All In With Chris Hayes, Wednesday, May 8th, 2014

ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
May 8, 2014

Guest: Wendell Potter, Charlie Pierce, Andy Raymond, Mike Michaud, Sabrina
Joy Stevens, Randi Weingarten


CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris
Hayes.

Today was set to be an absolute dogfight on Capitol Hill. A very
highly anticipated, hotly contested, rock `em, sock `em partisan brawl over
Obamacare.

After all these years, with hearing after hearing, and 50-plus repeal
votes, after attempts to defund it right up to and including the government
shutdown, Republicans today were going to get their chance to stick it to
President Barack Obama in the confirmation hearing of the woman to succeed
Kathleen Sebelius as the head of the Health and Human Services, OMB
Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: But in my view, what the confirmation
should really be as an opportunity to examine the failures of Obamacare and
how people are hurting because of it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But Republican opposition to the health care law
could mean a tougher time this go-around.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is still going to be painful for the
administration to go through every detail of Obamacare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republican minority leader, Senator Mitch
McConnell, says we should expect the conversation about Obamacare`s
shortcomings during confirmation hearings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: God love her. I don`t know why she would want
to do that, Chris. But is she going to have trouble getting confirmed to
this position?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These confirmation hearings are going to be a goat
roping. You mark that down.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

HAYES: Oh, we`ve marked it down, goat roping, though I don`t know
what it means.

And here was the dramatic packed room beginning to the Burwell
hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have convened this hearing to consider the
nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell, to be the next secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Can you hear the goats? Can you feel the drama?

No, you`re not seeing things. Not too many people showed you up for
the goat roping of Sylvia Mathews Burwell. In fact, it was serene with one
of her chief supporters being none other than Republican Senator John
McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Regardless of my objections to the
Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services need
competent leadership in the position of secretary. I believe Ms. Burwell
has the qualifications to run HHS and having assured that she will work
with members of Congress as she has as director of OMB. I recommend
strongly Ms. Burwell and hope the committee will endorse her nomination.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So that happened. Well, that`s sort of strange although, if
you had been paying attention to the Republican attempt to cross raid from
Obamacare to something else, it wouldn`t necessarily surprise you, but
because they are trying to very subtly move two different levers on the
rhetorical switchboard at the same time, it`s easy not to notice.

In just one day before, there was actually a similar scene. This
time, Republican-controlled House was holding a subcommittee hearing with a
bunch of insurance company executives. But exits on the Republican side
allowed multiple Democrats to speak in a row and let heavy Democratic
criticism of Republicans go unanswered.

There was a dearth of lawmakers on the left side of the rostrum and a
full bench on the right. As Republicans grew bored and left the hearing,
Democrats held sway to get to the bottom of how many Americans were paying
their Obamacare premiums. Was it 67 percent as Republicans have
prematurely reported, or was it far higher?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: On the exchange, 85 percent of the people paid,
is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For 2-1-2014, 86 percent paid, correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For 3-1-2014, 88percent paid, is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And for 4-1-2014, 83 percent paid, is that
correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And you`re still waiting for everybody else to
pay because their deadline has not passed yet, is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s correct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So, it turns out people are paying of the Republicans who
managed to stick around for the hearing, well, were getting a bit
frustrated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Identify any states where you are offering
products in the exchanges where consumers can expect a premium decrease.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this juncture we do not have the information.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don`t have the information? A lot of
uncertainty floating around out there.

OK. Mr. Ivanco (ph), so you don`t know if your consumers are going to
see any decreases. You know they were promised decreases.

I thought that reading your reports you all did analysis and trend
lines for the near term, the midterm and the long term. Has anybody done
any kind of analysis?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So what were Republicans focused on now that they were no
longer getting any traction on Obamacare? Now that they are slowly,
gently, kind of sadly backing away from something that is working for
millions of people.

After all, Republicans are not passing immigration reform. They`re
not hard at work passing legislation to end workplace discrimination. You
know what they`re doing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: And we will not take
any shortcuts to the truth, accountability, or justice. And we will not
allow any side shows that distract us from those goals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: House Speaker John Boehner announcing on the House floor today
how the select committee on Benghazi will not allow any side shows. Of
course not. The great Obamacare/Benghazi crossfade (ph) of 2014 is
happening right before our eyes.

The early plan for Republicans to run on the failure of Obamacare has
collapsed underneath them and they are searching for something to replace
it. They`ve decided Benghazi is that thing.

So, while Republicans can barely be bothered to stick around on health
care, just hours ago, the House passed resolution to establish a select
committee on Benghazi largely along party lines. And almost every one of
the 230-plus House Republicans is clamoring to be among the seven members
placed on that Benghazi select committee that will be chaired by Trey
Gowdy. Trey Gowdy, who you`ll recall, said Republicans shouldn`t be fund-
raising off four dead Americans, once again putting Republican leaders,
Speaker Boehner, in between his revved up base and common human decency.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Four Americans died in Benghazi. Should the NRCC fundraise
off of your efforts to the select committee?

BOEHNER: Our focus is on getting the answers to those families who
lost their loved ones, period.

REPORTER: But the campaign committee which you are very involved in
is fund-raising off of this. Why is that happening?

BOEHNER: Our focus is on getting the truth for the American people
and these four families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: If elected, Republican understand one thing, they understand
where the energy of the base is. And their behavior is always a great way
to figure out what the base is exercised about and what they`re not that
into.

And what this is saying to everyone is that the base is no longer so
worked up about Obamacare. It`s working. And as it does, little by
little, each day with each small banal fact of people getting insurance, it
shrinks as a political target.

And so, Republicans need something new. If you don`t believe the GOP
politicians are the best weather vane for which way the Tea Party winds are
blowing, how about Roger Ailes over at FOX News, the person who probably
better than any single human being on earth can almost mystical sense the
anxieties of his core audience.

Well, there it is -- FOX News programming on these two topics, the
Obamacare/Benghazi crossfade at FOX News in one graph.

Joining me now, Wendell Potter, former head of communications with
Cigna Health Insurance Company.

And, Wendell, are you surprised by both the sort of substantive
success for seeing Obamacare and enrolling people, and the slow back-away
from it as a political target by Republicans?

WENDELL POTTER, FORMER HEALTH INSURANCE EXECUTIVE: Not at all. I saw
that the health insurance industry was going to be having this kind of
information as we`ve been watching the enrollment figures over the past
several weeks. Keep in mind that the insurance industry during the health
care reform debate, they were siding with the Republicans. They wanted to
just spread this fear of uncertainty and doubt, and I might note that
Congresswoman Blackburn from Tennessee, my home state of Tennessee, used
that word, with which is at the core of their campaign to try to confuse
people about the Affordable Care Act.

But the numbers are telling a different story and that`s what we`re
going to be seeing, I think, between now and November.

HAYES: Well, that was what was fascinating about that hearing
yesterday, the kind of curtain raising moment Republicans hyped this
report. The insurance companies have said, don`t go with this data. It`s
shoddy. And they were all prepared to have their big political moment in
the sun. And the insurance executives who have been on both sides of
Obamacare at different times came out and said actually, yes, people are
paying.

POTTER: That`s exactly right. And we`ve been -- I`ve been saying
this -- I`ve been watching the analyst reports for health insurance
companies as they`ve been releasing earnings. They`ve been doing very well
-- thank you -- since the health care law was passed. Their earnings have
been almost off the charts in many cases as more people are signing up --
which, you know, it makes the argument this was a government takeover of
health care all that more ridiculous because private insurance companies
are doing quite well.

HAYES: So, are Republicans just going to walk away from this and this
will end up being something that two, three years from now is no longer a
central political issue?

POTTER: I think they will after the midterm elections because it will
continue to dissipate as a campaign issue for them. But they`re heavily
invested in this and I think you will see certainly in some districts and
some states that they will keep this up.

Once again, it will be a campaign based on fear, uncertainty and
doubt, and it will be important for the Democrats to dispel that and to
remind people of what is in this law that benefits every one of us.

HAYES: Every day that more people are enrolled in had it, it gets
easier to make that case.

Wendell Potter, former health insurance executive -- thank you very
much.

POTTER: Thank you.

HAYES: All right. We are heading into the last two years of a two-
term incumbent Democratic president, with which means we`re at the peak
scandal point of the political cycle. So, while independent counsel Ken
Starr on this day 16 years ago was in full Lewinsky mode and while then
President Bill Clinton`s secretary testified before the grand jury for a
third time on this day 16 years ago, the Republican focus on scandal proved
disastrous for House Republicans who ended up against all odds losing seats
in the midterm election.

By comparison, how much do Republicans really hope to be benefit from
Benghazi?

Joining me now, Charlie Pierce, writer at large for "Esquire" magazine
and political blogger for Esquire.com.

Charlie, do you see any parallels here? I`ve been saying the whole
time they`re not that dumb, they`re not that dumb, they`re not going to go
through this again. I`m beginning to question what I thought before.

CHARLIE PIERCE, ESQUIRE: Well, I mean, it takes a while to get the
kangaroo suits out of mothballs. I do think -- I do think they understand
the dynamic and I do think they have short-term political goals that have
blinded them to long-term political liabilities which is basically what
happened in 1998.

HAYES: That`s right. They -- what happened in 1998, and here is
where I see the replay, they started creating these institutions and bodies
that had their own gravitational pull and momentum and once you had the
independent counsel, then it kind of got out of everybody`s hands pretty
quickly. I mean, there were some people urging it on.

And to me, that`s the danger -- that`s the real danger by John Boehner
about this select committee is. You start getting subcommittees, you get
stonewalling, you get, you know, invocations of executive privilege, you
got FOX fanning the flames, and the next thing you know you`re on the road
to escalating.

PIERCE: Yes. Well, that`s the thing. When you compare the Obamacare
issue and the Benghazi issue -- I shudder to call it an issue but let`s
call it that for argument`s sake -- it`s a lot easier to do the Benghazi
issue because you can make it up.

HAYES: Right.

PIERCE: You can make up the numbers on Obamacare but sooner or later,
math is going to crush you. You can make up anything you want about the
Benghazi thing, and if the president withholds one e-mail, it`s no longer
about Benghazi. It`s about what are they hiding? And you get another two
weeks out of that.

HAYES: And it`s the meta scandal, of course, which is the other part
of it that is reminiscent of the Clinton years was before we got to Monica
Lewinsky and the impeachment and people remember and some people may not
remember, there was this carousel of scandals, that it was about raising
money in the Buddhist temple, it was about Hillary Clinton`s investment in
cattle futures, it was about everything, it was about travel gate.

And eventually, they got somewhere and that`s what`s similar to me
also about Benghazi, is that what the scandal is keeps changing.

PIERCE: Well, there was a memorable moment, I`ll never forget it, in
a congressional hearing when Ken Starr came before a House committee and
was being questioned, I think much to his unhappiness by Barney Frank.

And Ken Starr admitted that there wasn`t anything on Whitewater.
There wasn`t anything on travel-gate. There wasn`t anything on the cattle
futures. There wasn`t anything on the billing records. There wasn`t
anything on the suicide of Vince Foster.

I think Barney looked at him and said something like, it would have
been nice if you told us that a year and a half ago.

HAYES: Yes, well, that`s exactly right.

Charlie Pierce from "Esquire," thanks always for your time, man.

PIERCE: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: Last week, we met Andy Raymond, the Maryland gun dealer who
wanted to sell the personalized Armatix iP1, the nation`s first smart gun.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY RAYMOND, MARYLAND GUN DEALER: This is all about freedom. It
really is, man. So, even when the NRA, the bastion of great freedom, they
say this should be prohibited, how hypocritical is that?

They`re bowing down to fear, bro. It`s cowardice. They`re afraid, so
they bow down to that. And that is cowardice.

That is not what people who stand for freedom do. You stand up and
you fight for what you believe. You do not bow down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: After word got out about his position, he got death threats
and he ended up changing his mind about the smart gun. Andy joins me again
tonight, this time from his gun shop, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMOND: I said, yes, I agree with the thing on principle, OK? If
someone wants to buy a smart gun, that is fine. That is their right. OK?
When the law legislates it, that is a sin. That is God awful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Gun shop owner who wanted to provide somewhere people could
buy the smart gun, specifically the personalized Armatix iP1. He later
retracted his decision after massive blowback. He will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: It has now been three days since our special report on that
digital smart gun that could be a potential game changer that cannot be
purchased anywhere in America. It has been three days since New Jersey
Senate majority leader, Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat, a longtime gun
control advocate, came on the show, and made a truly remarkable offer to
compromise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STATE SEN. LORETTA WEINBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: If the NRA, the gun
owners of America, those people who have stood in the way not only of the
retail sales, they have also gone after gun manufacturers --

HAYES: Yep.

LORETTA: -- who were beginning to develop other technology other than
Armatix, that if they would, in fact, get out of the way of preventing the
research, development, and manufacture, distribution and sale, I would move
to repeal this law in the state of New Jersey.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Weinberg is offering it to repeal the law she helped write
more than a decade ago, a law that mandates once smart guns like the
Armatix digital handgun that I tried out last week at a Maryland gun range,
a gun that can only be fired by an authorized user with a special watch,
that once a gun like that goes on sale anywhere in the country, New Jersey
gun sellers must eventually take all other guns off the shelves and only
sell smart guns.

The law was designed to encourage the development of safer, smarter
guns that could save lives. But for Second Amendment activists, it served
as proof the government wanted to use smart guns to take traditional guns
away. Two different gun store owners who planned to sell the smart gun
were bullied and intimidated into reversing course.

I met one of them last week, Andy Raymond, staunchly pro-gun
conservative who told me bringing smart guns to the market was all about
freedom. But it was subsequently decided not to sell them after he
received death threats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMOND: We will not sell the Armatix pistol. I will not be part of
anyone (EXPLETIVE DELETED) over anyone when it comes to guns. I believe my
principles were correct. Unfortunately, maybe I was wrong. I don`t know.
So, the people of New Jersey, my apologies. You have nothing to worry
about from me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Andy Raymond, like Loretta Weinberg, was trying to find common
ground, trying to make a little bit of progress in this intractable war of
attrition that is American gun politics.

The National Rifle Association has simply not engaged. We have tried
over and over again to get someone are from the NRA to come on the show and
respond to the offer to say whether the NRA will stop blocking smart gun
technology in repeal for the New Jersey law. The NRA just will not come to
the table. It will not accept the olive branch. It will not even
acknowledge the olive branch has been extended.

And so, right now, it remains impossible to buy a smart gun anywhere
in this country thanks in part to an organization that claims to stand for
Americans having the right to buy whatever gun they want.

Joining me now from his store in Maryland is Andy Raymond, co-owner of
Engage Armament, this time, sans Marlboro and bourbon.

Andy, how are you doing?

RAYMOND: I`m doing OK, boss. How are you doing?

HAYES: I`m doing well. I wanted to check in on you because it was
sort of remarkable after we had that conversation to watch the trajectory
of what happened, to read your Facebook page, which we were all reading and
the ugliness and nastiness that was on the Facebook page, to watch your
video about the decision you made to not sell the gun.

And I`m curious what the reaction has been after that after we did the
piece and in the wake of this whole fallout.

RAYMOND: Well, in the wake of all of this, actually things have been
pretty positive. I got a lot of e-mails from a lot of people, I mean,
including the people I wanted to reach originally with this gun, fence
sitters, anti-gun people. And I`ve even gotten e-mails from some pro-gun
people, you know, saying you have every right to sell what you want to
sell. That`s what I do. I`m a gun dealer.

So, I thought that was pretty cool. I haven`t gotten a lot of
negativity in the past few days and that`s been really refreshing.

HAYES: You know, you and I -- I thought we had a really good
conversation. We`ve exchanged e-mails. And, obviously, we`re coming at
the gun issue from very, very different sides of it.

But one of the things I found worrisome or disturbing about what went
down was that it`s one thing to argue about policy, but there was this real
ugliness unleashed. You had that moment on the video where you said, hey,
pro-gun people, how about not calling people up with death threats. And I
wonder if your view of some of the darkness that is in the pro-gun movement
has changed in response to seeing that ugliness up front.

RAYMOND: It has. You know, I think guns are one of the most divisive
things we have in this country to a certain degree. And, unfortunately, so
few people kind of work on it. It`s either -- it`s a black and white
issue, I guess, to so many people.

But, you know, it really brings out the best of people and the worst
of people when we talk about this sort of stuff. I just -- I clearly ran
into a lot of the worst of that. But, yes, it`s definitely disheartening
from people when I thought of this community and whatnot and everybody is
calling for my head that, yeah, it definitely made me rethink a little bit
about what I was doing and what I`m doing here and what I`m hoping to
accomplish, what I`m dedicating my life to. Do you know what I mean?

HAYES: Do you consider yourself dedicating your life to -- I mean,
you have a business but to me it always struck me that it`s bigger than
that. It`s a cause for you.

RAYMOND: It is, it is. That`s why I`m here. You know, I mean, to a
certain degree, yes. It is a paycheck and it`s important to me.

But, you know, we deal with so much anti-gun sentiment and these
messed up laws here in Maryland. I mean, it`s almost a point for me to
fight it. I don`t want to lose and I don`t want to back down and that`s
sort of how I am.

So, yes, I do this to a certain degree because I also believe in it.

HAYES: What do you think of -- we were sort of amazed when we called
Loretta Weinberg and she said, you know what, how about we come to some
middle ground on this? And I said to you when we were in that range, and I
said, you know what? I`ve been persuaded this New Jersey mandate law is
bad law. You don`t mandate something 10 years ahead of market.

What do you think of Loretta Weinberg`s offer?

RAYMOND: Chris, that was the most -- that was exactly what I`m trying
to get at with this whole thing is that you, a guy I would consider anti-
gun, cool guy. Don`t get me wrong. You`re my buddy -- but a guy I would
consider anti-gun, Senator Weinberg -- you guys are actually sitting there
talking about repealing an anti-gun law, OK?

That is the common ground we found with this. OK? We were able to
say, hey, this law is actually against the free market. It`s against the
principles of the Second Amendment. However you want to say it. We were
able to find common ground on this.

And how amazing was that when you had Senator Weinberg say, I will --
I will repeal it, this law, I mean, under certain conditions but that is --
that is progress, man. That is what we were trying to do with this whole
thing was trying to reach out across the aisle, so to speak, and get fence
sitters and anti-gunners, kind of -- we can kind of work together on this
stuff. And --

HAYES: The obstacle we have now is the fact we cannot -- I literally
want to talk to someone from the NRA on the show. You can maybe, you know,
vouch for me that I`m not going to jump down their throat or make them look
bad, because it does seem to me let`s try to follow through on that and we
just can get nothing from them.

RAYMOND: Well, it is -- you have to understand from the pro-gun
standpoint this technology is kind of dangerous. There is a law in New
Jersey, you know, mandating this stuff is -- she did offer to repeal it,
but there is a law on the books. So, yes, that sort of stuff -- this sort
of technology is dangerous when you`re talking from a pro-gun standpoint.

But the fight we need to make is not against the technology. The
fight we need to make is against legislation.

HAYES: Right.

RAYMOND: You know what I`m saying? I don`t know why -- I would also
think the NRA is about free market and stuff like that, too. I would -- I
don`t know what to say about that. I`m not a member.

But, yes. I mean, they should have at least come on and talked to
Senator Weinberg and at least thanked her -- you know what I`m talking
about -- reaching across the aisle again.

HAYES: Yes. That`s what we`re looking for. That`s what we do at ALL
IN.

Andy Raymond, co-owner of Engage Armament, who is a great guy, if you
ever want to go to a range, a great guy to go with. Thank you, Andy.

RAYMOND: Thanks, brother. Be safe.

HAYES: You too.

RAYMOND: New details tonight on just who is investigating the botched
execution in Oklahoma and how close they are to the governor who ordered
that same execution, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Remember New Jersey Governor Chris Christie`s comically
transparent attempt to investigate himself and clear his name of any
wrongdoing in the bridge-gate scandal? Well, that strategy seems to be
becoming a trend now. But this time, there are far, far more serious
stakes and dire consequences.

The day after the horrific botched execution of convicted murderer
Clayton Lockett this month, died of a heart attack 43 minutes after
receiving a totally untested lethal injection cocktail, Oklahoma Governor
Mary Fallin who, as we have reported, went to extreme lengths to put this
man to death, made an announcement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. MARY FALLIN (R), OKLAHOMA: I have also asked the Department of
Public Safety and our commissioner, Michael Thompson, to lead an
independent review of the state`s execution procedures.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Independent review.

Well, it turns out that independent review is anything but. The man
Mary Fallin appointed to spear head it, Michael Thompson, is, as she said,
the commissioner of the state`s Department of Public Safety, but that
department -- quote -- "reports to her" within the executive branch, and
Thompson is a former employee of the Department of Corrections, which also
reports to Fallin, the same Department of Corrections that carried out
Lockett`s execution.

And that`s not all. "The Oklahoman" reports that Thompson -- quote --
"was at the lethal injection in an official capacity."

The man tasked with evaluating the state`s execution protocol because
of a botched execution that may have resulted directly from Fallin`s
flouting the law, disregarding Oklahoma`s Supreme Court when it ordered her
to temporarily halt Lockett`s and another inmate`s executions, that man not
only reports to her, works for her, used to work for the very same
department he`s investigating, and is a material witness to the very
execution that prompted this entire thing.

So, Mary Fallin, we see what you`re doing there in Oklahoma. You are
not fooling anyone. And this entire mess deserves a genuine, independent,
thorough investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Ever since the infamous "Time for some traffic problems in
Fort Lee" e-mail went public, Chris Christie has been tasked with challenge
of winning back the governor`s political future.

Imagine working up every morning working for the guy whose
administration is under five, count them, five, state and federal
investigations, thinking, how do we get the gov back on track?

Perhaps you might be tempted to try to use Christie`s high-profile
national position as chairman of the Republicans Governor Association. As
head of the RGA, Christie could find a really beloved fellow governor and
do some photo-opping and some coattail-riding.

If he could just throw his arms around a really popular Republican
politician, it might just remind everyone how popular Chris Christie used
to be. Sounds like a decent plan, right?

Well, that`s almost what Chris Christie did this week, except instead
of a really popular, beloved fellow Republican, he decided to appear in
public with this guy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the governor declined invitations to the
NAACP`s annual Martin Luther King Breakfast Monday, as well as a special
dinner Sunday night, Portland chapter President Rachel Talbot Ross
expressed concern that LePage had repeatedly declined the organization`s
invitations.

A reporter asked the governor his thoughts.

QUESTION: And what`s your response to them saying this is more than
just one instance, but rather a pattern?

GOV. PAUL LEPAGE (R), MAINE: Tell them to kiss my butt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: He seems nice.

Yes, that`s right. Governor Christie went to the great state of Maine
this week to campaign for the massively unpopular Tea Party Governor Paul
LePage, who, as you just saw, started his tenure in 2011 by telling the
NAACP to kiss his butt and who, shockingly, is among the most endangered
Republicans in 2014.

And Christie didn`t just campaign with Paul "Kiss my butt" LePage. He
made sure to let everyone know that Chris Christie and Paul LePage are just
two peas in a pod.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: The one thing they can`t say
about LePage and I is that we sound like everybody else. We don`t, because
we tell the truth. We say what we think. We`re very direct.

And the only people who don`t like that are the people who don`t agree
with our opinion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Well, that`s right. They are very direct. And sometimes
people don`t like it, for instance, the fine folks at the NAACP, who would
rather not kiss Paul LePage`s butt, as instructed.

But why stop there? Colin Woodard came out with the excellent
catalogue earlier this year of Paul LePage being direct over the years,
like the time he defended his decision the reverse the state`s ban on the
chemical BPA in baby bottles -- quote -- by saying with a smirk, "The worst
that could happen was that some women may have little beards," or when he
told Maine students -- quote -- "If you want a good education, go to
private schools. If you can`t afford it, tough luck. You can go to public
school."

Or that time he was sitting in a fighter jet simulator and joked he
wanted to blow up a local newspaper building, or those two times he
compared the IRS to the Nazis.

Chris Christie is right. Paul LePage doesn`t sound like everybody
else. Maybe that`s a good thing.

Joining me now, Michael Michaud of Maine, who is running for governor
this year against Paul LePage.

And, Congressman, here`s my question. Every time I hear about Paul
LePage and his antics up there, I think what the heck are they doing up
there in Maine? What is going on?

(LAUGHTER)

HAYES: I`m serious. What is going on in your state? You guys have
such a reputation for being sensible and just carefully considered and
independent. How did this happen?

(LAUGHTER)

REP. MIKE MICHAUD (D), MAINE: Well, good evening, Chris.

Well, Maine is an incredible state. And Mainers have a lot to offer.
It`s, unfortunately, because of our governor, that we`re on the late-night
TV shows with some of the comments that he`s made. That`s not what Maine
is all about.

Maine cares about one another. Mainers are there. We`re a
progressive state. And the fact the governor has come up with some of the
comments like "NAACP, kiss my butt" type of comments, that`s not what
Mainers are about. Mainers care about everyone.

And that`s one of the reasons why I`m running for governor, Chris, is
because I have been able over the years in both the legislature and in
Congress, been able it to work across the aisle, work out issues and
respect people, even if you disagree with them, still respect their
opinions. And that`s one thing our governor does not do.

HAYES: So, yes. So, the respect is clearly an issue.

Let`s put aside the kind of verbal aggressiveness. What`s the record
been for Paul LePage in Maine over these last four years?

MICHAUD: Well, his record has been terrible.

You look at this governor, he`s issued more vetoes than any other
governor. It`s very clear he doesn`t know how to govern. And the fact
that he`s vetoed bills that have bipartisan support -- a good example is
the expansion under the Affordable Care Act for the 70,000 Mainers for
Medicaid.

It was a bipartisan compromise, Republicans and Democrats, and he`s
vetoed it a couple of times. And that`s wrong.

HAYES: Right. We put up this map. We put up this map on my show all
the time. It`s all the states not expanding Medicaid. And there`s this
one state that sticks out like a sore thumb, where you think to yourself
how, of all the places, Maine, for the love of God, that you`re not
expanding Medicaid?

Is that issue a big issue in the campaign?

MICHAUD: Oh, it definitely will be a big issue. The governor feels
comfortable that Mainers do not want to expand it. An overwhelming
majority of Mainers do want expansion under the Affordable Care Act.

And, as governor, on day one, I will submit legislation to expand
access for the 70,000 Mainers that this governor has denied access to
because of his vetoes.

HAYES: OK. So, I don`t find the guy particularly appealing. But
someone does. The guy got elected.

What`s the Paul LePage appeal?

MICHAUD: Well, actually, if you look at how he got elected, there
were five individuals in that race.

And he got elected by a minority of votes of Mainers. And the fact
that this race is primarily a two-person race between the governor and
myself, I feel really good where I`m at today. We have been leading in all
the polls. And we will be debating the issues.

HAYES: Congressman Michael Michaud, who has never told me or anyone
else, so far as I know, to kiss his butt, gubernatorial candidate for
Maine, thank you so much.

All right, what could possibly Louis C.K. and put Ted Cruz on the same
side? The answer when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: One quick programming note.

Tomorrow night, we`re going to be broadcasting live from Atlanta. I
will be at the Sweet Auburn Springfest. So, if you`re in the area, please
come by at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. Watch the show in person.

Go to MSNBC.com/growinghope for more information. I`m excited to see
you in the flesh.

We will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: It is one of the most confusing, controversial issues in the
entire nation, and it`s percolating at the grassroots level, making its way
onto the national stage.

It`s the Common Core, a set of national educational standards for our
kids, and it sounds benign enough. But to many on the right, it is
anything but.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, Abraham Lincoln a liberal? That`s what
one Common Core-aligned math curriculum is set to teach your kids.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think it`s one of the basic lies about Common
Core that somehow it was state-led and voluntary.

GLENN BECK, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, "THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM": It`s
insidious, and we are not dealing with flesh and bone. We are not dealing
with that. We are dealing with evil.

HAYES (voice-over): Across the country, conservatives are rising up
against something they call Obamacore, known to everyone else as the Common
Core.

Mainstream Republicans are railing against the standards, while fringe
elements of the right wing peddle conspiracies of an end of our education
system as we know it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is total takeover. Two plus two equals five.
Teach 5-year-olds how to be transgender. If they can get away with that,
they can do anything. That`s what this is.

HAYES: States and parents are being urged to opt out. In March,
Indiana`s Republican governor became the first to sign a law getting rid of
Common Core, and around 100 bills to stop, slow, or reverse the Common Core
have been introduced in state legislatures this year alone. If you`re a
Republican, Common Core is toxic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s very unlikely that a supporter of the Common
Core will be the Republican nominee in 2016.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Jeb Bush is one of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.

HAYES: So, what is the Common Core and why is it so scary? Simply
put, it is a set of national standards for what kids should know in each
grade.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: While there`s no required curriculum, Common
Core does two basic things. It raises academic standards nationwide. And,
for the first time, an A will mean the same thing for students everywhere.

HAYES: That may seem harmless, but it is shaping up to be one of the
most politically explosive issues of our time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Across the country, opposition is mounting
against a new set of higher academic standards known as the Common Core,
which many teachers say are being imposed too quickly.

HAYES: Children are stressed out and parents are upset. Goofy exam
questions are going viral on Facebook, and it all blew up in the last few
weeks when parent and comedian Louis C.K. went on a Twitter rant against
Common Core and showed up on "Letterman."

DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST, "LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN": What are the
consequences of the standardized testing?

LOUIS C.K., COMEDIAN: Well, the way I understand it is that schools,
kids don`t test well, they burn the school down.

(LAUGHTER)

LETTERMAN: Wow.

LOUIS C.K.: So, it`s pretty high-pressure.

LETTERMAN: A lot of pressure on the kids.

LOUIS C.K.: Yes.

LETTERMAN: Wow.

LOUIS C.K.: And the tests are written by people that nobody knows who
they are. It`s very secretive.

HAYES: So how did we get here? In America, what kids learn in a
classroom has traditionally been determined by states and local school
districts. But for decades, reformers have seen this as a weakness.

In the 1990s, President Clinton made the case for national standards.

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Tonight, I issue
a challenge to the nation. Every state should adopt high national
standards. And by 1999, every state should test every fourth grader in
reading and every eighth grader in math to make sure these standards are
met.

HAYES: Yet, with the Republican-controlled Congress, those policy
proposals were met with resistance. But then came this guy.

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As of this
hour, America`s schools will be on a new path of reform and a new path of
results.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

HAYES: No Child Left Behind tied federal money to standardized
testing.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, ANCHOR, "NBC NIGHTLY NEWS": It turns out now, three
years after this law was passed, a growing chorus of critics say it`s
leaving the states and local school systems behind by requiring expensive
testing, but not paying for it.

HAYES: But it left the testing design to the states. So states could
do one of two things, raise their students` performance or lower the bar
they had to clear by making the tests easier. Guess which one they started
doing?

Education reformers then sought to create national standards that
everyone would adhere to. A bipartisan coalition of groups, including the
National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School
Officers, with money from the Gates Foundation, hired a private company to
help write and research what would become the nation`s first Common Core
standards.

Enter Barack Obama`s signature education proposal.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: With the Race to the
Top fund, we will reward states that come together and adopt a common set
of standards and assessments.

HAYES: Race to the Top worked with carrots, rather than sticks,
dangling tons of federal money in front of the states that adopted the
Obama administration`s education guidelines. And while Common Core wasn`t
required, states knew adopting the standards would help them get that
money.

Oh, and one more thing. Teacher evaluations would be tied to students
meeting these new standards. As of today, 44 states plus the District of
Columbia have adopted the Common Core standards. But very few parents in
those states know the long, checkered history of national standards. The
way Common Core has been introduced into most people`s homes is in the form
of a stressed-out kid laboring over a new set of problems for yet another
standardized test.

LOUIS C.K.: I`m there for them in those moments. And I go, come on,
just look at the problem. And then I look at the problems, and it`s like,
Bill has three goldfish. He buys two more. How many dogs live in London?
Or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)

HAYES: Right now, we are in the midst of an attempt to change
education for millions and millions of kids in this country. The only
problem, no one is being told what is going on.

To many teachers, it means yet another attack after decades of reform
that have targeted them. To parents, it means stressed-out kid in an era
of high-stakes testing. And for some of America`s right wing, it`s all an
insidious plot for Obama to get into your child`s mind.

HAYES: So we`re going to have a debate between pro- and anti-Common
Core advocates ahead.

Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: It`s a pejorative term, by the
way, to call something Obamacore amongst conservatives. And that`s exactly
where we are.

But if people don`t recognize that dumbed-down standards are going to
achieve -- yield the same result that we have had, then we`re real really
missing the chance to move forward as a country. So I`m totally committed
to this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Joining me now, the president of the American Federation for
Teachers, Randi Weingarten, and the founder of the Integrity in Education,
Sabrina Joy Stevens, who was an elementary schoolteacher.

And you guys, I wanted to have you both here because you`re on
different -- different sides of this issue on the Common Core. And what I
think is interesting about the Common Core -- I`m just looking at our
INNers feed -- is that people are all over the map on it.

I mean, across the -- you got Ted Cruz and Louis C.K. and you have got
different -- you have got sort of lefty teacher folks who hate it and you
have got Alex Jones on his radio show. He hates it. You have got Jeb Bush
who likes it, and Barack Obama likes it.

What is the case for it? Why do you support Common Core standards,
Randi Weingarten?

RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS: So,
even I don`t support it the way it`s implemented right now in New York, and
wish that New York had done what we suggested last year, which was a
moratorium on the stakes of the test.

HAYES: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: That first wave is crossing, which is part of the reason this
is blowing up in living rooms across the country.

WEINGARTEN: Right, exactly.

And what you`re seeing is that, in California, where they did do that,
and gave teachers a chance to really get to know what -- this transition,
you don`t have that kind of...

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: All right, but defend the principle, defend the idea.

WEINGARTEN: So, the idea was that there is some knowledge that kids
need to know and be able to do.

To be able, these days, to have middle-class jobs in America, you have
to be able to critically think and apply knowledge, not just know things.

HAYES: Right.

WEINGARTEN: And so it was taking -- moving away from the rote
memorization of No Child Left Behind, which really did for 20 years create
basically rote memorization.

And it was moving towards something that I have seen in New York City
a lot and that I used to teach when I was a high school teacher, which is
how do you do actually the Socratic method in high school social studies?

HAYES: All right, so I`m going to stop you there, because I think
this is important, right? No Child Left Behind, we get this -- the
introduction of high-stakes testing. It goes across the nation. There`s a
sense people get about teaching to the test, just kind of cramming.

WEINGARTEN: Exactly.

HAYES: Common Core, among some people, was seen as kind of an
antidote to that, right...

WEINGARTEN: Exactly.

HAYES: ... which is that, like, the idea is, yes, you should be able
to do these kind of critical thinking skills. Everyone in second grade
should be able to do this. Everyone in third grade should be able to do
this.

And we`re going to -- you distribute it. You have 44 states who have
signed on. So, what`s the problem? That sounds good to me.

SABRINA JOY STEVENS, INTEGRITY IN EDUCATION: Well, so here`s the
thing. And that`s interesting.

So, as Randi just mentioned, before Common Core, she did a lot of
really great things in her classroom. She did in-depth teaching and things
like that. All of that was possible before. What was holding people back,
number one, is a lack of resources, and, number two, a lack of freedom,
especially once high-stakes testing came in and there was that increased
pressure to teach to the test.

So that`s been the core issue in schools in terms of not teaching to
high standards and not teaching critical thinking, is this requirement to
really teach down to, what can we fill in the a bubble? What can we show
on a fill-in-the-bubble test?

(CROSSTALK)

WEINGARTEN: Exactly.

STEVENS: And so the issue here that many of us have is that we didn`t
need necessarily different standards.

And so where did this push for standards come from? The two
organizations that created this were -- their education work of the
National Governors Association and Council for State Chief Officers -- is
their education work is heavily underwritten by testing companies and by
curriculum-builders.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

STEVENS: And so it`s -- this is part and parcel of the
commodification of education that a lot of people have a problem with.

WEINGARTEN: This is the one place I disagree with Sabrina, because I
totally agree with her bit that the testing has totally overtaken the
teaching, and, frankly, the commodification has overtaken everything.

HAYES: Right.

WEINGARTEN: But this is where...

HAYES: And by commodification, and I just want -- so people
understand, like this...

(CROSSTALK)

WEINGARTEN: Market, market, market of everything.

HAYES: Market, market, market, kind of growth of the test prep
industry, the degree to which you have what I call the education industrial
complex...

WEINGARTEN: Exactly.

HAYES: ... which is managing both for-profit and non-for-profit, lots
of billions of dollars floating around public education.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINGARTEN: Exactly.

HAYES: Right.

WEINGARTEN: And so the fact that this became about testing, not about
teaching, has made it really terrible.

But this is where I disagree. The -- when you go to Alabama, when you
go to -- even Texas has not adopted Common Core...

HAYES: Right.

WEINGARTEN: We`re 60 years after Brown vs. Board of Education. And
all of the civil rights groups, from LCCR, from NAACP, the National Urban
League, what they have said -- and that`s been very compelling to me...

HAYES: Right.

WEINGARTEN: ... is that the only way we`re going to break through
equity is if we create some access to these higher standards for kids in
Alabama, for kids in Buffalo.

But Sabrina is quite right. You can`t do it in a vacuum. You can`t
just say, OK, here`s the standards. Do nothing. You have to have the
resources to work it.

STEVENS: And can I...

HAYES: Yes.

So, before you even respond, I just want to make clear here, because
there`s a lot of this. The standards are set by this -- they were written
and it`s like -- it`s a binder. You can go down. It`s a long, tedious...

(CROSSTALK)

STEVENS: Exactly.

HAYES: It`s a thing, right?

STEVENS: Right.

HAYES: The standards aren`t a curriculum, but the curriculum -- the
curricula then adjusts to those standards, and then the high-stakes testing
adjusts to the curriculum. And so that`s all bound up in people`s minds.
Right? When they see the test, they think, oh, it`s the standards.

(CROSSTALK)

STEVENS: And so the thing is, first of all, when you have people
saying, OK, like, that`s exactly what Bush said, that`s exactly what Obama
said, we`re going to have high standards. We`re going to test every year
to make sure that they`re being met.

So, those things are linked. But the other thing I would say, too, is
that I think that -- and part of what makes the conversation so confusing
is that a lot of people are conflating two different things, which is the
colloquial definition of standards and the academic definition of
standards.

A lot of people are signing on to the idea of higher standards because
they`re thinking in their minds, well, I have high standards for people in
my life. I have high standards for...

HAYES: Right, for my kids.

STEVENS: They`re not thinking about academic standards.

When all is said and done, academic standards are words in a binder.
Without the supports, without the people in the rooms who actually bring
this stuff to life...

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: But wait a second.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: But why shouldn`t it be the case? Why should it not be the
case?

WEINGARTEN: So here is the standard.

HAYES: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINGARTEN: Let me give get a standard, because this -- so, for
academics or for educators, this is not a bad standard: "Delineate and
evaluate the argument and specific claims in a test, assessing whether the
reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient."

So, for eighth graders...

HAYES: That doesn`t sound terrifying, I have to say.

WEINGARTEN: That`s not terrifying, but it`s the testing that has made
it terrifying and the lack of resources.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: This issue is much bigger. And I never...

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: ... never do this on my cable news show, but we are going to
have to leave it there, because I want to come back to it, because I really
-- I am fascinated by this issue.

STEVENS: Right.

HAYES: And I, myself, don`t know how to feel about it. I learned a
lot tonight. And we`re going to keep covering it.

So, thank you both for coming, education activist Sabrina Joy Stevens,
and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation for Teachers,
who is currently answering your questions at MSNBC.com. Check that out.

Thanks to you both.

That is ALL IN for this evening.

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

Copyright 2014 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.>