All In With Chris Hayes, Monday January 5th ,2015

Show: ALL IN with CHRIS HAYES
Date: January 5, 2015
Guest: Dan Dickers, Peter Moskos, Sally Ball, Sam Seder, Jason Bailey



CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, on ALL IN:

MIKE HUCKABEE (R), FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: As much as I have loved doing
the show, I cannot bring myself to rule out another presidential run.

HAYES: Huckabee throws in with Jeb, as Chris Christie gets flagged for a
holding in Dallas. But as the 2016 scramble begins in earnest, there`s one
headline today that can doom any Republican.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nobody thought this would happen.

HAYES: Plus, the mayor of New York makes a stunning announcement as the
NYPD continues to turn its back.

Then, Hollywood history repeats itself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`ve got one big issue, I`ve got 101.

HAYES: The real reason the movie industry is attacking "Selma".

And, as Louis Gohmert prepares to unseat John Boehner --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Doesn`t sound like John Boehner is too worried about
the threat.

HAYES: -- our all-star roundtable gives their predictions for the 114th
Congress.

ALL IN starts right now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

And it is the first workday of the New Year which means it`s officially the
beginning of the presidential season. And while the financial markets were
panicky today, the real story of 2016 could be very different than what
political insiders are expecting.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES (voice-over): It`s 2015, which means it`s the official kickoff to
the 2016 presidential season.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 2016 presidential campaign hitting up already.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The list of Republicans who are publicly a 2016 White
House run is getting longer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They`re moving closer and closer to making decisions,
earlier and earlier.

HAYES: Since Jeb Bush announced he will actively explore the possibility
of a 2016 run last month, he`s added to the injury.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The former Florida governor is cutting ties to all of
his board memberships as he explores a presidential bid.

JONATHAN CAPEHART, THE WASHINGTON POST: The moves by Jeb Bush sort of
galvanize other people to start making moves.

HAYES: Like Mike Huckabee. Over the weekend, he walked away from a
lucrative contract with FOX News.

HUCKABEE: There`s been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would
run for president. And if I were willing to absolutely rule that out, I
could keep doing this show. But I can`t make such a declaration.

SPORTS ANNOUNCER: And it`s DeMarcus Lawrence.

HAYES: Meanwhile, Chris Christie`s happy dance has some ruling out his
candidacy even before it starts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chris Christie hugging like a giddy school kid.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I looked on Twitter and a lot of Giants fans and
Eagles fans say, how can you do this? Christie`s brother ripping the
online critics. But was that a hug or was that like a Noogie headlock?
Was there a kiss on the top of the head there?

HAYES: But if you`re truly looking for signs of which candidate is the one
to watch in 2016, look no further than this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oil prices are still sliding. Crude oil is below $52
a barrel right now. A new five-year low.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Gas prices have now fallen for 102 straight days.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is really significant savings for consumers.

HAYES: It`s not just oil prices. It`s the entire economy. The
unemployment rate during October and November of last year is the lowest
since July of 2008. As of November of last year, the economy had added
over 2.6 million jobs, putting 2014 on track to be the strongest year for
job growth since 1999.

Consumer confidence, it`s at the highest level in eight years. Meanwhile,
the president`s approval rating is slowly ticking upward, reaching a 16-
month peek in late December.

All of this is starting to create a pretty powerful political force, one
that can make converts out of the biggest skeptics.

DAVID SIEGEL, WESTGATE RESORTS CEO: I`m 74 years old. I`m the founder,
president, CEO of Westgate Resorts, the largest, privately owned timeshare
company in the world.

HAYES: People like David Siegel, CEO of Westgate Resorts. You may
recognize him as the co-star of a documentary that chronicled his quest to
build a $75 million home with his wife. At the time, the most expensive
home in the country.

Two years ago, Siegel warned employees about what a vote for Obama could
mean for their jobs. Quote, "The economy doesn`t currently pose a threat
to your job. What does threaten your job, however, is another four years
of the same presidential administration. If any new taxes are levied on me
or my company as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to
reduce the size of this company."

And, yet, today, instead of mass layoffs, Siegel is handing out raises. As
of the first of this year, he`s raised his company`s minimum wage to $10 an
hour, after what he described as, quote, "the best year in our history".

So, if this year`s economic trend lines continue, what everyone will be
talking about in 2016 is the economy and not an awkward hug.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HAYES: Joining me now, Ezra Klein, editor in chief of Vox.com, MSNBC
policy analyst.

So, Ezra, I think what is driving people`s ideas about the political season
taking shape or even the next Congress has to do with kind of the last
political moment we had, which was this moment of, like, dyspeptic bad
mood. And I think there`s a genuine chance the trajectory continues in
such a direction we`re dealing with just entirely new terrain economically
by the time 2016 rolls around.

EZRA KLEIN, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, VOX.COM: I think the bad mood in politics is
going to remain believe pretty powerful. But I agree with what you`re
saying about the Obama administration.

I think another way to think about this is actually to go back to 2012 and
think about what Mitt Romney was promising to do. Prior to Romney winning
the nomination, Michele Bachmann was talking about $2 a gallon gas. People
laughed at her. I laughed at that. It seemed completely impossible at the
time.

Mitt Romney talked about, I believe, it was 4 percent growth he was looking
to get. We`re now at 5 percent annualized growth as of last quarter.
We`ll see what the entire year looks like when we get there. He was
talking about getting unemployment under 6 percent.

We are at a moment in the Obama presidency where if Mitt Romney had won the
election, he would have proven his proposition.

HAYES: That`s right.

KLEIN: He would have fulfilled everything he said to do to be not just a
success, but a wild one, to have succeeded in all of his kind of very
ambitious, economic campaign promises. And I think what`s so fascinating
about this is it happened without any of that agenda.

HAYES: Right.

KLEIN: Now, my read on this is that presidents are just not as important
to the economy as people like to believe. But, nevertheless, like this by
any political definition is a moment of wild success for whoever gets the
credit for it.

HAYES: That`s exactly right. And I agree with you. Paul Krugman had a
column just about this, about the degree to which we sort of assign credit
or blame to the economy to the person in office. But we do know from
research, right, from the political science literature, is that presidents
are, particularly in re-election years and in election years of a new
president in terms of the incumbent party, that`s the standard that they`re
judged by whether fairly or not, and that`s what totally orders the
political terrain upon which the battle is waged.

KLEIN: If this were one year from today, if this were 2016, Hillary
Clinton would be about forward to -- not about, would be a ways toward the
election. But if it continued on, Hillary Clinton would be looking to
carry 42 states, right?

If you can have this kind of economy, whoever is coming out of the
incumbent party, the party that is going to get credit, as you said, that
is the president`s party, they get everything. The blip in that political
science research, if you`re Hillary Clinton strategist, what you`re
terrified of is the economy peaking too soon.

HAYES: Yes.

KLEIN: Because the other thing all of that research tells you is that the
economic growth a year before an election does not matter, it does not
heavily affect voters towards the election. What matters is economic
growth in the year of the election. We are now at a moment in the economy
where the fundamentals look incredible. I mean, the fact -- the incredibly
low energy prices and there should be some self-fulfilling energy effects
beginning to take hold.

So, it looks really good. It looks like it can continue. At the same
time, this recovery has already lasted longer than your average post-war
recovery.

HAYES: That`s right.

KLEIN: So, there is -- if it continues, Clinton is in great shape, but it
could turn around at some point.

HAYES: And having lived through the crisis, which now sort of remarkably
is six years ago, but having lived through it, you always feel a little bit
like you`re standing only the bow of the Titanic, right? Which is what is
the iceberg that we`re not seeing. Today, you know, there`s worries about
Greece. There`s worries that oil price go too low, that you have financial
instability in Russia.

So, that`s the other thing, which is as we start to talk about the
jockeying between Huckabee and Chris Christie is there some possible event
out there in the horizon whether positive or negative that completely
upends and overwhelms whatever jockeying happens this early on.

KLEIN: Right. I mean, you think about where we were at this point in the
2008 cycle, right? I mean, you can look back and see all the incredible
stress from the financial sector. You can look back and see all the
antecedents and the president`s for the financial crisis. But at that
moment, it didn`t look like the context of the `08 election is the greatest
financial crisis since the Great Depression.

We sit here now and, as we say, we have no idea what will happen. But it
is worth saying that this is not one of those expansions at the moment that
is coming out of thin air, right? When you see energy this low, that is a
really powerful thing.

I mean, we -- people talk all the time about the Bill Clinton`s incredible
success in the `90s. A lot of that success was built on cheap energy.
People don`t love to talk so much about these kinds of less sexy drivers of
the economy. Not innovation and great new ideas, but just -- are we
getting shale gas out of the ground? But this stuff really matters and it
matters in a very big way.

HAYES: Ezra Klein, thank you very much.

KLEIN: Thank you.

HAYES: Speaking of that, what is happening in the oil markets is basically
unprecedented in our lifetime. In a way, it`s like the bizarro world
version of the `70s oil embargo. Middle Eastern oil producers cut off
exports to the U.S. The result was a massive spike in gas prices,
ridiculously long lines at gas stations and huge, almost hugely
overwhelming political pressure and damage.

Today, the price of crude has dropped below $50 a barrel for the first time
in five years. Since June, look at that chart, the price of oil has slid
by 50 percent, which has impacted the price of gas and, according to the
"Associated Press", low gas prices are responsible for pushing four-year
car sales to what`s likely to the highest level since 2006.

The cheap oil has greater ramifications beyond cheap gas. Take an oil-
producing country like Russia. Because of rapid drop in oil prices, a
country like Russia that heavily relies on oil sales is seeing less foreign
money coming in, which, along with U.S. sanctions is helping drive down the
value of the ruble, helping to prompt warnings, notably from Russia`s
former finance minister, the country is facing a, quote, "full blown
economic crisis."

Drop in oil prices also affecting corporations. Last month, Chevron sent a
letter to Canada`s Energy Board saying the company has announced it`s put
its arctic drilling plan on hold, quote, "indefinitely". This after
Chevron paid over a hundred million Canadian dollars for the drilling
rights.

Around the same time Chevron made this announcement, Goldman Sachs came out
with an analysis that found almost one trillion dollars with a T in
investment in future oil projects currently at risk. Given the role energy
plays in our economic life and the price of oil continues to drop, will it
completely reconfigure the way the world operates? Whenever I have a
question like this, I go to my friend Dan Dicker, oil trader, author of
"Oil`s Endless Bid".

OK, there`s so much I want to talk about. First of all, you eve got this
crazy thing happening today which is that the financial markets are now
panicked that oil is dropping too low. Like, what does that mean?

DAN DICKER, OIL TRADER: It is, in the short range, as we said, a terrific
boost for the economy. And Mr. Obama is having quite a good start to the
year, a lot better than Mr. Putin, they would say. His currency is not
going down. In fact, part of the probable with oil, or, in fact, part of
the problem with oil are in fact what`s causing oil to go down is how
strong in fact the dollar has become, much of what happened today was based
upon another spike in the price of the U.S. dollar.

So, we have a lot of economic factors that are running into the price of
oil. I`ve isolated five of them. The good point of this, at least if
you`re thinking after 2016, is that it doesn`t look like four of those five
are going to turn around any time soon.

HAYES: So, you`re saying we could be in some kind of quasi permanent,
near-term status equilibrium?

DICKER: And I say it`s not sustainable in that you cannot get it out of
the ground for what it`s selling for today.

HAYES: Right.

DICKER: So, ultimately, you`re going to have a supply issue. But as those
supply issues don`t really matter much, I`ve spoken with you many times, as
the fundamentals seem to matter less and less, those financial inputs seem
to matter more and more, those financial inputs that I could list for you,
four of those five seem to be staying on track for a long extended period
of time. So you`re going to have cheap energy prices for at least the next
six months to a year, at least.

HAYES: So, I want to talk about whether that`s good or bad from the
perspective of the health of the planet and carbon and from that
perspective. But, before that, what is Saudi Arabia doing -- explain to me
what Saudi Arabia is doing differently, because my sense is that they`ve
done something fairly dramatic in how they`re dealing with this round of
price plummeting. In the past, they would come in, and cut supply, rescue
the price, push it back up. This time, they`re saying no.

DICKER: And I think what they`ve done is a master stroke, to tell the
truth. I think it`s honestly just been a bold step. It will make OPEC
again important in the far term. In the near term, of course, it makes
them irrelevant. But, for right now, the Saudis can withstand the low
price of oil better than just about anybody on the planet. They`re
breaking prices somewhere around $10 a barrel, as supposed to most of the
shale place in this country, which are closer to $60 a barrel. And you
have, for example, oil sands which is also upwards to $60 a barrel.

HAYES: OK, wait. I think I understood this the first time actually. So,
the Saudis are basically saying, yes, let it drop. And all of you people
who are getting more difficult to recover oil in the tar sands in Canada,
in the shale field in North Dakota, which is harder to get and more
expensive to get out of the ground what we`re getting, let it drop below
the point where it`s economic for you and then you guys start to feel the
pain and then you`ll come running crawling back to the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.

DICKER: Exactly. You become the swing producer. We`ve a very small, but
a very long term glut in this marketplace for the last two years, which the
Saudis clearly recognized. Based upon a very undisciplined drilling for
shale wells here in the United States, we`ve increased our production by 5
million barrels over the last five years. Now, that needs to come out, or
at least a good piece of that has to come out of the market before OPEC can
reassert itself as the important player in the oil game.

HAYES: This is like the Simpson`s episode when Homer Simpson finds Bart
with cigarettes, or he`s basically smuggling them, and he says you have
cigarettes, I`m going to sit here and make you smoke every cigarette.
That`s an old parent trick, right? To kind of get someone, turned them
against smoking.

It`s the Saudi Arabians saying oh, you want to sell oil? You want to sell
oil? Go ahead, sell oil.

DICKER: Exactly. They`re going to beat them at their own game. You`ve
already seen quiet a lot of consolidation that has begun inside the oil
space. Rigs that are going to drop off of the shelf. There`s going to be
less production. Less money spent, as you point out, getting oil, finding
new oil.

HAYES: That`s what`s so fascinating to me. From the environmental
perspective, I think your first blush thought is, the higher the price of
oil, the better. People consume it less. But from the investment
perspective, when oil this cheap, you`re not getting people pouring
billions of dollars recovering hard-to-recover oil.

DICKER: Well, I would push back a little bit on that. There are places
when you cut back. We call that scalability. So, that`s why we`re talking
about the shale players all the time. A couple of million dollars and you
spot a well.

HAYES: Right, very marginal.

DICKER: And it only takes a couple weeks for it to come out: and, in fact,
it goes bad in a year or a year and a half. Places like the tar sands,
they invest billions of dollars.

HAYES: And they`re looking very, very long term.

DICKER: And they`re looking very long term, very difficult for them to
scale back, at least in the short term. So, in fact --

HAYES: Let`s see.

All right, Dan Dicker, thank you very much.

DICKER: Thanks, Chris.

HAYES: All right. The mayor of New York held his first press conference
today since some police officers turned their backs to him again, as he
delivered a second eulogy for an officer killed in the line of duty. His
surprising remarks about that, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: I will admit it, I`m a sucker for anything that has a headline like
"predictions for the new year." So, in that spirit, I`ll be joined by an
illustrious panel as we make our predictions with the 114th Congress.

Let`s hope they`re more accurate than this guy, but that is pretty rough.
Stay tuned for that.

Plus, why Hollywood is trying to destroy the film everyone is talking
about, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: All eyes on New York Mayor Bill De Blasio today, giving his first
press conference of the days immediately following the murders of two NYPD
officers on December 20th. In his first public appearance since scores of
police turn their backs on him again today at the funeral yesterday for
Officer Wenjian Liu, even after NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton specifically
asked them not to.

The mayor has taken dreading the spotlight under the past few weeks as he`s
come under brutal attack by New York`s police unions, today`s press
conference was probably one he looked forward to, because today, he got to
announce what appears to be a major victory for the very policies that
helped kick off an NYPD backlash. De Blasio ran for office on a pledge to
reform policing practices in New York, especially stop and frisk, the
controversial tactic that resulted in the disproportionate number of people
of color being patted down and interrogated by police for often arbitrary
reasons.

And despite all the warnings that changing the policy would result in a
skyrocketing crime, and a return to the dangerous New York of the 1970s,
the mayor today got to announce that overall crime dropped 4.6 percent in
2014, the first year of his term.

Over the last year, the total murders, robberies and burglaries in New York
fell to their lowest rates in a decade, all while the number of police
stops continue the plummet for the third year in a row. The percentage of
arrests using force fell to a ten-year low.

While the policy changes originated at city hall, De Blasio was very
careful to credit the police themselves for the drop in crime, heaping
praise on the NYPD.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO (D), NEW YORK CITY: This is the world`s greatest
police department. There`s no doubt about it. I`ve said it many times and
I never have any fear of contradiction when I say that statement. It is
the world`s greatest police department. I`ve traveled all over the world
and people speak reverently about the NYPD. They want to learn from the
NYPD, they want to visit this building, talk to its leaders, learn about
its technology, its strategies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Meanwhile, as the mayor continues to run a city-wide experiment in
police reform, members of the NYPD appear to be running an experiment of
their own. For the second week in a row, officers cut back drastically on
police activity in the streets of New York, arresting half as mm people and
writing more than, get this, 90 percent fewer summons than in the same
period a year ago.

While the police unions denied coordinating a work slowdown, "The New York
Post" has reported the slowdown is yet another public protest against Mayor
de Blasio. There`s no evidence that it`s affected the crime rate, which
continuing its downward trend. And by, quote, "turning a blind eye to some
minor crimes and making arrests only when they have to, as "The Post" put
it, the NYPD has effectively ended broken window policing, the policy of
cracking down on small infractions, under the theory it prevents more
serious crime. And by ending broken windows, the police are actually
giving the protesters exactly what they`ve been demanding.

Joining me now, former Baltimore police officer, Peter Moskos, author of
"Cop in the Hood", now works at John Jay, where you cover broken windows.
You write about policing.

First of all, let`s just start with the crime stats. I mean, let`s just be
clear. People said, if you -- I mean Ray Kelly said it, Mike Bloomberg
said it. All the officialdom of New York said the reason crime continues
to fall, the reason crime is so low is because of this tactic or we stop
people in the street, we question, we frisk them.

If you get rid of that, all hell will break loose. This is only one year,
but the mayor I think gets to say at the end of this year, that`s not true.

PETER MOSKOS, FMR. POLICE OFFICER: It didn`t happen. At some point, it
would be nice to hear a few people say actually, you know what, maybe I was
wrong.

But I think the analogy I like to use is it`s not letting the lid off of
this boiling caldron of urban decay. To some extent, we`ve turned off the
heat. Maybe what was effective policing in the `90s, in 2015, we have to
look for different, different strategies. It`s a different city.

But even I`m a little surprised, given that drastic numbers that we have
and yet see any uptick in crime. But, great, this is the reality we`re in
now. So, let`s pat ourselves on the back and we`ll go from here.

HAYES: Right. What`s the understanding? One of the things, I think, I
was I always was curious about was the perspective of the frontline police
officers in New York towards the practice, right? Because there was some
who didn`t like it. They feel there`s a quota system. Obviously, some
participated in the lawsuit, but ended up getting large parts have ruled
unconstitutional, but a lot of your officers say, basically agree with this
theory, if we stop doing this, crime will go up.

MOSKOS: Yes, and I started hearing from student police officers of mine
that basically, the quota pressure kicked in a little less than a decade
ago. They said the tail is starting to wag the dog.

So, anything that gets away, and, of course, quota is illegal. They`re
called productivity goals. But still, officers saw them as quotas and they
felt they had to produce these numbers. And so they weren`t making stops
based on their skill, based on reasonable suspicion.

But I also want to mention, you know, the mayor and Bratton said today
broken windows is going to continue. And I think often people sort of
don`t quite understand. Broken windows is not writing tickets for
everything. Broken windows is a problem-solving approach.

To say you, as a member of the community, what makes you afraid? This is
what we`re going to focus on.

HAYES: Right.

MOSKOS: It does focus on the little things but intelligently and using
discretion. So, in some ways, now, we have a clean fleet almost, if you
want to be an optimist.

HAYES: So, one of the data points presented today was also that the
percentage of arrests from stop and frisk is going up quite significantly.
So, you`re pulling people over less randomly, which is what drove people
crazy. It felt like an indignity. It felt like they weren`t living in a
democracy. It was like I`m walking down the street and it`s like, you,
here, come here, I want to pat you down. Well, I didn`t do anything,
right?

MOSKOS: Yes.

HAYES: What we`re seeing is that arrests are going up because cops are
presumably using some sort of judgment in a better way that`s producing
that.

MOSKOS: That`s exactly it. I mean, look, we train cops. We pay cops. We
have to expect them to be professional. We have to expect them to behave
at police funerals.

We also have to understand that, by and large, know how to do their job.
If we give them the tools and we give them support, they`re going to make
smarter stops. So, yes, that was called the hit rate on arrest related
stop. It has to increase and it has increased. So, these are all good
signs.

HAYES: What -- the biggest thing to me is that you`ve got this intense
politics around crime. In New York City, we`re seeing it, we`re at this
boiling conflict point, right?

And you have people very frustrated with the way they feel that they`re
policed. The cops are frustrated with the mayor. And yet, at the heart of
this is this massive drop in crime that I feel like it`s being revealed
that people don`t understand why it happened, right? Everyone has their
theory and everyone who is part of it thinks the thing they did is the
thing they did was the thing they did, and if you take that away, we`re
back to the bad old days, and that just may not be true.

MOSKOS: It is amazing what is the most significant criminal justice
happening in New York, maybe the nation in the past 50 years in this crime
drop, to go from 2,200 murders a year to just over 300, and we don`t know
what happened for sure. That`s what the next book is going to be about.
But don`t hold your breath for it, but it`s coming.

HAYES: Well-teased, Peter Moskos. Thank you much. It`s always a
pleasure, man. Thank you.

MOSKOS: My pleasure.

HAYES: All right. In light of all the grief that Chris Christie is
getting for his unapologetic love for the Dallas Cowboys, I`m going to
present the rules of sports fandom, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, you may have seen that image
because he`s getting a lot of flak for his performance at last night`s wild
card game between the Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions. After the deciding
play that sealed the Cowboys` victory, the camera captured this moment in
the box of team owner Jerry Jones.

Now much ridicule has been directed at Christie for the awkward-missed
high-five and the orange sweater, seen here, which has apparently been his
good luck charm that he`s worn to every one of the last five Cowboys games
he`s attended, all of which the team has won.

Well, as well as the questionable ethics of accept lucrative gifts from
Jerry
Jones, who is a whole other story.

But I will say this, the most scurrilous, unfair charge from which I stand
here today to defend Chris Christie is for being a traitor for rooting for
the Dallas Cowboys as opposed to the Jets or Giants who, of course, play in
his native New Jersey.

A little over a year ago, Christie himself explained his Cowboy`s fandom
this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CHRISTIE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: My father was a Giant`s fan. And
I used to remember watching them when I was 8, 9 years old. And every
Sunday he`d watch the Giants and yell at the TV set. And I used to think
to myself why do I want to root for a team that makes you angry? So, I
decided not to and the Cowboys
were really good back then and I liked Roger Staubach.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: To which I say amen.

And to Chris Christie`s haters, back off. These are the rules of sports
fandom. It is not a betrayal to not root for your hometown team. For
instance, yours truly was raised in the Bronx, not very far from Yankees
stadium. And I am a Cubs, Bulls and Bears fan because my father from the
north side of Chicago raised me as such. I`ve been that way my whole life.

There is no shame in rooting for teams outside of your hometown.

But here is the other part of this rule, once you choose in childhood, you
cannot change or deviate. That`s the other part of the rule. You must
suffer, as I have.

Of course, the Cubs are perhaps the most finely engineered machine for
producing human misery ever known to man.

And, Chris Christie, well, he`s suffered, too. Perhaps no team in the NFL
have created more heartache and disappointment for fans as the Cowboys have
in recent years, a team that has a knack for always being tantalizingly
close to possible excellence only to revert to mediocrity when it counts.

Christie has said so himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIE: I`ve been a Cowboys fan the whole time. And when the Cowboys
are losing the last game of the year the last three season not to make the
playoffs, there`s nobody getting on social media giving me a hard time
about being a Cowboys fan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now if Christie had suddenly abadonded the Cowboys to root for the
Giants in the years they were Super Bowl champs well, then, you could hurl
all the invective you wanted.

But all the available evidence shows that not to be the case.

So, to Chris Christie`s haters on this point, back off. I firmly and
proudly stand with Chris Christie.

And also at least in general spirit, though not int specific word choice,
his brother, Todd, who somewhat questionably took to Facebook to say,
quote, "all of those non-Cowboys fans who have have their panties in a
ringer because the governor of New Jersey is a Cowboys fan, get a life,"
all caps.

Now, that`s as far as the fandom concerns go. However, I will also say
this, if you`re thinking of who you want to hand the nuclear football to, I
think it`s
totally fair and reasonable to take this scene into account.]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, in the south, there have been thousands
of
racially motivated murders. We need your help.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dr. King, this thing is just going to have to wait.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It cannot wait.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`ve got one big issue, I`ve got 101.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Selma it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: There is one movie that everyone in Hollywood, and outside of
Hollywood, is talking about and it is Selma. The rarest of Hollywood films
directed by a black woman, a film getting rapturous reviews from critics
and audiences. I, myself, was a recipient of several texts this weekend
from people who were in tears after seeing the film.

But it has been branded as controversial in the last few weeks, accused of
villainizing President Lyndon B. Johnson needlessly and a contradiction to
the actual facts of the matter.

In a The Washington Post op ed, former Johnson aide Joseph Califano wrote,
quote, "the film falsely portrays President Lyndon B. Johnson as being at
odds with Martin Luther King, Jr and even using the FBI to discredit him,
as only reluctantly behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and as opposed to
the Selma march itself."

This and other criticism, including a milder critique by historian Mark
Updegrove has set off a conversation between what actually happened between
LBJ and MLK in the runup to the famous Selma march and the fight for the
Voting Rights Act.

But in a piece for Flavorwire.com, Jason Bailey pulls back the curtain on
what is really going on here with the new supposed controversy over Selma.
He writes, quote, "and what does Mr. Califano demand in exchange for this
betrayal? An amendment of the film? An on-screen correction? A public
apology? Nope. The movie should be ruled out this Christmas and during
the ensuing award season. That line which ends Califano`s editorial is a
rare, but a transparency, because that piece and the furor that has
accompanied it is not about correcting the record, it`s about keeping Selma
from winning Oscars."

Now, the campaign for Oscars has become quite possibly one of the dirtiest
political campaigns of our times. Hundreds of millions at stake. And as
Bailey points out it seems every time historically-based film has a shot at
an Oscar, claims of inaccuracy surface. The go-to attack used to knock
such a film off its pedestal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The controversial film Zero Dark Thirty opens
nationwide. Did the Hollywood producers skew the story to fit an agenda?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does it tell a misleading story?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But is Hollywood`s Lincoln in line with history?

ANDERON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Some crew members actually say the portrayal
of Captain Phillips as a hero in the film is wrong, claiming his actions
were actually reckless.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So maybe the attack on Selma it just shows how much its rivals fear
it as an Oscar powerhouse.

And joining me now is Jason Daily who wrote that piece for Flavorwire where
he is film editor; also author of the book, "The Ultimate Woody Allen Film
Compendium."

I thought this piece was great and I felt like I was seeing through the
matrix when I read it, because you point out I mean time and time again a
film is -- gets serious Oscar talk, it has some historical basis and the
attacks start on its historical accuracy.

JASON BAILEY, FLAVORWIRE.COM: You can set your clock to it. I mean -- and
timing in Hollywood is never accidental. When you look at this particular
story -- you know the Politico piece runs December 22. The Washington Post
op-ed runs December 26.

As someone who writes commentary for the internet, I can tell you that is
not the week that you put our your hot takes.

Now, maybe that`s timed to the limited release of the movie on December 25,
or you can note that on the follow Monday, the 29th, nominating ballots go
out from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. And on that day,
like clockwork, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood,
Entertainment Weekly, all have pieces about this new controversy. And
suddenly...

HAYES: So it`s on the day that the nomination ballets are going out that
the headline about the film isn`t incredible work, people love it, it`s is
it wrong, is it...

BAILEY: Right. Exactly. For a month, there`s been guild screenings, there`s
been critic screenings and all everyone`s talking about is how incredible
the movie is. This movie is great, give it all the Oscars.

And what`s the Don Draper line, when you don`t like what`s being said
change the conversation.

And suddenly, this Monday, when it`s time to nominate Oscars, the
conversation is have you heard how controversial Selma is about how it gets
history wrong.

HAYES: Well, let me play naive for a second.

BAILEY: Okay.

HAYES: And I`m just playing naive, I`m not [inaudible]. Do people really,
like, plant negative stories about --

BAILEY: Oh, my god.

HAYES: Other oscar films that they`re competing against?

BAILEY: Oh, it`s -- when we call it award season campaigning, that`s
a deliberate word choice. And it is very much like a political campaign. It
first of all can cost as much as at least a congressional campaign.

HAYES: So they`re hiring consulting firms, spending millions of dollars--

BAILEY: Oh, yes.

HAYES: People are doing opo (?), right? I mean there`s oppler reaseach?

BAILEY: Yes. Research, they`re out at screenings, they`re out at parties.
They`re not just talking up the film that they`ve been hired to push.
They`re talking down the films that they`re competing against.

HAYES: And a great example you have in here is "Beautiful Mind" which I had
sort of forgotten that there was a controversy--

BAILEY: Giant.

HAYES: That was like one of the... What happened with that though? There`s
this huge dump on "Beautiful Mind".

BAILEY: This was -- in 2001, and Universal was giving a very hard
push to the film. Ron Howard had never won an Oscar before. And suddenly,
there was a post on the Drudge Report about how elements of bisexuality and
anti-semitism had been expunged from that script and it was very
inaccurate.

HAYES: Well, let me just insert myself here to say those stand in
incredibly different moral categories, but continue.

BAILEY: Exactly. And the rumor is, the reporting was, that a consultant, a
freelance consultant for Air Max Films which had films competing against "A
Beautiful Mind" that year, pointed an L.A. Times writer to that Drudge
Report post and suddenly that was in the L.A. Times and suddenly that had
become the conversation about "a Beautiful Mind" that year.

HAYES: So and John Nash who is the mathematician at the heart of that that
he had said anti-semitic things or been an anti-Semite and that had been
sort of taken out of the movie.

There was also the "Lincoln" campaign was really concerned and also, I
think, tied to knocking down its Oscar choices.

BAILEY: Absolutely. Yeah. That was actually, that was a huge year because
he had "Lincoln" that year which all of the sort of presidential historians
came out of the woodwork to talk about the discrepancies in that.

That was also the year with the "Zero Dark Thirty" controversy which really
sort of put the skids on that film which had been seen as very much a front
runner and ending up, you know, Kathryn Bigelow didn`t get best director
and so forth and so on.

Ultimately, played it very safe that year and went with, you know, with
"Argo" which had significant factual inaccuracies of its own.

HAYES: Well, that gets to the point here, right? Which is anyone who makes
a film based on history is going to necessarily, as a sort of narrative,
definition, right, is going to open themselves up.

BAILEY: Absolutely. Look, we can have the conversation about the difference
between documentary and docudrama. We can have the conversation about
historical fact versus historical fiction. I think it`s a boring
conversation, but we can have it.

But if we`re going to have it year after year, we should at least
understand where that conversation started. And the conversation didnt...
we`re not having this conversation about Unbroken because Unbroken is
probably not going to win best picture.

We`re not having it about Big Eyes because any nominations.

HAYES: So this to you, the fact that this controversy sort of says to you
people fear this as an Oscar powerhouse...

BAILEY: Absolutely. Absolutely. You know they... and in some ways, I guess
it`s an encouraging sign that the film is being considered important enough
to put this kind of op-ed effort behind.

HAYES: It also occurs to me -- it is -- there is something about, you
know, as long as they spelled your name right, I mean, you -- Selma is
everywhere. I mean, it is everywhere. So, you know, maybe controversy
also drives some people out to actually see the film.

BAILEY: Hopefully so.

HAYES: Jason Bailey, thanks a lot.

BAILEY: Thank you so much for having me.

HAYES: All right.

What will happen when John Boehner faces a re-election for House speaker
tomorrow and other Capitol Hill variety predictions ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Are you, dear viewer, already putting off your resolutions for
2015? Here`s a fun little procrastination enabler, a random prediction bot
brought to you by The Guardian entitled 2015 will be the year of the insert
trend here.

The bot will, quote, "automatically collate any prediction about 2015 from
news headliens and copy every day, no matter how terrible, plausible or
obscure it may be."

Earlier, one of my producers got this possibly ominous prediction, at least
those of us in the business, 2015 will be the year of disruption in cable
television generated from this article.

My predictions for the new congress ahead. You can play with the
prediction bot during the commercial break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, (R) TEXAS: The numbers are 25 to 33 percent are ready
to abandon the Republican Party, they`re so fed up that we`re not fighting
for what we said. And if we don`t show them that, it`s going to devastate
this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert earlier today explaining
why he is deciding -- he has decided to challenge John Boehner`s bid to
keep his job as a speaking of the house in the new congress.

Both Gohmert and Florida`s Ted Yoho announced their candidacy for Boehner`s
job this weekend. At least 10 members of the GOP caucus have vowed to
oppose the speaking in tomorrow`s leadership vote.

This comes after the holiday week controversy involving the number three
Republican in House leadership Steve Scalise who admitted he had spoken in
2002 to a group of white supremists founded by former KKK leader David
Duke.

Scalise apologized last week and Boehner stood by, prompting this from the
White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Who they choose in their
leadership says a lot about who they are, what their values are and what
the priorities of the conference should be.

Mr. Scalise reportedly described himself as David Duke without the baggage.
So it`ll be up to the Republicans to decide what that says about their
conference.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: After the Scalise story broke, there were calls from some
conservatives with big platforms, including right-wing radio heads Sean
Hannity, Mark Levin fore Boehner to be swept aside.

The good news for Boehner is that his challengers don`t have enough voters
to pose a real threat, at least it doesn`t appear that way. He`s wildly
expected to win a third term tomorrow as speaker.

But, the conservative groundswell against Bohener, at least in the
chattering classes, is just another reminder that his speakership has, more
than anything, been about trying to manage a right-wing base that has
little interest in listening to what he has to say.

And if what we had seen over the last week is any indication, that faction
may be now feeling more emboldened than ever. Why not? Big wins in the
last mid-terms.

And that all raises if question just what exactly is our new Republican
conference, with its vocal faction of far right rabble rowsers, have in
store for us?

Our round table, including some bold predictions for the new congress is
ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We`re back.

Joining me now, Sam Seder, host of Majority Report and MSNBC contributor;
Molly Ball, national political writer for The Atlantic, and former RNC
chairman and MSNBC contributor, Michael Steele.

And Michael, I will begin with you. Your predictions for this congress?

I just want to be clear, we`re holding everyone to these. If you`re wrong,
you`re going to be humiliated and played on a constant loop.

MICHAEL STEELE, FRM. RNC CHAIRMAN: You mean worse than being RNC chairman?

HAYES: That`s right, exactly.

STEELE: Can it get any harder?

HAYES: Exactly.

STEELE: No, let me tell you, I think that what you`re going to see is
starting out of the gate this week, a lot of aggressive push on XL
pipeline, you`re going to see trade legislation slags, you may even see
some regulatory reform legislation that a number of folks in the White
House are not interested in, but some Democrats, quite frankly, are.

So, this is going to be a very interesting early push. And I think that`s
going to set the tone, at least try to set the tone, for Republicans in the
first 100 days of this new congress.

HAYES: Sam, you were just nodding your head to trade legislation.

I think -- and Michael, we were sort of in contact with all of you guys
earlier. And there`s some overlap in medical device taxes and trade --
fast-track trade authority, which is really a about American democracy, I
think, because I actually it`s pretty clear that`s what was on the voter`s
minds when they went to vote in 2014.

SAM SEDER, HOST, MAJORITY REPORT: Of course.

I actually think the trade -- the fast track is going to be the most
interesting debate, essentially, because you`re going to have on the left
in Elizabeth Warren has started to talk about fast track authority. But on
the right, you`re starting to see places like World Net Daily saying like
you cannot give the president authority and then, you know, maybe some
insanity following it. But so that`s real.

So...

HAYES: You might get a sort of left-right coalition that fights that.

SEDER: Exactly. And that`s going to be, you know, beyond that, I think
the
Republicans, I think -- if they push anything, it`s going to be some type
of like standing committee oversight over Benghazi scandal or something, I
have no idea.

But, I really don`t think they have much of an agenda beyond Keystone XL.

HAYES: I also think -- I think the medical device tax -- I think the
president will -- the medical device tax is part of the Affordable Care
Act. You`ll never guess who hates the medical device tax, the medical
device makers, Molly Ball, hate the medical device tax and have been very
vocal about it.

And it seems like the kind of thing that by -- there`s some bipartisan
desire to get rid of it thanks in no small part to the medical device
makers.

MOLLY BALL, THE ATLANTIC: It`s really a shocking thing isn`t it, that that
industry will come out against something like this? But there is a lot of
bipartisan support for getting rid of the medical device tax, partly
because of that kind of lobbying, but also partly as a symbolic effort to
do something about the Affordable Care Act.

Everyone says they want to fix it, want to tweak it, want to do something
with it even if they don`t want to repeal it. So that`s something that
they can say that they have done, even if it probably doesn`t have much
impact on your average American who is, according to Republicans, suffering
mightily under the weight of the Affordable Care Act.

HAYES: Well, that`s what`s -- I mean, first of all we should say there`s
some unlikely allies for getting rid of it -- Al Franken in Minnesota,
Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, both states with huge medical device
industries, we should note.

So there is -- you know, there`s a chance that happens.

SEDER: And we got the doc fix vote coming up some time, I think, in the
spring. And I think that`s a time where you can see something like a must-
pass bill like the doc fix, something like that gets larded up.

HAYES: For those watching and are saying what is the doc fix, let me
briefly explain what the doc fix is, the rates that doctors are reimbursed
under Medicare and Medicaid are basically expire all of the time. And if
they`re actually let to
expire, overnight the rates at which they will be reimbursed would drop by
25 percent and it would be madness.

And so what you have to do, is they keep kicking the can down the road
where they have the doc fix where they say okay, another six months youe
paid at your
current rates. That`s the doc fix.

Michael Steele, I`m going to say this, my prediction -- I`ve got two
predictions. One is, there will not be an Affordable Care Act repeal bill
that gets out of both houses and lands on the president`s desk. Do you
agree?

STEELE: No.

HAYES: You disagree?

STEELE: I think there will be.

HAYES: Really?

STEELE: Yeah. I think the general thinking is to send from the House to
the
Senate a full repeal bill, have the president veto it and then come back
with the medical device as a partial on the health care act.

HAYES: All right, I`m putting this on the board. Chris Hayes says no bill
repeal bill gets the president test, Michael Steele says one does.

My other prediction, Molly Ball, we have seen a really unprecedented
leveling of federal spending in the discretionary budget and it`s largely
been becuase of the budget control act that happened after the debt ceiling
standoff in 2011.

It is an anomaly. People should understand, it`s not like Republicans as a
sort of historical matter have restrained the growth of spending. They
didn`t under George W. Bush, they certainly didn`t under Ronald Reagan. My
prediction is that with Republicans in control in the Senate, we will see
spending start to go up
again. What do you think, Molly Ball?

BALL: Well, it is an interesting irony that you point out when you talk
about these changes to Obamacare, whether it`s the doc fix, which increases
reimbursements, that`s more federal spending, or repealing the medical
device tax
which, again, that tax brings in revenue, that`s going to increase
spending; or, you know, getting rid of those Medicare cuts that everybody
says that they hate, all of those things end up increasing the deficit by
increasing the costs, the pricetag of Obamacare.

So I think that that is not too farfetched.

HAYES: What do you think? I think this is the year that the budget
control act, that that structure gets scrapped and we get something...

SEDER: I`m not -- I don`t think they`re going to go that far, becuase you
know 2016. Because you`ve got guys like Ted Cruz in the Senate who this is
a perfect issue for them to stake a -- exactly. And so they`re going to be
-- you know, there`s not much I think the Republicans really can do. You
know, Keystone XL is one of those things where everybody can agree, because
it`s a completely made up issue and frankly it`s really just one for the
base.

I think you`re going to see stuff for the base, that`s why I think I would
agree that you`re going to see a repeal of the Affordable Care Act at least
get through both houses.

HAYES: So you agree with Michael?

SEDER: Yes.

HAYES: And Michael, do you think you`ll get a Keystone bill out of both
houses that lands on the president`s desk?

STEELE: Yes. yes. In fact, I think you`ll see that the first salvo on
that by the end of this week, Chris. And then it`ll work its way very
quickly to the other chamber and the president will have it.

The Republicans really want to make an early statement that this is about
governing, this is about Republican governing over the next year and, of
course, leading into 2016 without potential nominees.

HAYES: Most hilarious thing would be the president vetoing the Keystone XL
bill, which is you know billed to lower gas prices and gas prices continue
to plummet that very day.

Sam Seder, Molly Ball and Michael Steele, thank you all.

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

END


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

Copyright 2015 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.>