clerk, Harvard
law school, Princeton, wouldn`t study from people with, quote, “lesser
Ivies”. I mean, went to a very, very fancy law firm where he made – like,
there`s nothing –.

WAGNER: Yes, $1 million (ph) a year.

HAYES: Right, but he sold the persona incredibly well, partly I think
because he does have an ear for the base.

WAGNER: Well, and it`s politically expeditious to sell that persona. But
you look at how Donald Trump has managed his persona, which is saying at
the very beginning of every speech, I went to Wharton. I`m very
successful.

HAYES: That`s right. The opposite, owning it.

WAGNER: He owns it, and in that way, he becomes Teflon.

HAYES: That`s what`s so fascinating now. The Cruz attack – the thing
people thought would be – I was never going to vote for Trump. It`s like
he`s this loud-mouth New Yorker, has all this money. And I remember early
parts of the Trump speech, when you talk about his contract negotiations
with NBC, and the eyes would glaze over in a town where the median income
is $37,000 a year.

But he owns that as part of the persona. So, the question becomes, does
the New York values thing register at all?

WAGNER: Well, I don`t – I mean, I have a hard time imagining that it
will, because it has been sort of the predicate for Donald Trump`s
candidacy.

Also just side note, Donald Trump is proving the infallibility of the not
saying just saying strategy, right? Every time he`s like I`m not saying I
don`t want Ted Cruz to be the nominee. I`m just saying that we need to
have a serious constitutional law problem on our hands.

HAYES: I want to play this bite from Nikki Haley because she is getting
wide praise. Listen to this for a second.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HALEY: We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping
illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal
immigrants, regardless of their race or religion, just like we have for
centuries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Just to be clear about what we have done for centuries. We had the
thing called the Chinese Exclusion Act.

WAGNER: Yes, Japanese internment camps, trail of tears. A hard time
welcoming people sometimes, dealing with who owns what.

HAYES: So, there is a certain kind of eraser happening in that. But I do
think it was a sort of – it is a fascinating decision by her to sort of
make this play in this moment.

WAGNER: Totally.

HAYES: In terms of what she is positioning for herself ahead.

WAGNER: Well, I was watching that. And when she went after Trump and sort
of proposed this establishment message that we thought for at least a few
months after 2012 was going to be the new –

HAYES: That was it, that was the bible.

WAGNER: A gasp and a cheer went off in the room I was in. Because there
is so much trepidation and also hope that someone can break through and
just kind of put Trump in the corner, where I think ultimately – I know
you just talked to Robert Costa about this, Chris.

I still think the establishment feels in their heart of hearts that Donald
Trump or Ted Cruz will somehow implode. That this can`t actually totally
be their reality and so they`re just going to kind of stomach it for as
long as they have to, and say they will matrix their way around an eventual
Trump candidacy. But in their hearts, they don`t believe that will come to
pass.

HAYES: They don`t believe what their base keeps telling them they believe.

WAGNER: And I believe also, Nikki Haley is loathe to put herself in the
same party as Donald Trump.

HAYES: Alex Wagner, what a great pleasure to have you here.

WAGNER: What a great pleasure to be here, my friend.

HAYES: All of your New York values.

Coming up, new polling shows Bernie Sanders taking a lead in the early
states. My interview with him ahead. I`ll ask him about the new somewhat
surprising line of sustained attack in the Clinton campaign.

Later, Rand Paul tells me why he`s skipping the next debate.

Those stories and more, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Tonight, Hillary Clinton is on offense, going after Bernie Sanders
on a topic that at first blush can seem fairly odd, health care.

A new attack from the Clinton campaign comes as a wave of polls out this
week show the former secretary of state in serious trouble in two key
states. New poll out from Monmouth shows Sanders leading Clinton by a
whopping 14 points. The average poll of recent polls is a much slimmer
lead.

Not only that, but a Quinnipiac poll shows Sanders up against Clinton by
five points. Nationally, the latest CBS/”New York Times” shows Clinton
ahead of Sanders by just seven points. That`s down from 20-point margin
just a month ago.

Yesterday, Chelsea Clinton previewed the campaign`s tough new line on
Sanders` health care position, arguing his plan for a single-payer system
would hand over too much power to states endangering care for millions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHELSEA CLINTON, DAUGHTER OF HILLARY CLINTON: Senator Sanders wants to
dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare,
dismantle private insurance. Now, the Republicans in Congress have voted
against the Affordable Care Act 55 times.

So, I worry that if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that,
we`ll go back to an era before we had the Affordable Care Act. That will
strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health
insurance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That leaves out some pretty important context about Sanders` plan.
Most importantly, perhaps, while people would lose their current insurance
under a single-payer system, if a single-payer system was passed and
signed, everyone would then have government-run insurance to replace it.

This morning, Hillary Clinton didn`t back away from attacking Sanders on
the subject, arguing he wanted to rip up Obamacare as we know it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: For example, we have a
difference on health care. I want to build on the Affordable Care Act.
You`ve got to make some changes, because we have to improve it.

He`s been talking very generally about a single-payer system. He`s
introduced legislation nine times that have laid out a very specific plan
to take everybody`s health care and roll it into a great big bundle and
hand it to the states.

But my view is, we shouldn`t be ripping up Obamacare and starting over. We
should be building on it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Hours later, the Clinton campaign hosted their second conference
call in less than a week on Sanders, called on him to, quote, “tell voters
how he`ll pay for his health care plan.” After Sanders released an
accounting of many of his major policy proposals, a spokesperson for the
Clinton campaign said, quote, “He left out the $15 trillion proposal that
requires across the board tax increases on working families.” Go figure.

Sanders responded in part today with a picture of him and Hillary Clinton
in 1993 with a message from then-first lady, quote, “To Bernie Sanders with
thanks, your commitment to real health care access for all Americans.”

Now, Sanders responds directly to Clinton`s attack with me, next. So, stay
with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Joining me now, Bernie Sanders, senator from Vermont, Democratic
candidate for president.

All right. Senator, let`s get into it here. The attacks on your health
care proposal and your long and stalwart advocacy for single-payer, various
bills you`ve introduced. It seems to me there are three parts to this.

I want to take them in order so you can respond. The first is just the
disruption, right? The idea is that we would be moving – we`ve had a big
disruption in the health care system, the Affordable Care Act, one of the
biggest changes in decades, and we would take a bunch of different
programs, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, CHIP, roll them into a single Medicare
for all and that would be disruptive to the system. That seems one prong
of this critique.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All right. Let me –
can I start with that one, Chris?

HAYES: Yes, definitely.

SANDERS: All right. Look, here`s the bottom line: In the United States
today, we remain the only nation in the industrialized world that doesn`t
guarantee health care to all people. We have 29 million people who are
uninsured, even – we have 29 million people who have no insurance, and
even more who are underinsured. We pay the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs that our health care outcomes are not particularly good.
And yet, we are spending far, far more per capita on health care than do
the people of any other country.

So, it seems to me that we should be able to do what every other major
country on earth does, guarantee health care to all people in a cost-
effective way.

Now, if I`m elected president, will we pass a Medicare for all, single-
payer program on the first day that I am in office? The answer is, I think
safe to say, no, we won`t. But that is the vision that we must strive to.

HAYES: Right.

SANDERS: Universal health care at a cost-effective way, which our system
today certainly is not.

HAYES: So, if for people that believe in that vision, right? And I think
the polling shows a great many Democratic primary voters agree with you
about that vision, but have also experienced the incredibly vicious fight
over a much less ambitious version of healthcare reform, the ACA, right?

SANDERS: Right.

HAYES: It doesn`t seem unfair to say we would like to see some details
about basically how do you get us from here to there, having just gone
through this bruising fright. What does that look like?

SANDERS: Well, you know, first of all, we have presented to the Senate –
we have introduced legislation in 2013 a very long and detailed bill, which
is a Medicare for all single-payer program. And it is applicable at all 50
states that I`ve been a little bit disturbed that Secretary Clinton and her
team there keep suggesting it would not apply in Republican states. That`s
just not accurate.

If the states don`t go forward, the federal government will. So it`s a 50-
state program, which, of course, has to be.

Now, what you`re really talking about is not a health care issue but a
political issue. And what you`re asking, which is a very legitimate
question, Chris, is in the United States of America, can we take on the
private insurance companies who make billions and billions of dollars out
of human illness? Can we take on the drug companies? The three top drug
companies made $45 billion in profit last year. That`s a fair question.

I think we can, because what our campaign is about is a political
revolution bringing millions of people together to take on not just Wall
Street, but the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies and
create a government that works for us all.

So, this is not going to be an easy pass. No one – you know, no one has
ever heard me say, oh, yes, first day in office we got single-payer. That
has got to be the vision that we fight for, because that is the most
effective way to provide quality – quality health care to all of our
people in a much more cost effective way than the dysfunctional system that
we have now.

HAYES: So then I think the question becomes, the vision of universal
health care and something that, again, you have put out legislation, right?
So this isn`t just completely an abstraction, but there is this question of
how that gets paid for. And in comparable countries, right, the fact is,
in other countries that have universal health care, there are generally
higher taxes, not just on the wealthy, but higher taxes across the board.

I mean, the social democracy of Europe pay for benefits with higher rates
of taxation across the board and it seems a fair question to say, is that
your vision if you were to become president as well?

SANDERS: Well, the answer is that – and this is an important point, that
very often gets left out when we talk about Medicare for all single-payer,
is we are eliminating private health insurance premiums. You`re not going
to pay them.

So, of course, health care in general is expensive. We`re spending about
17 percent of our GDP now on health care. Under our Medicare for all
proposal, the total cost of health care in this country per person will go
down significantly. We estimate that an average middle class family will
spend about $5,000 less.

But you`re right. Instead of paying private health insurance premium in
one form or another, people will be paying more in taxes. The bill that I
introduced several years ago had a – I think about a 6.5 percent increase
in the payroll tax or the employer, roughly a 2.5 percent increase for the
employee. But the employer would no longer have to pay private health
insurance.

HAYES: Right.

SANDERS: The employee would no longer have to pay private health
insurance. Middle class family saves thousands of dollars a year on health
care costs.

HAYES: Right. So to be clear, the projection that – what you`re saying
is, yes, some taxes will go up. At the same time that health premiums are
essentially extinguished, which means the ultimate out-of-pocket cost for
an average middle class family under this system would be considerably less
than the status quo.

SANDERS: That is exactly right, Chris. And what I get – you know, upset
about when I hear – and the Republicans do this all of the time. They
say, oh, your taxes are going to go up. Yes, but you`re not going to pay
private health insurance premiums. And there will be significant savings,
because we now have the most costly and inefficient system in the world.

HAYES: Can – I mean, what you`re saying is something that Democrats have
– Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton have all created this wall
that says we`re only going to raise the taxes of people over a certain
amount. Under that, nothing. And it sounds to me like you`re saying that
wall has to be broken down.

SANDERS: Well, only in this sense. Look, you know, this – you can argue
that this is a tax. But Chris, if I say to you – let`s just say you`re
self-employed. And I say to you, well, instead of paying $14,000 a year
premiums for private health insurance, you`re going to pay $7,000,
hypothetically, in public health insurance. Does that sound like a new
tax? You`re saving in this case $7,000.

HAYES: Right.

SANDERS: So if you want to demagogue the issue, say, oh, he`s raising
taxes, then you`ve got to make it clear we`re saving people substantial
sums of money on their total health care bills.

HAYES: Is Hillary Clinton demagoguing this issue?

SANDERS: Well, I think when she simply – when she adopts “The Wall Street
Journal” line that Sanders wants to spend $15 trillion more on health
insurance, what she is forgetting to talk about is the substantial sum of
money we save when people do not pay private health insurance.

And once again, let me – I know I`m beating a dead horse here. We are
spending almost three times as much per capita as they spend in the U.K.,
which guarantees health care to all people. I am 50 miles away from the
Canadian border. They guarantee health care to all people, spending
substantially less. We pay the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs, because we do not negotiate prices.

So, I think ultimately, we`re going to have to move toward a Medicare for
all single-payer program and I will fight for that.

HAYES: All right. Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you for joining me.
Appreciate it.

Up next, Howard Dean, a man who has advocated for single-payer health care
and endorsed Hillary Clinton, joins me to respond. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Is Hillary Clinton demagoguing this issue?

BERNIE SANDERS, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think when she simply
– when she adopts the Wall Street Journal line that Sanders wants to spend
$15 trillion more on health insurance, what she is forgetting to talk about
is the substantial sum of money we save when people do not pay private
health insurance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Senator Bernie Sanders, a few moments ago, referencing Hillary
Clinton`s recent attack on the single-payer bill he introduced in 2013.

Joining me now, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, chair of the DNC,
MSNBC political analyst, a man who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, calling
her the most qualified person the U.S. has as president, and also someone
who has advocated for Medicare for all in the past.

So, I`m curious your response to what you heard.

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER DNC CHAIR: Well, this is so interesting, this race,
because you have on the one hand, a visionary with a coherent vision for
how health care should be done, which I largely agree with. But on the
other hand, you have a pragmatic person who knows how to get stuff done.

This is the big problem. We tried to do a single-payer in Vermont this
year. We couldn`t do it.

It`s one thing to say you`re going to raise people`s taxes but lower
people`s premiums. It`s another thing to figure out how to do that. It`s
really hard. You`ve got to have bridge money, you`ve got to have numbers
that work.

You know, Jeff Weaver – or somebody from his campaign, tweeted out their
tax program. There`s a lot of money that`s being spent twice in that tax
program. And it`s for good stuff. I`m for expanding Social Security
benefits.

HAYES: So what you`re saying is, there has to be something more detailed.
Obviously, the 2013 bill is detailed. It`s not numbers, right?

DEAN: Right.

HAYES: You`re saying that you have – you want to see numbers about how
this actually works.

DEAN: Well, not only do I want to see numbers about how it actually works.

We`re going to get the bridge money to do this, to move from this supposed
tax increase to this supposed premium reduction.

One thing neither side has talked about is fee for service medicine. This
will not work without cost control and there will be no cost control as
long as we have fee for service medicine.

That`s the problem with the Canadian system which Bernie talked about,
their prices are going up just as fast as ours are, although they start
from a lower base.

So there`s a lot of problems with this stuff.

I think Hillary is much more pragmatic and likely to make the kind of
incremental changes in Obamacare that we have to make.

Although Bernie has a great vision, but the trouble is, who can implement
that vision? I don`t think he can.

HAYES: So that becomes – there is a question about implementation, there
is a question about details. Do the numbers – do they pencil out.

DEAN: Right.

HAYES: And then there is a question about whether this is a legitimate
thing to be attacking a fellow Democrat in the democratic primary. This is
Hillary Clinton attacking Barack Obama for going after her from the right
on universal health care in 2008.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Since when do Democrats
attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to
realize Harry Truman`s dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an
opportunity to put together a coalition to achieve universal health care.

Just because Senator Obama chose not to present a universal health care
plan does not give him the right to attack me because I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: I mean, is it out of balance to say, adopt the Wall Street
Journal`s line – and since when do Democrats attack each other on
universal health care?

DEAN: Look, the answer is you would prefer not to see Democrats doing this
to each other.

But this is a – these two states are within four points on each side. This
is a much closer race than it was. This is the kind of stuff that happens
when it`s a close race. This is a competition for the most powerful office
in the world.

If I were the referee, I would kind of go like that a little bit. But, you
know, what are you going to do? People – this is the stakes are pretty
high, so people are going to say things that are a little sharp.

That was an example of one.

HAYES: If I could interject as referee for a moment, it strikes me the
legitimate good faith the attack is to say, look, it was really hard to
pass the ACA, opening up a fight on health care politically could backfire,
which is the most charitable version of what Chelsea Clinton was saying. As
opposed to the idea Bernie Sanders is going to try to take away your health
care, which seems implausible.

DEAN: Well, yes. I`m pretty certain Sanders certainly had no intention of
taking away anybody`s health care.

The question is, would his plan result in the kind of chaos trying to
implement it that would in fact undo people`s health care. That people
should be concerned about.

We`re never going to have a sensible debate about this between now and the
convention. It isn`t going to happen. There is too much politics in it.

The fact is, this is the classic race of the visionary and the pragmatist.
And I`ve chosen the pragmatist.

HAYES: Howard Dean, thank you very much.

DEAN: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, as candidates prepare for the sixth GOP debate tomorrow
night, Rand Paul has decided he`s taking a pass on this one.

He`s going to explain himself, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Tomorrow night, the second to last Republican presidential
debate before voting begins is set to take place in South Carolina.

The Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate, Rand Paul, does
not plan to be there. Paul is vowing to boycott the debate, because Fox
Business
Network has announced plans to relegate him to the so-called kiddy table,
the Undercard debate earlier in the evening, due to Paul`s low poll
numbers.

Paul is polling around just 2% nationally, putting him in a three-way tie
for eighth place, and more than 30 points behind Donald Trump.

But Paul is appealing to Fox Business to reinstate him into the main
debates, citing a new poll showing him in fifth place in Iowa with 5%
support.

Fox Business says it plans to stand by its decision.

I sat down with Paul today and I started my interview by asking why he
thinks he should be on the main stage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAND PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We think the actual polls, if you
look at them, show that we should be in the debate.

The one thing about polling that I think we confuse is that, if you get
five in a poll and I get six in a poll, that I`m somehow much more likely
to win the
election.

But if the margin of error is three, five and six – see, we`re talking
about
differentiating people on, oh, you got 5.8, I got 6.3.

HAYES: But let me say, it seems to me that that argument should have been
made by some of the people in the main debate when they were on the main
debate,
right? Because it cuts both ways.

PAUL: Well, it has been. And I`ve been making it since the beginning.
But it`s been less important, obviously, when you`re in the main debate.

You know, the perceptions are very important.

So, is it fair to the voters who support me to say, oh, well, he`s a second
tier candidate with three weeks to go. We don`t accept that.

I was just in Iowa last week. We announced 1,000 precinct chairmen, that`s
no small feat. I mean, 1,000 chairmen is more than any other candidate has
announced.
It`s a time-worn tradition to presidential candidates to see how many
precinct chairmen they can get. The last time the winner had 1,100. We have
1,000 with three weeks to go.

We think we`re in the mix of a viable campaign. We have raised $25 million.
We have – we`re on the ballast in 50 states. We see no reason why the
media should get to prejudge us.

HAYES: Let me ask you about last night and Nikki Haley`s response to the
State of the Union, has proven to be somewhat divisive among people on the
right.

I`ve seen a lot of people with some enthusiasm, a lot of people criticizing
her. Which camp do you fall in?

PAUL: You know, I think it`s important that the Republican party not be
seen as a party that`s not welcoming and that wants new people.

I`ve said that we need to be a party that has – with earrings, without
earrings, with tattoos, without tattoos, black, white, brown, rich, poor.
We need to be a more diverse party.

If anything, that`s one of the faults of the Republican party, we`re not
diverse enough. When we become the old white man`s party, which we`ve been
kind of headed towards for a while, we`re never going to win another
election.

So I`m in the camp of saying, yes, we need to be careful of letting the
voice of the Republican party be someone who thinks that all immigrants are
rapists or
drug dealers.

HAYES: So this is – this is an endorsement of her approach last night,
which was at least rhetorically, sort of big tentish, not the loudest
voice.

PAUL: See, I would go even further, because I think that Trump is a
disaster
for the Republican party, and a disaster for the image that would cultivate
and bring new people in. But also for those who have a serious approach as
to how we
would defend the country.

One of the scariest things of the campaign that has been under reported,
not only did Trump not know what the nuclear triad was, that we have
missiles by air, land and sea, but a week later his spokesman said our
biggest problem is that we have not been willing enough to use our nuclear
arsenal. That should scare people to death.

Anybody that`s gotten beyond the third grade would say oh, my goodness, we
don`t want a president that is eager to use our nuclear arsenal, we want
one, Republican or Democrat, that reasonable and restrained and knows that
it`s a deterrent but we`re not eager to to use it by any means.

HAYES: Well, that sets up nicely what happened last night with the Iranian
situation. Which is – it was a hairy situation. It does appear the
American ship
actually went into Iranian waters. It`s still unclear if that`s definitive.
But it appears that way.

They were returned today, although videos released of them in violation of
some international law, in fact.

I saw a Republican party that was geared up, essentially, last night to go
to war with Iran. I mean – is that what you saw?

PAUL: It does scare me, because when I see a situation like this, my hope
is for peaceful resolving the situation.

But also looking for a silver lining. Do I trust Iran? Do I think it`s
right to parade our soldiers? No.

But do I think it`s a step forward that a country that we have such an
adversarial relationship with returned our soldiers and we didn`t begin a
war?
Absolutely.

HAYES: This is why you`re having a hard time in the Republican primary.
I`m serious.

That just – just saying that, no one wants to hear that.

PAUL: Well, it depends. There was an interesting poll in Iowa about a year
ago. They said, do you want to be more involved in foreign war like John
McCain or less involved like Rand Paul.

And I think that`s a good way to put it. I`m not saying never. I`m not
saying we don`t defend ourselves. I`m just saying, I want to be less than
involved in every damn Civil War in the whole world.

HAYES: Well, and here`s what I think is so interesting. Ted Cruz has
managed to marry the rhetorical flourishes of neo conservatism with
essentially a substantive argument about not getting involved with a lot of
things.

PAUL: He has been listening to me on the regime change idea, that it`s a
bad idea, but he needs to understand that most libertarian leaning people
like myself, we`re not excited about making the sand glow or carpet bombing
either, because the problem with carpet bombing, it implies indiscriminate
bombing and the problem for indiscriminate bombing is for every one you
kill, the ones that are maimed and left may well be the next generation of
terrorists.

HAYES: Let me ask about something in your home state.

Governor Matt Bevin, an ally of yours I think it`s fair to say, Tea Party
activist, now the governor, just announced he`s going to poll the state and
he`s going to shutter the state`s Obamacare connect.

My understanding of your theory of governance, you know, which I think
their is a lot to, is the government that`s closest to the people is best,
you want to
devolve back to the states as much as possible.

Here`s an opportunity where you`ve got this thing, it could be run by
Kentuckians or it could be run by the so-called bureaucrats in Washington,
and the Tea Party governor has decided to hand it over from Kentuckians and
give it to
Washington.

That makes no sense to me.

PAUL: Well, I guess we would see a third option. We would say the federal
government could control health care, the state government could control
health care or actually the marketplace to control health care.

HAYES: Right. But that`s not the choice right now. Obamacare is the law of
the land. You get two options. You`re the governor, you get to decide
whether the state runs it or federal government runs it.

PAUL: But that`s part of our objection to Obamacare and in fact, if I
could put all of my objections into one sentence, my objection to Obamacare
is that it made it illegal to purchase inexpensive insurance.

And I think it`s important for people to know that, because what happens
under Obamacare is, if I want a high deductible plan that covers nothing
but I want
an inexpensive plan, President Obama decided in advance I`m not smart
enough to make that decision.

HAYES: The Kentuckians though are still going to be dealing with
bureaucrats in Washington and not their fellow Kentuckians when they sign
up for Obamacare.

Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, candidate for the GOP presidential
nomination. Thank you very much.

PAUL: Thank you.

HAYES: Come back again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Coming up, the right way to overdrive (inaudible) President Obama
and offer a dangerously bellicose rhetoric over that incident with Iran
yesterday.

The ugly details, next.

(COMMERICAL BREAK)

HAYES: Kentucky clerk Kim Davis attended last night`s State of the Union
address, but up until late yesterday, exactly who had invited her remained
a mystery.
Turns out Davis, who was famously jailed after refusing to grant same-sex
couples marriage licenses was a guest of Ohio congressman Jim Jordan. But
as of Tuesday afternoon, Jordan himself had no idea he had invited her.

“I didn`t invite anyone”, he initially told the Huffington Post.

Later in the day, the Republican lawmaker amended those comments, noting
that Davis pretty much invited herself through the Family Research Council.

“I found out today,” Jordan said, “And I`m being totally honest with you,
the
Family Research Council asked us, her family wanted a ticket and we said
okay.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Early this morning, Iran released ten U.S. navy sailors within 24
hours of those sailors being detained after their two patrol boats drifted
in Iranian territorial waters.

Last night, soon after the detention of the sailors made news, and before
the details of the situation were frankly at all clear, the blame Obama
chorus on
the right was in full song.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: As far as provocative beyond it,
absolutely. Look, Iran is testing the boundaries of this administration`s
resolve.
And they know that the boundaries are pretty wide.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, THE WASHINGTON POST: The story is is that the United
States, in responding to bad actions, is doing nothing. The appeasement of
the highest order.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he will not confront them. You have to confront
people like this, you`ve got to punch them in the face and say, we`re the
United
States.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the fact that he feels that he is able to seize our
ships and sailors indicates the incredible weakness of the Obama-Clinton
foreign policy, and the fact that bullies and tyrants across the world are
not afraid of this president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Presidential candidate Jeb Bush tweeted at 6 pm last night, “if our
sailors aren`t coming home yet, they need to be now. No more bargaining.
Obama`s humiliatingly weak Iran policy is exposed again”.

Now that`s just a sampling of right wing rhetoric. Certainly, there are
some concerning aspects of this incident.

The Iranian video of U.S. sailors may display a violation of the Geneva
Convention, according to a state department spokesman.

NBC News does not know the circumstances under which it was shot. We do not
know if the sailors were asked to participate in the video under duress,
including an apology by one of the American sailors and/or if it was
released by the Iranians for propaganda reasons.

However, the open channels of communication between our secretary of state
and the Iranian foreign minister is being widely credited with the quick
resolution of the incident.

Left anyone forget, there are incidents that may be used as points of
comparison. In 2007, there was an arrest of 15 British marines by Iran`s
revolutionary guard navy, which led to 13-day standoff.

British marines ultimately released, interviewed on state television there.

In April, 2001, a mid air collision between the U.S. naval plane and
Chinese fight, at the start of President George W. term, led to 24 American
crew members being detained for 11 full days.

The Chinese dismantled the U.S. spy plane before shipping it back and
charged the U.S. $34,000 for costs, including room and board. The American
government even
apologized.

When we return, heated rhetoric versus reality.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Joining me now, NBC News contributor and Iranian American writer,
Hooman Majd, author of The Ministry of Guidance Invites You Not to Stay.
And American Family in Iran”, which is, by the way, a fantastic book.
Hooman, great to have you here.

Let me start with a video, which I got to say, for all the people in the
American political spectrum saying Iran is humiliating us, you look at the
video and it`s tough to watch that.

They were videotaping people under duress, hands up, this apology that is
clearly not – given under duress, they have been captured.

HOOMAN MAJD, AUTHER: No question. Iran sort of had the upper hand here
from – they`re right to detain these sailors.

HAYES: In terms of the territorial –

MAJD: And we would do the same to any hostile or foreign military ship
that came within our 12 mile.

But for them to do the video, there is no question they actually lost much
of the moral high ground that they may have had to begin with, yeah.

HAYES: What happened last night to me was just – it just shows how sort
of on tinder hooks this whole thing is. I mean, one of the arguments – so
there`s an argument that people made, which is that the only reason we got
the sailors back is because of this big money is going to come through as
the first part of the deal happens I think on Friday, if I`m not mistaken,
right? Which seems to cut both ways.

I`ve seen conservatives marshaling that to say, the deal is bad, but then
others saying that`s why we got them back, because the deal exists.

MAJD: Yes, it`s ironic in that sense, yes. I think that plays a part,
there`s no question. Neither Iran nor the United States want this deal to
fall
apart. This nuclear deal.

And the nuclear deal is a good deal. For America. It`s a very good deal for
America. You can argue it`s a very good deal for Iran, as well. But it is
certainly a very good deal for America.

Donald Trump talks about how we`re not getting anything. They`re getting
all this money. Well, the money is there`s. It`s been there`s, it`s just
been frozen.

What we`re getting is them shipping out a tremendous amount of nuclear
material. What we`re getting is them eliminating a heavy water nuclear
plant. That`s a lot. We`re getting a long lead time from a nuclear weapon.

So we are actually getting a lot.

What they`re getting is what they already had to begin with.

HAYES: Well, it`s funny you mention that, because I was at this Donald
Trump
event and talking to people, and I think people are under the impression
that the U.S. is writing a check for – really think we are writing a check
for $150 billion
to the Iranian regime, which if we were doing, I would find pretty
outrageous.

MAJD: That would be extortion. Then the Iranian regime would have extorted
for the United States.

The main thing with this is, it seems to me – the reaction yesterday from
the right wing and from the GOP, some of the GOP crazies was basically,
let`s go to war. I mean, as if Iran has no right to a territorial waters,
has no right to detain anyone who occupies –

HAYES: Or even to me, it`s like think through what that means. What does
all that rhetoric add up to, punch them in the face, confront them, stand
up to them.

MAJD: Iran is a bogeyman and Obama is for a lot of people. You put the two
together, Obama and Iran, it`s like attack. Let`s go on the attack.

HAYES: Would this have been resolved this quickly if Kerry and Zarif
didn`t have a relationship?

MAJD: No. No question about it. But I think the confidence that Kerry
showed yesterday, and that was very clear. The confidence that President
Obama showed – by the way, for people who are more hard lined and on the
American side, the confidence that the Pentagon showed, should have
indicated to everyone, that I think it`s under control.

I think they trusted the Iranians are going to do what they said.

HAYES: And the test was this morning, if they did, and they did.

MAJD: And also, the Iranians have come through with every promise they`ve
made on the nuclear deal, too. So that was another indication that we
should trust them on this.

HAYES: Hooman Majd, thank you very much.

That is All In for this evening. The Rachel Maddow Show starts now.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END

Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>