Skip to main content

tv   Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer  Current  April 18, 2012 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT

5:00 pm
why are they getting this money when they are not performing? by the way, the shareholders said no, but it's irrelevant. they don't really have a say. a shame. viewpoint. eliot spitzer, go. ♪ >> good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is viewpoint. is it possible that the public likes mitt romney more than the beam endorsing him? he's endorsements sound like what we used to call hostage endorsements. things you say when you have to, not when you want to. fo rep louie gehment i'm not excites as i am desperate. >> he has already won our nomination. he has earned it. he has proven himself the best
5:01 pm
number sneak who we could put forward. i'm just happy to sign on and help him. >> there's real enthusiasm. with endorsements like that you might not have guessed that this race has been turned on its ear in the last 48 hours. romney is in a statistical dead heat with the president. take a look at "the new york times" poll. all tied up at 46%. joining me now from washington, d.c. is jordan lieberman, managing director of campaign grid and here in new york, executive director of the american values constitution, alexis mcgill johnson, and ben ben smith from ben, let me begin with you you're the nonpartisan voice. what do you think of it? >> i think the democrats got complacent watching the republicans kill each other during the primary. it's over. the closely divided country with a terrible economy, i think a lot of obama advisers did expect that, and it's going to be a
5:02 pm
very tight race. >> jordan, let me turn you, was this sense of inevitability is this norrer more more of a surge? will it last? can if survive? >> yeah, i think it's going to last for a while. there's not a lot of news that will change the dynamics of the race really until the convention. this is about all the little stuff, dugs. >> we'll come to seamus later. >> we'll get to that. this race, i think that mitt romney has had a good week. i don't think it has much to do with rick santorum. the primary is over, a lot of republicans know there is no other choice. this is it. >> alexis i want to come to you. president obama has pushed the buffet rule which tests at 73%. he has chosen to go the populous angle and the republicans take
5:03 pm
this on as class warfare and he's talking in the context of fairness. on the other hand there is a poll that says it trumps fairness as a dramatic theme that will term the outcome of this race. has president obama maybe chosen the wrong theme for this november? >> absolutely not. this election is going to turn on intensity. that's what the deciding factor is going to be. and the intensity with occupy and even a little bit with the tea party. that's what's going to drive people in terms of coming out. so i think that those values that are coming out around opportunity are really going to drive people. >> ben, what do you make of it. i want to come back to intensity. i'm not sure that the president will win with intensity. what do you think of the choice that the white house has made? >> i think that you're right he has taken the populous task.
5:04 pm
is it working, and is his management of the economy working? i think you know, he's trying to tell a story about the recovery of the economy and why it's recovering, how he's leading that recovery and it has to be seen to be happening. >> your sense that athletic themeatics will follow. >> it's been pretty good. the jobs report is terrible. >> not to quibble with you jordan, but it's pretty good if you're in the class of the punditry sitting in washington or new york when you look at the polling data. i hate to look at polls. i never really governor that had way or paid attention to them, but a large piece of the public does not see the recovery. is that the support that governor romney is rooting for? >> it's going to be happening in
5:05 pm
the first, second week of october, we're going to be sitting around saying the same thing, it's ambiguous. i think i'm the guy to talk about the enthusiasm gap for mitt romney. but the reality is that there never be a presidential dim as popular as president obama. >> you're never as popular after you've governed as made hard choices after you've got therein. that's reality. but alexis you said there is an absence of enthusiasm when you talk to 20-year-old, the demographic that carried this president in. >> what's happening around romney is that it's anybody but obama vote, and if we take our own lessons from 2004 when we watched what happened to kerry it was anybody but bush vote.
5:06 pm
it proved to be quite disastrous for us. you need a push and a pull, obama has more pull than romney at the end of the day, and i think that will continue. >> democrats are not that afraid of romney. republicans don't love him, and the democrats don't fear or hate him. >> i think ben's right about that. i speak to a fair number of democrats who in '08 were fervent barack obama supporters. now they say he made an moderate, he's a manager we could live with him. how do you convert that ambiguous support to people going out and vote for him. >> they're racing from a level of ambiguity and listlessness. you're going to see crazy ads trying to bring support from the base. there is no such thing as the middle.
5:07 pm
you saw that in 2004. ads catering on both sides and a lot of us in middle trying to figure out who are those ads talking to? it will be those guys who are thinking about staying home who voted for barack obama in 2008. you're not going to see rallies in the streets and fireworks like you did in 2008. that's a problem for barack obama. mitt romney is starting from a low expectation level. he just has to win a few more states. >> i think you're right. barack obama could have filled any arena. he said he wanted to fill all the arenas on the same day he could have happened, but now that's not going to happen. what you said about the craziness about the ads. as someone who was a candidate i cringe about that, just imagining what they're going to go through. but until last week, we're talking about a gender gap that was a yawning chasm for mitt romney. what happened to that that leads back to 46-46. >> romney is doing better with everybody. a lot of that have is
5:08 pm
conservative women women and conservative men rallying. since republicans were going after contraception, there was a reaction against that. >> that's interesting. until two weeks ago the war on women had been the move effective branding mechanism in a long time. >> there something genuine tying romney to it. i don't think they believe he's the extreme on this. >> what i hear you say is that etch-a-sketch moment has come. he has been able to shake out that little red toy. >> it's the flip flop. people don't believe him. >> they forgive him and say they don't-- >> i disagree. i think women are afraid of romney, the deals he might cut
5:09 pm
judges on the supreme court. we're talking about the fact that there have been almost a thousand bills being introduced in the state legislature on these issues around women, and i think that women--that's what is going to drive the female base. >> jordan-- >> i have to jump in. this is the most woman-friendly candidate. this guy is as pro-choice as they come that could still win the nomination. >> gordon, i got to ask you, that may be true and i've said to people i have friends who are very good friends of him. i don't know mitt romney well and i don't pretend to, but which mitt romney do you believe in? does this turn into a credibility issue when he has said so many different things on fundamental value issues. >> voters are smarter than you think. mitt romney is going to secure the base. he'll have to win 51% of the vote.
5:10 pm
you know, there should not be a woman in america scared that their rights are going to be taken away. >> i am. >> alexis clearly is. but let me disagree, he does not need 51% of the votes but he needs the electorate votes. which of the tough swing states will he win? then we'll go over to alexis. >> i look at north carolina, virginia, states that came around for barack obama that is not looking good. >> if he wins north carolina virginia, he still needs ohio. >> he can certainly win ohio. there is a lot of going on in ohio right now and the republican party is resurgent and well organized and well funded. he could easily win ohio. >> the obama campaign has been on the ground since 2007 in northnorth carolina.
5:11 pm
i--i think they're feeling very confident and they're moving into arizona where they can make a huge play on the latino vote. >> if i were the white house i would not want to rest on north carolina. look at what happened to the governor down there. >> this is a very devised country. we have not seen the growth in the latino votes. >> i think you're right. north carolina for mitt romney. i think ohio is going to be the battleground. my prediction, the white house moves to canton, ohio, between now and november. when the president goes back to washington, that becomes the new story. managing director campaign grid jordan lieberman and alexis mcgill johnson and ben smith editor in chief at
5:12 pm and the chief executive of citigroup wants a $15 million pay package but shareholders say not so fast. next on viewpoint. the ted conference held here every year in southern california is an event designed to bring the brightest minds in the world together to share their most powerful, influential and creative ideas. the speakers share a common goal, making the world a better, smarter place through innovation, technology and the power of big ideas. peter diamendes is the co-founder of the singularity university, an academic institution which strives to address one issue. computers are getting really smart really quickly. so, what are us flesh and blood types going to do about it? human brains haven't gotten all that much smarter in hundreds of thousands of years. computers by contrast, in the
5:13 pm
last half century, have doubled their computational power every two years. a future where computers can no longer be controlled by us could be pretty dark for humanity. or, it can bring untold breakthroughs. some futurists beleive that humans will be able to achieve immortality by downloading our brains into machine bodies like files on a hard drive. either way, diamandes says he'll be ready. scion: what moves you.
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
>> here's a good return on an investment and it's the number of the day. 1969% turns out if you are a
5:16 pm
major company and you invest in a lobbyist to reduce your taxes it works. your taxes go way down. the eight companies that spent the most, $540 million, let me say that again five companies spend $540 million on lobbying. you know what? they saved $11.7 billion in taxes, a return of 1969%. that even beats warren buffet, a pretty barn good investment. my advice, hire a lobbyist. turn off the tv. look at the yellow pages, hire are a lobbyist. your taxes will go down. coming up, bernie sanders.
5:17 pm
it's completely inappropriate for television. >> a shot heard around the world of wall street with a stirring message about ceo pay. too much in a stunning review of bloated ceo pay. the shareholders rejected the ceo's pay package. it marks one of the first times investors have united to combat exorbitant pay compensation. once stock holder voted down the pay of philadelphia money management company objected to the sheer amounts, i quote ceos deserve good pay but there's good pay and there is obscene pay.
5:18 pm
quote, if you reward them on focusing on high-risk short-term profits. that's what you get, and that's how the financial crisis caught fire. joining me now, bernie sanders from the great state of vermont. >> good to be with you, eliot. >> i know you're focused and rightly sow on citizens united efforts to repeal it. you had a big event today. tell us about it. >> we want groups all over the country to develop a strong grassroots movement that says the citizens united decision allows corporations to spend unlimited sums of money on political campaigns is not what america is about. we're seeing a situation where they're grabbing hold of the entire political process, and we got to stop that. we need short-term fixes that we're working on here in congress, but long term there is no question the citizens united decision will go down in history
5:19 pm
as one of the worst supreme court decisions ever, and it has got to be overturned. i got an institutional amendment in, others do. we've got to develop the grassroots effort to pass that and to overturn citizens united. >> there is no question that the money flowing into politics has gotten only worse. it is a cancer in our political system. citizens united opened the floodgates in a way that has been horrific, and let's hope we can put a dam of the flow of money-- >> eliot, i would add to that what people don't appreciate what citizens united means is above and beyond everything else in the power of money, when members of the senate and the house go to vote on an issue they're going to be thinking twice about whether or not they want to stand up to wall street or the coal companies or the oil companies. when they go home on the weekend there will an flood of 30-second tv ads without disclosure. it's a huge issue. >> talking about reform effort,
5:20 pm
one that seems to be working the vote that came in that said to citibank you're paying your ceo too much. dodd frank seems to be working a little bit. >> eliot, what this is about everybody knows what the middle class shrinking, poverty increasing, and people on top doing phenomenally well. their effective tax rates have gone down, which is one of the reasons why we have the deficit crisis. what people are saying, look especially on wall street when these are the guys who, through their dishonesty, recklessness caused this recession that has caused so many people their jobs, their homes, their life savings, and now these same people to be rewarded with obscene salaries is just unfair. i think you're beginning to hear a shot that will increasingly be heard around the world that these guys cannot get outrageous
5:21 pm
salaries. >> you and i believe dodd frank should have been stronger and structural where it gave shareholders who owned the company an opportunity to say you're giving away our company and you're paying too much. mitt romney who now is going to be the republican nominee said that dodd frank was an encroachment on our freedom. i don't even understand where he's coming from on this. how could giving shareholders more power is encroachment on our freedom. >> i assume he thinks that regulation is terrible. we got to get the government off the backs of our wonderful friends on wall street who are so trustworthy and honest that they don't need regulation. it's beyond comprehension when you talk about more deregulation of wall street when it was deregulation itself and allowing these huge financial institution institutions to merge with commercial companies and doing
5:22 pm
away with glass--and then to say in a what we really need is more deregulation after the experiences the american people have had. it's quite unbelievable to me. >> i'm firmly convinced that mitt romney lived through a different history over the last five years then the rest of us did. he clearly did not see what the crisis caused in our society a complete disaster. i don't even see--here talking about giving shareholders power folks who own the company. i thought he would give that virtue. >> it's their money. the idea that people who are investing in a company cannot have any say about how their money is being spent in terms of ceo salaryies is obviously incomprehensible. they own the company. >> what will the citibank board of directors do with this? because they were not mandatory. it was basically saying you're like a kid at the family table
5:23 pm
articulate what you think, but daddy or mommy will make the decision. >> i think it will be a very interesting debate. it would be to me really quite extraordinary if they said, hum we're going to go forward any howdies spite the people who own our company, who invested in our company want. we're going spit in their faces and ignore their wishes. >> it would be human huberouse on the part of the board. they're in a dicey position, and it would be fun to see the battle of the litigation but they better recognize that shareholders have said loud and clear this is what counts. can shareholders stand up on other issues in the future? >> of course they can. we would like shareholders to be speaking out on the nature of investments being made by wall street, the need to start investing in the real economy rather than the casino
5:24 pm
committee. there is a whole lot. people's capitalism, so to speak, suggest when people invest in a company should have a say where that company goes. if they don't like the salary the ceo is getting they should be able to say that. if they don't like the direction the company is going, they should be able to deal with that. >> so many thanks to you. telling it as it is, and how we should understand it. thank you. >> thank you. >> the motor city madman keeps running off at the mouth. what did ted nugent say now? next on viewfinder.
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate.
5:27 pm
these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> coming up, the individual mandate, no, not the one proposed by president obama. the one signed by presidents washington and adams. amazing stuff. but first, ted nugent is still talking, seamus romney is still in the news, and region region gentlemen he regis philbin is still decorating his body with rhinestones.
5:28 pm
when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder.
5:29 pm
>>this is outrageous! we've have no choice, we've lost our democracy here.
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
icy, cool flavor in a delicious 5-calorie stick of gum. ♪ ♪ polar ice. from extra. >> the individual mandate is history. literally. it goes back to 1798. here to tell bus this remarkable fact is the harvard law professor who unearthed it. the founder of the petrie-flom
5:32 pm
center. >> thanks for having me. >> it comports with our founding father's notion. you found a fact that resolves it definitively. tell us about this. >> well, it's important to understand that there is no text, history or case law that suggests that congress could not mandate the purchase of something. so the proponents argument is hinged on a notion that is unprecedented. what i found first in 1790 congress passed a mandate requiring all ship owners to buy medical insurance for their sea men. then i found in 1792 congress passed a law requiring all able-bodied men to buy guns and ammunition. and then third i found in 1798 congress passed the law requiring automatic deduction of
5:33 pm
wangs of sea men to purchase hospital insurance for them. >> in and though 1798 is most directly applicable, but it seems to me that you have another fact that you didn't inform of us north. these bills were passed through congress by those individuals who were drafted the constitution, signed the declaration of independence and the first two laws were signed by president washington, you can't get better than that. >> the first had 20 framers the second, 17, and the last one five. you have the frame center chief george washington, having signed them. the notion that there is some unspoken framer view of the mandate of something, i don't think it's supported by these cases. >> you have crooning and president washington way back when signing legislation requiring people to buy health insurance because they
5:34 pm
understood this would make markets work efficiently direct analog of the debates right now. and the nra as conservative as it is, seems to be spearheading the healthcare act. how do you think they would react if it required us to buy guns today. >> i don't know how they would react, but congress passed it in 1790. >> and there you have it. the question i have to bring this to the current day litigation, was this fact brought to the attention of the supreme court? it seems to me a pretty powerful piece of evidence if i'm solicit general of the united states i'm going to argue justice kennedy, congress did this before way back when. was this the centerpiece of the litigation? >> no, the government didn't argue these precedents. there was amicus brief that did bring up the gun purchase
5:35 pm
mandate. i'm not sure if the others were brought to the court's attention or not. but to argue that modern america healthcare was different than all the other products that mandated the purchase of it. it was a good argument but i myself would have raised these examples and challenged the premises that there was something unprecedented in requiring the purchase of things that justifies the banning of the constitution. there isn't one in it. >> the argument that healthcare is different, but, indeed, we've condone this before, and the fact that the founding fathers did it would be an argument, and i would have gone with the argument that you unearthed. where did you find this stuff, and hats off for doing remarkable research. where did you find this stuff?
5:36 pm
>> among health law professor this is well-known. i've seen this in articles by penn and wake forest. i can't claim for having unearthed it, but i'm making the argument now because it seems to have gotten lost in all of the effort to try to distinguish healthcare these powerful examples got lost. i think the problem is it shifted the burden of proof. i think the government has a sound strategy of trying to be cautious, because they did not challenge this, justice kennedy was left with the false impression that they truly were unprecedented, that led him to think that there was the burden on the government because they were changing the relationship of the individual to government. but these examples show that is not so. the burden should be on the side that does not have any constitutional text history or case law on it to create a new constitutional limitation that is not there right now. >> that's exactly right.
5:37 pm
persuading the court to do something unprecedented is harder than persuading it to do something that goes back to the days of our founding fathers. einer elhauge harvard professor, thank you for your insight and your research. >> thank you. >> let's stop occupying wall street and accept the truth. we own wall street. my view coming up. that can help lower cholesterol and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. that's yours. lower cholesterol. lower cholesterol. i'm yummy. lower cholesterol. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste? honey nut cheerios. want whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. it's a win win. good? [ crunching, sipping ] be happy. be healthy. can i try yours?
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
>> still ahead, arianna huffington of the pulitzester prize "huffington post" joins me. but first let's head out to war room jennifer granholm. what's the line up. >> as part of our ongoing coverage in "the war room," we're going to travel to wisconsin tonight so we have democrat tammy baldwin. she's running for senate, she's going to tell what's she's doing to take out probably former
5:40 pm
governor tommy thompson, the republicans have a primary there, but its likely he's going to win. she's going to talk about the issues in her race. then we'll go to kathleen salk in the democratic run for governor. she hopes to take over scott walker in the fall. sheas turning into a hot and nasty campaign. she's not backing down. we might have a few things to say about the motor city mad moan, too. >> we were talking about wisconsin the other night. i can't figure out what is going on out there. they have these fictitious candidates being permitted to run, and it sounds like seven grade politics not the grown up world where you run for office because you want to win. it's like the which would west. i can't figure it out. >> wisconsin is such a fascinating state, and paul ryan is from there, too. there is going on in wisconsin. >> fascinating is not the first word that would spring to mind. but as jennifer, you're more diplomatic than i have.
5:41 pm
more viewpoint coming up next. i know this stuff and i love it and i try to bring that to the show. >>i'm a political junkie. this show is my fix. [[vo]]this former two-term governor is ... >> up next the converse with "huffington post" found, arianna huffington. but first here is my view. two big wins this week. first bowing to grassroots pressure, alec has retreated saying they will no longer lobby for stand your ground and voter i.d. laws. second, shareholders at citibank stood up and said enough.
5:42 pm
we don't want to pay our ceo $15 million. these events highlight a major opportunity--a new approach to moving the political needle to changing our politics. so i'm going to suggest a new slogan. instead of occupy wall street list change it a bit to we own wall street. and we do. our dollars own and could control the companies that we want to influence. with ownership comes the right and, indeed, the obligation to get the companies we own to do the right thing. what do i mean we own them? the shares that actually control the major banks, manufacturers, retail giants, all the big publicly traded companies are held by the big pools of capital. mutual funds, public and private pension funds, endowments of big universities, including the public ones, and we own those pools of capital. it's our money. your 401 k money at a mutual fund.
5:43 pm
your pension being managed by the pension managers public money at a public university endowment. those shares are owned by us. so we need to use that power as shards holders to control broad selection and control and limit compensation and control the decisions about political contributions. how do we do this? it's pretty he is. look at the citibank vote. all we need is a few courageous state or city comptrollers to start using their control of shares to vote the right way. here is the first easy step we should take as shareholders. ask and then demand that the companies stop making contributions to any organization that is trying to change the rules in washington. we don't care if it is the chamber of commerce or the sierra club. we want corporate money out of the game of changing the rules. we just want companies to focus on playing by the rules. i've longed believed that ownership trumps regulation as a way to get change. so let's not stop with our successes at alec and citibank.
5:44 pm
let's use our ownership aggressively. our new slogan should be, we own wall street. that's my view. at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
>> the "huffington post" to millions who now visit the news site is sense of years old and snagged its person pulitzer prize. is this the main treatment acknowledgment that huff post may be the future of news, media and journalism. here with me now the founder and president of "huffington post," arianna huffington. congratulations. trialed to havethrilled to have you here. how does it feel to have the media acknowledge that you have created something.
5:47 pm
>> thank you for having me. it's great to be here. it is a great day. it is a great day for the newsroom. obviously for david who is 66 years and who has had a distinguished career for over 40 years. it was basically demonstration that you can do great journalism on any platform, which is what we've been saying for a long time. and it requires resources, no question about that. they gave david nine months to travel anywhere, to do a ten-part serious including graphics and the invitation of our leaders to send in their own stories. it's part of the future because this is not just a great ten-part series, but something we want to stay on. like david has already done two more series tracking the lives of returning veterans. >> the point of this series was so moving, and so poignant.
5:48 pm
it was the life beyond the battlefield. he tracked the emotional life that followed them, and the pain and suffering and recovery. it was as you say, a ten-part series, something beyond what traditional journalism has done. >> that's what we can do on the web, stay on the story in an obsessive way. very often mainstream media big stories are broken on the front pages, and we know we need to stay on a story and stay and on a story, and approach it from every possible ankle and invite readers to send in their own views, facts, and develop the story. otherwise nothing changes. >> it was much more interactive it evolved and was more organic than traditional newspapers. the wrath of huff post, you were an aggravator. you took other people's stuff
5:49 pm
put it on your website. this is stating to the world our original journalism is just as good if not better than what you're doing. >> we have been doing original journalism for a while. we have 500 editors and journalists in our newsroom in new york and more in l.a., etc. but sometimes it takes a while for the narrative to catch up with reality. this is really a great moment and because it demonstrates what we have actually been doing for everybody. >> congratulations, and talk about the chasm sometimes between the narrative and reality. let's focus on afghanistan. what david wrote about. i read the stories not only nice but there was a compelling story about the suicide rate among veterans and then you see the taliban attacking in kabul. you wonder why are we there? it's an an ambiguity that has not
5:50 pm
been answered. do you have a clear understanding of what we're doing now? >> this is what i understand is a very immoral war. i'm not a passive, and i understand that sometimes we have to go to war but if you look at the incredible sacrifice of the young, and the issue is not at all part of the campaign, and it's also tragic because young americans are dying, and civilians are dieing in afghanistan from american soldiers, from drones, and we're actually becoming less safe because we are in afghanistan. the war for heart and mind has not gone our way. >> there are two funneled mental fundamental arguments that could be made. we have to be there to fight the taliban. that is one purposes that joe biden said a we can do with a
5:51 pm
limited force. the other is we've fallen in the trap of nation building to fight karzai who is corrupt and does not support us, and therefore that model creates sacrifice that is not necessary. >> the first argument does not hold any more, osama bin laden is dead. and we're in the middle of a civil war. that's what we're in the middle of right now. the idea that we're there to train the afghanis to fight is kind of laughable. >> that was always one that struck me as an absurd argument. the afghanis have fought every major empire since the romans, they fight when they want to fight. what is lacking is the will. if they don't want to fight, there is a reason, and we will not persuade them otherwise. >> and one of the afghans that we're training to fight, in the middle of the night killing his
5:52 pm
fellowsfellow men. >> how do you justify to the soldier that he'll be the last person to die. you said there is a moral obligation to explain why we're doing this. >> the moral obligation to make this part of the campaign. that's what we're trying to do by staying on it. it's hard. >> neither party wants to talk about it. for the president, it's an uncertainty. he's not going to persuade anybody to vote for him by explaining. and the republicans are afraid of articulating with we should leave. >> 69% of americans who believe we should leave afghanistan, so it is beyond a left or right issue.
5:53 pm
>> well, the public is often ahead of the politicians, especially on contentious issues where the politicians are afraid to put their toe in the water that would subject them to criticism. >> and many of the establishment, again, not the establishment, the conservative establishment, liberal establishment, they have been very eloquent about the need to leave afghanistan, so it is this kind of issue where even the establishment is afraid of explaining what the administration is doing. >> one of the eloquent voices, colin powell has been opposed to the war. he said you have to satisfy fundamental intellectual hurdles before go to war. we'll switch gears. talking about the race of the presidency. two weeks ago many said it was over, it was done. gender gap and the latinos
5:54 pm
aren't going to vote for mitt romney. now it's a dead heat. give me your understanding of that. >> it comes down to the fact that we are not in any kind of recovery that has changed the lives of millions of americans. so we may want to talk about being in recovery, and we're not. we still have incredibly high unemployment. we still have millions of homes that are foreclosed, millions more underwater. people are not feeling in any way that we are over this terrible financial crisis. >> you and i had a common understanding of what the white house did and didn't do back in '08-'09 after the '08 election when this white house white house they bailed out the banks but did not do enough for the core of the economy and the homeowners. that is begin to go bite them
5:55 pm
because wall street, although not supportive of this president, got all the money that it needed. it was not asked to do anything--no reciprocity and this enormous mortgage is hanging over the economy. >> the president, who should have been beloved by wall street is not because of his record, not because of his actions. instead of populous recording he's taking action. >> he was very good to wall street but because his rhetoric about wall street was edgy wall street has abandoned him. yet the public did not get the upside of negotiating aggressively with well street, and the public is saying that the economy is not good, the jobs, as you alluded to, the homes that are underwater, and the foreclosures rates that will go up because the banks that have been holding back on the foreclosures will now move those
5:56 pm
houses through the pipeline. >> and the fact that so many kids are graduating from college without jobs are burdened with debt. that is another sign that is going to really effect the election. >> now there is a demographic trend when there is a cliché that describes them. they're boomerang kids. i have one who is graduating from college, and looking for jobs--when i got out of college in 1981, so going way back, there was no question you could get a job. it might not be the precise one you wanted. these days there is a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty, and that hesitancy about the economy is troubling the president. >> yes there were great enthusiasts for barack obama in '08. now when you add in the debt that they're burdened with there is a different reality that they're living in. >> many people think that student debt will be the next
5:57 pm
crisis, student debt as you look at the numbers, the debt that is built up, and if you don't have a job to pay it off. >> we're talking about 1 trillion-dollar, the debt higher than credit card debt. >> that's right. well, we've only got 45 seconds left. if you were giving advice to the president what would you ask him to do? to address the substance of what is wrong. >> i would ask him to do something real and start with foreclosure. just make make a new appointment. >> he runs the ofc, and he has been the one who has--fannie mae mae. >> very, very reluctant to bring actions that will bring a fundamental difference in people's circumstances. so i would do something real. i don't think speeches are going to do it because everybody knows that he's a great and eloquent speaker.
5:58 pm
5:59 pm