>> a very rough day and what changed is the coloration of the market. we are in a position to have good and down days, it may not be the magic i'm jim cramer, see you monday! the white house continues to move closer to arming rebels in syria. is this a good idea? or by leading from behind, will we now be arming al qaeda? we'll try to get some answers for all that tonight. and now to your money. the big fed meeting next week, our own jim and stanford professor john taylor will slug it out over what ben bernanke should do. and from the great debate, we go to the great divorce. forget about rupert murdoch. harold hand and his wife suzanne are splitting up. here's the thing, there's no prenup. we're talking $11 billion in

asets and maybe lots more thanks to the energy boom. this could be the costliest divorce of all-time. "the kudlow report" begins right now. first off this evening, we begin with breaking news. voting hours had to be extended in iran, as that country elects a new president. it's not a real democratic election, but any changes to the ruling structure in iran could play a role in its nuclear weapons program, and iran's involvement in syria's civil war. nbc news ali joins us now with all the details. good evening, ali. >> well, iranians went to the ballot box today to vote for a new president. but in a country it's difficult to gauge who will win this election. the ultra conservative nuclear negotiator, and the conservative

mayor, and the centrist who has the backing of leading reformists in the country are leading. in order for hashani to do well, he needed to have a third of the voters. that's exactly the demographic he needed to tap into to do well. the morning started off slowly. but later in the afternoon, there was a surge of voters that went to the polling stations. affluent north tehran, the people we spoke to seemed to favor mr. rohani. but in southern tehran, the votes seem to be split. it's going to be a close race between the three of them and we're expecting results to come in tomorrow. but if it's too close to call, the two candidates with the highest amount of votes will go into a runoff next week. back to you, larry. >> thanks very much to ali. iran, of course, the number one

supporter and military supplier to the assad regime in syria. hang on a minute, who are the rebels? many believe they're a branch of al qaeda. joining me now on set, retired u.s. army colonel and medal of honor recipient jack jacobs, barclays strategist helena is not on the set but i know she's out there, and matt miller is the host of public radio's left, right and center. jack, the iranian election. quick take on that. is it going to have any bearing on anything, like syria, or nuclear weapons? >> no, not likely. all the real reformers have been expunged from the ballot. what you've got is pretty much down the line, i think what the clerics want. so i don't think you'll see much change. >> nothing changes, all right. helena, i want to ask you, who exactly are we going to be giving weapons to in syria?

if we'd done it a year or two ago, maybe we would know who they are. many say they're al qaeda, branches of al qaeda. it's like rearming the taliban in afghanistan or something. what are we doing this for? >> that's a concern. the concern is that at this point the group that's been best on the battlefield is the al nrsa front. the obama administration will say they're arming a more western oriented rebels. but is it a little too late. at this point are they going to be able to prevail given what's happened with assad retaking territory. >> all right, so matt miller, let me ask you. your man, obama, is coming in too late. he's too slow, too late, too little. why is he doing this? >> i don't know the answer, larry. you've got 90,000 dead already in the last two years. what is it about the last 150, because they were killed with sarin gas, because suddenly we're going to do something. i have the same concerns, which

is to do something so we can say we did something. but the responses of the rebels today is the small arms, maybe they're going to do some kind of tank stuff. but it doesn't sound like they're going to do a no-fly zone, because that would mean an all-in commitment in the country. it looks more like a token effort. one white house aide -- >> there's an emotional balance. this is not the divorce we were talking about. >> no. >> colonel jacobs, to you. your take on giving arms to the so-called rebels. this is what john mccain wanted. he was pushing this very hard. now it looks like he's going to hold hands with mr. obama. i still don't understand, why do we have to get involved? why don't we just let them slug it out, right there. >> i think -- >> let them slug it out. >> i think the president got hoisted with his own baton, made a comment about assad using poison gas. if he uses that, it crosses the line, now he's got to do

something. at the end of the day, no matter what the administration is going to give these guys, it's not going to help them out. we don't know who the rebels are. we're not going to give them stuff that really makes a difference. they can't use it in any case. it's just a gesture. >> this red line business, they have chemical weapons, and they've used some of them. matt's assessment of 150 is what's reported. a life is a life. but my point is, what does it mean crossing the red line? what are we supposed to do about that? arming rebels doesn't do a thing with the chemical weapons that assad has. this is the part i never understood. we're not going in there, we're not going to put troops in there. the european union is not going to put troops in there. we're powerless. >> it is just a meaningless gesture. what we don't want to do is say it's okay with us that you use chemical weapons. we don't want anybody else to use them. we don't use them. we don't w't want this to be a

precedent for the future. but to think we're actually going to be able to influence the future anywhere, by giving a few ak-47s to the rebels is crazy. >> you have to be fair. clinton said the other night, he regrets having waited so long in the balkans, in rwanda, while so much carnage went on. these are tough situations. >> but that was my point, matt. with all due respect, president obama, he's done some foreign policy things that i've looked, some i haven't liked. but i'm saying he's too late on this. clinton is right, he's too late on this. now the rebels are so integrated with the radical jihadists, or whatever the al qaedas are called there, he's just getting into this game way too late. >> general kudlow, you have more in-depth knowledge of the actual composition of the rebel forces than many of the contacts. >> we have a hard time trying to figure out what we want to do. because assad has got on his side hezbollah. we would love to see assad go

down the tubes because hezbollah goes down with him. >> but he's not going down the tubes. he's probably going to win this election. >> even if we had started arming the rebels months and months ago -- >> helena, i want you to get back in here. another party weighed in today. that is russia. vladimir putin. now, this guy, vladimir putin, by the way, getting his own divorce, which i find very interesting, but i don't think he has as much money as harold hand, but that's later in the show. putin said he will deliver all the weapons to syria. some kind of anti-ballistic weapons. nothing has been delivered. all he's doing is popping his mouth off, is that right? >> the thing at the end of the day, the russians are backing the assad regime. the united states has tried to pry russia away from assad, and the russians are saying, no, they don't want to see any more governments fall to street demonstrations. >> what are they going to do about it? this is one of these things. what are we going to do about

it, what is russia going to do about it, what is anybody going to do about it? >> everyone said assad was going to go. the russians have held the line. look, their ally is still in power and retaking territory. >> why does the world, matt miller, have to get involved in a syrian civil war? why do they have to? >> that's a fair question. but when you've got 90,000 people killed -- >> it's genocide. >> and you're a great power, the idea that these great powers won't do something to stop a humanitarian disaster is a fair question. the thing about the russian angle that interests me is you saw today some of the russian officials were saying, we don't even trust what they're saying on the sarin gas because they were so wrong on their intelligence on wmd. the legacy of our having blown the intelligence in iraq, which is very costly, gives russia the ability to pooh-pooh the west's findings that undermines our

credibility and status. >> maybe so. but i think putin pops his mouth off too much. what do you think of what he just said? in other words, this whole issue of weaponry, we are powerless to do anything about this. why do we have to get involved? i didn't understand when john mccain was conducting his own diplomacy. i don't understand it now. what, what, what? >> it doesn't make any strategic sense, surely. we were trying for a long period of time to get the russians to agree with us, that we would together do something there, at a time many, many months ago when we might have had some influence on the outcome. but although we would like to see assad go down the tubes, hezbollah go down the tubes, we have no idea who's going to take over. every time we've been involved anywhere, the guys who have taken over have been at least as bad as the guys who were there

before. >> we're just going to spread weapons around. they're all going to get in the wrong hands. okay, i've got to get out. thanks very much. matt miller is going to hang out with me a little longer because we're going to get your take on edward snowden. is he a hero or traitor or is he a chinese spy? by the way, the american public has ternd against the nsa surveillance program. pollster scott rasmussen has unbelievable numbers for us. that's next up. later on in the show, yep, $11 billion in assets, no prenup. are you kidding me? we've got the story on harold hand, his estranged wife and all this oil fracking going on. and man, the numbers just keep rising. you won't believe it either. don't forget, we're all for free market capitalism. it is the best path to prosperity. nothing going on in the middle east, that's for sure. i'm kudlow. we'll be right back.

should americans be worried that the nsa surveillance program will lead to another irs scandal? a new rasmussen poll showed 57% of polls say they will harass

political opponents. let's bring in scott rasmussen, found founder of rasmussen reports. walk us through some of these numbers. ten days ago, 12 days ago when this thing broke, it looked like the public was reporting the surveillance, and now it's all flipped. what can you tell us? >> well, there was one poll out earlier that said they were generally accepting, and our poll found there was reluctance about it. if you fight terrorism, you get a little more support. but what we're finding now, people are worried about the use of the data. they are worried about the -- just the sweeping nature of it. 64% say they'd like it better if it was reduced and targeted more narrowly. only people who have some kind of suspected terrorist ties. 73% believe that a judge should have to approve each and every

individual whose information is released to the nsa. >> basically, a judge, a court has to approve it, basically that's in this? >> no, a court right now can approve the sweeping monitoring, the ongoing routine monitoring. only 17% of americans support that kind of a sweeping judicial thing. >> what i'm saying is -- hang on a second. the fisa court allows the authorities to actually tap, to actually telephone tap, to actually e-mail tap. at least domestically at home. the other one, the p.r.i.s.m. abroad is another story. but i'm just trying to see, are people making accurate distinctions here, scott, or do they just sort of in total don't like the sound of this? >> they don't like the sound of it. and what they think should be done, they believe the government should not be able to access their information unless they have a specific terrorist tie. if a terrorist is calling larry

kudlow, larry kudlow's information should be visible to the nsa. if not, your information should be private. that's the attitude. >> i get -- >> larry, one more thing on this. >> yeah. >> this is very important. the distrust is so deep, that when president obama said nobody's listening, we went out and asked a poll question, we said the president said nobody's listening to your phone calls. how likely is it the government agencies are listening? 68% said they are listening. they simply do not believe our elected officials. >> no, i get that. >> but the way that question gets asked, with all respect, i understand polling is an art, not a science, i'm looking at the questions you asked and are government agencies listening in on private conversations? you didn't ask if they were listening in on every conversation. to make a big judgment based on that number i think is a little premature. >> except for we also asked how likely is it your conversations are being monitored? and 46% say it's likely that

their own information is being monitored. >> see, that's the thing that troubles me. your poll doesn't trouble me, i'm just saying that conclusion troubles me because it's so patently untrue. it's just untrue. >> but if there's broad data mining, that means all of our data is being aggregated mined -- >> wait a second. the nsa, you wrote this in your column. it's like a needle in a haystack, but you've got to have a haystack. >> right. we're all in the haystack. >> the haystack we are all in. the needle is actually listening to our phone calls. in other words, if i call you, that gets scored. if i call you two or three times, that gets scored. could be scored against a credit card, too. i don't have such a big problem with that. but they can't -- they're not going to listen to you and i talking to each other unless this fisa court allows it. i think this has been muddled by my friend rand paul and others.

i think it's been deliberately muddled and the public is very confused about what happened. >> the public is confused. what they are perceiving is the nsa decided to risk not getting caught and when they did, they decided to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. there is a suspicion that things are going on here that people would not approve of. and that's why it was not discussed ahead of time. this is part of a deeper distrust issue that's going on. it's very problematic. >> i share that. big distrust of the government. and i totally get that. and i think the irs scandal, where there was political targeting, and there was political corruption, was exactly the worst possible thing that could have come out preceding the nsa. i think that's exactly right. but matt miller, i know you don't like snowden, so we'll get to that in a second. but here's the point. medicare, social security, obama

care, irs audits, all are more involved in your personal life than this nsa business. they are right there in your personal life, knowing everything about you. more than the nsa. now, democratic party, and i admit the republican party, though not on obama care, this stuff goes on all the time with the domestic agencies. they are big government and they are right involved in your entire life. >> like medicare and stuff? >> knowing your information, everything. >> google -- >> everything about it. not just what phone call you make, but everything about you. >> google and facebook and other internet based companies are spying on you all day long when you're at your computer. >> i'm doing that voluntarily. >> do you understand how much your personal data is being -- >> i can -- >> is being marked and sold? >> but i can walk away from that. however, i cannot walk away from medicare and -- >> how is medicare spying on

you? >> they are looking at every nook and cranny of my health life. obama care in particular will say, did you pay, are you eligible for this, what salary are you making. >> what do you think private insurance companies do? >> but i can walk away from those private insurance companies, i can't walk away from obama care. >> sure you can. it's only a small fraction of the american public. >> matt miller, it's a tax issue, there's a tax issue. >> yes. >> scott rasmussen, let me ask you one more question. on the matter of government distrust, how big an issue is this going to be in the 2014 election? this is a huge thing. government mistrust. i don't necessarily mean the scandals per se, but the mistrust issue, is this a political issue for 2014? >> when you say the distrust issue, you know, are people going to distrust the government? of course. they distrust it more today than they did six months ago. but there's always been an underbelly, people don't like to trust government. that's part of the american dna.

in 2014 the challenge is, how are you going to tell which party to vote for if you distrust the government? john mccain and barack obama are on the same team. >> isn't that the truth. you just nailed it. that is exactly right. i don't know what either of them are doing. that's the great part, mccain, i'm a partisan guy on this. all right. enough. scott rasmussen, thank you, appreciate it. matt miller, appreciate having you here. detroit tells some of its creditors they'll have to settle for 10 cents on the dollar. a big chunk of its pension holders will have to take even less than that. we've got that story, and the latest on the $11 billion no prenup divorce, next up on kudlow.

man: how did i get here? dumb luck? or good decisions? ones i've made. ones we've all made. about marriage. children. money. about tomorrow. here's to good decisions. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your family's future? we'll help you get there. given way to sleeping. tossing and turning have where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep, and lunesta eszopiclone can help you get there, like it has for so many people before. do not take lunesta if you are allergic to anything in it. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving or engaging in other activities

while asleep without remembering it the next day have been reported. lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions such as tongue or throat swelling occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then find out how to get lunesta for as low as $15 at lunesta.com there's a land of restful sleep, we can help you go there, on the wings of lunesta.

detroit's financial woes are so bad, the city is now asking its creditors to take a huge hair cut. sema mody has that story and others. >> good evening, larry. that's right, creditors asked to accept pennies on the dollar including unsecured bond holders and pension funds. they could get less than 10% of what they're owed. that's the word from kevin orr, the emergency manager appointed to take over the city's finances. he's also going to meet with union leaders and retirees to discuss cuts to their health care, or drastic measures are needed to get detroit on the road to recovery. cbs says a computer of one of its reporters was hacked.

the network did a thorough investigation and determined the computer was hacker, and the hacker used sophisticated methods to cover his tracks. she's the lead reporter on benghazi. she thought she, too, had been hacked. but cbs can't be sure who actually did it. in another big dollar divorce to tell you about, larry. yesterday we heard about rupert murdoch and his wife wendy. but they've got nothing on harold hamm and his wife sue ann. they could have the biggest divorce settlement ever. hamm owns more oil in the ground than any other american. in all of hamm's fortune estimated to be at least $11 billion. because the couple has been married for 25 years, and because they have agreed to a separation date in 2012, sue ann's divorce settlement could be around $3 billion. and larry, the hamms did not have ooh prenup, which the murdochs did. >> just a couple points on this.

>> yes. >> harold hamm was one of the great fracking entrepreneurs. >> absolutely. >> in north dakota and so forth. i mean, he really helped launch the entire revolution that's going to make us energy independent. point number two, my wife and i going to celebrate 26 years married, and very happy to do it. but coming back to these big numbers, they could be double the $11 billion. i think there was some geological survey, somebody just said that the potential fracking oil underneath the ground in the dakotas could be twice what anybody is estimating. >> how do you assess oil that hasn't even been fracked yet. that's a great point. >> we could be talking humongous numbers. >> that's why they're going to be bringing in some type of referee to calculate and find a fair price to put on this. >> i didn't know about the referee part. >> that's the -- what the reports are saying. >> well, we've had harold hamm as a guest. i hope we have him as a guest again. i hope he's still solvent.

seema mody, thank you for that. time to get to your money. the markets remain obsessed with all things bernanke, whether the fed should slow down its bond buying program, and we'll have a great debate next up on "the kudlow report."

welcome back to "the kudlow report." i'm larry kudlow. in this half hour, the wild swings on wall street continue, another triple-digit day for the dow. this time to the down side as it fell 106 points. the dow is now corrected lower by about 3%, or 478 points from its all-time high. what to do next. we're going to get you some answers later on. also, while it's certainly true scandals are surrounding the obama white house, more than ever the republicans need a real operate mi optimistic growth message. first up, wall street is obsessed with fed taper talk. investors are looking ahead to the next week's meeting with hopes to get more clarity on whether the fed's going to buy more or fewer bonds. question for us is, has ben bernanke done good or not for the american economy?

let's get right to it. here now is former undersecretary of the treasury, john taylor. stanford university economics professor. and we welcome back contributor jim, american enterprise institute. jim penned the bernanke difference, why the u.s. is in europe. in that piece, jimmy p. attacked john taylor. so we thought we would settle this once and for all. in fact, i'm having so much fun with this, i'm going to quote my pal jimmy p. he said very smart center right economists, including john taylor and al melser, are mistaken in arguing that the u.s. recovery would be stronger if the fed had not engaged in quantitative easing. and that the central bank should immediately cease and desist. john taylor, i'll let you go first. what do you think of jimmy p.'s biting, scathing criticism of your criticism of bernanke? >> actually, it seems pretty

mild. good thing to discuss. my sense is that the fed's policies really haven't helped. it's been a weak recovery. the fed thought growth would be 4% last year, it came in under 2%. and they've continued these quantitative easings in 2010, 2011, and now, of course, $85 billion a month. you're seeing some of the concerns the markets have as you come off of this with the volatility in the last month that you led off with. i'm quite concerned. this is a very interventionist set of policies. we've had terrific policies with the fed in the past. i've never been one of the most outspoken people in support of the fed, in the '80s and '90s, until recently. it's hard to see, but this record is very good. i applaud what they did in the panic in 2008 with respect to when things were really moving down. but right before then, after then, the record has not been very good. >> all right. let me go to jim. jim, you're contrasting the fed with the european central bank,

the ecb. your basic case, as i understand it is, if the fed hadn't done quantitative easing, then the usa recovery, slow as it is, would be like europe. europe's in a perpetual, what, a six-quarter recession of a double dip. you disagree with john taylor? >> listen, i'm not a monetary economist, just an old-fashioned country journalist. we have the united states, we have the eu. both undergoing fiscal austerity. one, the economy is growing, not as fast as i'd like. and it's adding jobs. the other, unemployment rate is rising. over 12%. as you just mentioned, a six-quarter recession, a double dip. to me, what's the big difference? one country aggressively acting, monetary stimulus, the united states. the other has not been the kind of bond buying we've seen in the united states. their economy is in a recession. ours is growing.

i think that's a very powerful prim a fascia case that bernanke is doing it right. >> as a follow-up, what would happen in your opinion if bernanke starts pulling back on the bond purchases, and did what john taylor is saying to do, and stop quantitative easing? what would happen to the american economy, in your view? >> listen, i think the only people who have benefited from quantitative easing are investors and workers. you see that. we have these qe on periods, better job growth, you've seen the stock market go up. why? we have greater confidence about the future path of the u.s. economy. good things happen during the qe periods. we have inflation on one hand, and unemployment, real unemployment rate closer to 10. why on earth would we want to start raising interest rates or scale back on the bond buying now. >> john taylor, jimmy's saying the quantitative easing has helped the stock market but also helped the labor force.

though the job is unfinished. why do you want the fed to stop right now? wouldn't that be putting us back into a double-dip recession? >> first of all, i don't think there's any evidence to say -- we've had the slowest recovery in american history from the kind of recession that we've had. compared to the -- what the united states could do, we've been having a very poor recovery. so comparing it with europe, their single currency, the struggles with greece and other -- it's just a complete noncomparison. so i pay no attention to that as an argument in favor of quantitative easing. >> a lot of people, john -- hang on. i'll give you even time. a lot of people are saying, that the ecb is too tight. that their supply growth is actually falling. that's why they're still in recession. look, the american situation, fiscal policies, overspending, overtaxing, overborrowing, overregulating, all that's going to have a big impact. i'm just trying to focus on the

differences in monetary policy between the two countries. >> well, europe has had a completely different kind of monetary policy because of the single currency. trying to have a different policy for the other countries, they can't do that. so what i want to do is compare the united states with the united states. and when we have policies unlike what we've had recently, we've done terrifically. when we have policies like recently in the '70s, we did poorly. the evidence is quite clear for me, when i look at this. let me just be sure, in terms of moving off of this, absolutely. when you're in a situation like this, where you're buying $85 billion a month, you can't go over and change it overnight. i've said that from the start. one of my concerns with this whole policy is how you would undo it. and the uncertainty that causes. you've got to be gradual. i don't think it was going to happen, but now that it's happened, you have to find a sensible way to undo it, which will not harm the markets. >> i like looking at markets. what i know is that when the fed is engage the in aggressive bond

buying, markets go up. you know, listen, eventually interest rates should go up. we have stronger job growth and higher economic growth. people say the qe isn't working. one, i think if you look at the periods when we're not doing it, you see a very different picture. i think europe is a great example. there's a huge difference. you have two advanced economies, both undergoing austerity, raising taxes, cutting government spending. one is in the tank and one's doing okay. what is the huge screaming difference between those two countries? monetary policy. >> a lot of countries you can look at. if you look at the uk, they've done quantitative easing and where are they. they did quantitative easing. and you know -- best performance of the u.s. economy is when we

didn't do quantitative easing. >> in terms of this week's fed meeting, just in a word, what do you want bernanke to do? do you want to start cutting back on buying bonds? >> no, i think it's time for them to lay out a strategy of when the time comes, how they're going to do it. >> jimmy p., what do you think? >> i think it's not necessarily to start, but sometimes they have to start. >> jimmy p., what do you want the if ed to do this week? >> i would like a clear statement that the fed is going to continue quantitative easing, bond buying, preferably until we're back on the pre-recession path of nominal gdp. that's what i would like them to say. for now i'll say i'll keep with the unemployment threshold. but fundamentally, i would like an ngdp target. >> the dollar has been very stable to stronger, and the gold prices have been coming down for many months. so the fed can't be all that loose and excessively ease, if

the dollar's doing okay and gold is falling. >> it's too tight. >> we will see. john taylor, brilliant monetary economist. i hope we're all still good friends. and jimmy p. from the fed to the markets, a big move down through stocks today. the correction does continue. the question is, what's going to happen next? well, we are going to give you pr esis advice on stocks. that's next up on kudlow. out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is

"how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air.

suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ (announcer) at scottrade, our doncexactly how they want.t with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine.

another dramatic day in the markets. the dow lost 106 points, the s&p 500 dropped 10. for the week, the major averages all came in, down more than 1%. it's correction time. if the dow's off 3%, the request eis, what happens next? let's bring in our investment pros. we have larry glazer, may flower advisers, and lee munson, chief investment officer of portfolio llc. and author of great money. i want to try something new tonight. there are a million things we could talk about, larry, including today's lousy consumer confidence numbers in manufacturing. but here's what i want to ask you. what's the most exciting

positive thing you see out there? where's the positive excitement? >> sure. well, certainly next week investors are going to have plenty of negatives and things to focus their attention on, and there's going to be a lot of noise in the market about what the fed may or may not do. we need to filter that noise, and focus on what we can control. and what's positive and what's good and what's strength is the domestic strength versus the global weakness. in that domestic strength, in all that noise is an opportunity. that is the in the energy market. it isn't how -- despite what the fed may or may not do, you can't hold back the housing market. and you can't hold back energy. that's a positive. it will overcome that global weakness. the dilemma for investors is how much it will overcome. >> we'll come back to that in a minute. hang on. lee, i want to give you the same shot. what's the most exciting thing you see out there? you heard larry glazer. he's beside himself.

he can't get the tongue moving fast enough to talk about the excitement. lee munson, i ask you, cool and calm and collected from new mexico, what's exciting? >> well, i love that right now emerging markets are 20% off compared to, say, the s&p 500 this year. so if you're a long-term investor with a strong philosophy, i'm so excited that i get to have a value bias in the global market, different from what larry -- larry's not so excited globally. if you have to rebalance portfolio and keep people in long-term portfolio allocation, i can put new money to work that's way off, that has a value bias and that i think over time we'll make a lot of money in the emerging markets. and they're cheap. i think it's great when i get new money from clients, i know where i can put it to good use. >> you're excited about emerging markets. let me follow up for both of you. lee, what's the thing that keeps you up at night? what most worries you right now?

>> what worries me right now is that investors in general, in keeping our clients from dumping their bond portfolios, because they're concerned about what the fed may or may not do, and when and where. so what we've had to do to mitigate that risk, larry, is to go a little bit higher quality, a little bit shorter term. and if we want to get returns in the market, we've really got to stick to the stock market and let our bond side just be a dampening. so i worry i have to give up potential returns in the bond market, because i really don't know how the fed is going to affect interest rates going forward. >> larry glazer, what worries you the most? is it the fed as lee munson suggests, the american economy? what's your biggest worry? >> i'm not worried about the fed at all. the job rates are up, and we'll be able to sleep well about the fed. what worries me is investors are chasing yield. whether it's real estate

investment trust, utilities, some of these areas, limited growth. there's not a future there, but we're overpaying for past earnings. investors are losing sight of where the opportunity is. i agree with lee, emerging market down five weeks in a row. >> give me a domestic name you like. domestic name or two that you actually like. >> sure. well, first of all, i look at the energy sector. how about the nat gas etf. something along those lines. harold hamm's story is in the paper. there's a reason why he's rich, right? there's a lot of money in them hills. there are a whole host of ways to play it. i like the basket play. i also like the basket play on the domestic mid cap names. corporate america is rich. they've got a lot of cash. put that cash to work in the second half of the year. regardless of what the fed does. >> put the cash to work regardless of the fed. lee munson, how long will this direction last? we're down about 3% on the dow.

i know you have 100% impressions on these matters. how long will the correction last? >> the crystal ball tells me the correction will probably last for another couple weeks and that we're not going to get what everybody wants, which is some big down 10% correction, where everybody says, now is the time to buy. so at this point, i think we've got our correction. that means a sideways market the last couple months. a tepid 3% decline. but unfortunately, the crystal ball gets a little hazy because it's a little bit, you know, late in my day. so i would say put your money to work now. don't wait for something that may not have happened. and like larry said, please don't sell all your bonds to buy high yield stocks and reits. just use this correction and make some money. hapless friday, larry. >> embrace the volatility, larry. we'll get more of this week. >> if the american economy would grow faster, i'd say buy

cyclicals. but we don't know that yet. we appreciate it. now, folks, speaking of the american economy, if republicans think that the scandal surrounding the white house are some kind of magic bullet for the 2014 elections, they better think again. i'm going to explain, what the gop really needs to do to win in 2014. that's up next on kudlow.

hey. they're coming. yeah. british. later. sorry. ok...four words... scarecrow in the wind... a baboon... monkey? hot stew saturday!? ronny: hey jimmy, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? jimmy: happier than paul revere with a cell phone. ronny: why not? anncr: get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save fifteen percent or more.

i've said it before, the

president should have a scandal czar to deal with the outcry over the nsa, the irs, benghazi, all this stuff. but i'll tell you what, if republicans rely on the scandals to win in next year's elections, they could be the ones in trouble. i say growth. i'll say it a second time, growth. that's what they should do. act like republicans, including tax and regulatory reform. let's talk about this for a second. we've got kelly ann conway back, president and ceo of the polling company, and former campaign aide for both john kerry and president obama. kelly ann, i understand they've got to investigate what they've got to investigate. but i think they've got to have a tax reform, limited government, a growth agenda. give middle class people jobs, kelly ann. >> larry, they should wake up every morning saying exactly that to themselves in the mirror and then to the american people when they get to the house floor. look, just trying to not be the

other guy and running against the other guy's foibles or scandals didn't work in 1998. the rnc spent millions of dollars in ads about lewinsky and clinton close to the election. the house lost five seats. they were supposed to gain 20. it didn't work in 2012 when mitt romney ran against the awful first term obama had. but people want to hear what you're for. the republicans should do that for another reason. the democrats seem hell-bent on being the party of social issues. all they want to talk about is abortion and marriage. somebody ought to go in there and speak to the american people in the language they expect. jobs, economy, growth, low taxes, no regulation, entrepreneurship. >> mark, democrats are preoccupied with the scandals, too, they're just on the other side of the fence. i don't hear a growth message. i don't know what the president's growth plan is. nobody seems to talk about that. if the growth message is up for grabs, which party is going to grab it? >> i think the democrats have been putting forward a message. the people i'm talking to in the

administration every day are talking about immigration reform, talking about economic issues. while republicans are saying, for example, that, you know, maintaining low student loan rates is a distraction. they're also beating the obama administration over the head with the various scandals. i think -- i agree with kelly ann. this 98 fixation that the congressional republicans had on monica lewinsky was one of the all-time backfires. they actually lost seats. i think if republicans don't wake up and realize the lessons of '98, they're doomed unfortunately to repeat it and become the permanent minority party, as some in their party have accused them of being. >> kelly ann, how about more take home pak for middle class americans, as in tax reform, as in -- stay with me on this -- get rid of the 15% tax bracket, get rid of the 25% tax bracket, get rid of the 28% tax bracket, have a nice small tax reform

plan, and talk about limiting government. we had rasmussen on earlier in the show. people are so rebellious about big government, just generically. that should be a tailor-made gop message. limit government on one side and grow the economy and more take-home pay for middle class americans. what's so hard about that? i'm just not hearing it. >> it shouldn't be hard. look, the key to most americans about the economy, even though debt is a four-letter word for sure, they want a government that works. that's not intrusive, invasive, expensive and expandive. but it proves which party really pre sides over big government, and government incompetence and government intrusion. that's a big entry point. here's what the republicans ought to do, larry. they've always talked to the job creators, they own that space, they even talked to the job seekers. 78% unemployed. they need to talk to the vast majority of americans who are the job holders and tell them why the job is no longer enough. you have one, two, three jobs

per household and you still can't afford food and fuel. you can't take a decent family vacation each summer and you don't have much disposable income left. the obama administration will never be able to match that message because they don't believe it. >> that's it, take-home pay is how reagan put it. mark, all right, you're going to wind up being the party of obama care. that's going to be your biggest albatross in next year's congressional campaign. and if the gop plays its cards right, you all are going to be screwed because people don't want more intrusiveness into their life. >> look, i think the voters, the vast majority of the voters, whether they support obama care or not, realize it's the law of the land. and what they want are congressional republicans to work -- i know this is a radical idea for many in congress, but to work collaboratively with the obama administration on finding common ground to help this rollout of this massive legislation, the very hallmark legislation. >> i think they ought to get rid of obama care.

obama care is like benghazi, and the nsa, and -- >> exactly. >> all rolled up into one. >> and one more scandal. and americans have scandal fatigue. >> thanks for admitting that. >> sorry, we're out of time. that's it for tonight's show. i'll be joined on the set on monday by the eoc director. i'm larry kudlow. thanks for watching.t can be toe and man, you know how that feels. copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours. you know, spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. 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? don't wait to ask your doctor about spiriva.

>> mega welding, super-sized assembly... >> i always got to point them out to my boy that, "hey, that's what daddy builds." [ laughs ] >> colossal custom cabinetry... >> i helped make that, you know? yeah, it's pretty cool. >> and over two million square feet of monster machinery, all to build a 9-ton house on wheels. to create the ultimate motor home, it takes the "ultimate factory: winnebago."