premiere of the undefeated. that's a pro-palin documentary about her life. maybe she'll drop us a hint on whether she's going to get into the race. president obama will be there to talk about the economy and jobs. obviously, iowa will be part of our coverage here tomorrow night. that's all the time for tonight. have a great night. have a great night. "in the arena" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening. welcome to the program. i'm eliot spitzer. tonight's top story -- this weekend, the streets of new york city turned into one big parade. a celebration of gay pride just as the new york state legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage. but perhaps the real news is this. america's fundamental attitude toward the gay community seems to be changing. a recent gallup poll revealed

that for the first time, more than half of the population favors gay marriage. other states are tackling the issue, maine and minnesota are gearing up already. of course, there are americans who still believe gay marriage is morally wrong like christian televangelist pat robinson. >> there isn't one single civilization that has survived that openly embraced homosexuality. so what's going to happen to america? well, if history is any guide, the same thing is going to happen to us. >> there was a time even recently when most people felt that way. gay people stayed in the closet. one such case, governor jim mcgreevey of new jersey. a gay man that led a double life that led to his downfall. in a moment i'll be talking to him about the change in american attitudes. first, a look at the other stories i'll be drilling down on tonight. michele bachmann is off and running. but the misstatements keep on coming. wait until you hear what she said today.

and violent video games. hazardous to your kids' health? the state of california thinks so. the supreme court says it's free speech. jeffrey toobin looks at the law versus a license to thrill. >> and, hey, welcome to america. then -- is there a doctor in the house? maybe not when obama care gets going. edie hill asks the person who used to be the president's physician. are there enough doctors to go around. now for tonight's "american issue." he shocked america in 2004, jim mcgreevey was governor of new jersey when he grabbed headlines for being the highest ranking elected official in the country to announce he was gay. remember this? >> and so my truth is that i am a gay american. and i am blessed to live in the greatest nation with the tradition of civil liberties, the greatest tradition of civil liberties in the world and a country which provides so much to its people. >> mcgreevey resigned the office

later that year following revelations of a gay affair. former governor jim mcgreevey joins me now. jim, thank you for being here. >> thanks, eliot. >> seven years later. attitudes have fundamentally shifted. could you have predicted that we would get to this tipping point? >> no. i could not have predicted. neither would i have thought we would have had an african-american as president of the united states. but one thing i think so many of us believe in is that is the basic decency of the american people. and that in the narrative of civil liberties, expansion, the american public is typically ahead of the political class as they were most recently. and so you are saying something fascinating. do you think that politicians still are behind the american public on this issue? >> yeah, i think both in terms of culturally on television programming, on people as they become more and more public, they come out of the closet. you understand a nephew, a son, a father is gay. a mother. and that begins to make it very personal. people understand -- people have

a personal connection with someone who is a member of the lgbp community and it profoundly changes the dynamic. >> i don't think there's any question anyone who has a relative, a friend and suddenly has that connection suddenly says, wait a minute. my preconceived views have to be wrong. but you make such a deep point, jim. and it wasn't just about same-sex marriage or gay marriage. it's about women's rights, labor rights, the environment. all of these critical movements began in the public. politicians only catch up much later. >> exactly. you look at rachel carlson, civil rights movement. you look at the battle for feminism. you look at -- and all of these movements. there was a wellspring from the community. and people recognized the importance of advancing the public agenda. >> but to come back to gay issues for the moment. it has crystallized in the last couple of years. the movement for same-sex marriage, somehow the acceptance, the military's perspective, all of these things have reached a critical mass. what explains that? >> i think activists. david mixner, david rothienberg.

they were in the vineyard for years and years and moving the agenda. i think -- >> the vineyard you don't mean martha's vineyard. you mean toiling in the vineyard, leading a movement. >> they were -- at least let me speak for myself. being gay isn't an option. it isn't a discretion. it is who and what i am. and so when people began to understand that this is intrinsically who and what we are and that i don't have the ability to change and god knows as an 8-year-old child on the play ground, had i had the ability iwould have, then i think people understand, well, if this is how god makes one, we need to understand that within the ark of american liberties. >> you just stated it in a way it's hard not to feel that is absolutely the case. so why are so many politicians still hess traitant to accept i why i assume you know politicians who are gay that still don't publicly acknowledge it. >> part of it is how we grew up. part of it is the message from certain religious leadership

that have a condemnatory attitude toward lgbt. and you look at youk people at the gay pride. there's no sense of shame or recrimination. so sense of sackcloth and ashes. we are who we are. >> no doubt there's a generational demarcation gap. >> and i don't care. >> not only do they care. they say, of course same-sex marriage should be allowed. do you counsel those that are gay and should come out? >> i have talked to individuals. i'm not presumptuous to say you should come out. every individual has his or her own journey and i respect that. >> how about president obama. your disappointed in the hesitancy that he's shown to go beyond -- >> if he could only listen to michelle more often. i think the president is moving. they all started in the same place. marriage is between a man and a woman, but they understand that they are moving inevitably,

catching up to the american public. >> are you tempted to get married? >> yes. and when it comes to new jersey, i think that time will come. >> now you are -- subsequent success. i guess a few in between. governor christie said the other day that he -- he didn't say unalterably. but let's listen to a quick sound bite. >> my view on it is is in our state we're going to continue to pursue civil unions. i am not a fan of same-sex marriage. it's not something that i support. i believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. that's my view. and that will be the view of our state because i wouldn't sign a bill that, like the one that was in new york. >> all right. you have said you would like to get married in new jersey. move to new york, you can get married here. but would you try to persuade governor christie he's wrong about that and override the veto and pass a bill? >> i think ten years ago what governor christie said was the norm. was the normative statement by democrats and republicans. and i think that will change.

and i think governor christie or whomsuffer governor across this nation, they will catch up with the decency of the american public. >> now you refer to one of the factors holding back a larger movement among the general public. certain religious leaders who have attitudes that they claim are based in the bible or they have religious treatises that they look to. you have studied. you are now in divinity school. you were raised a catholic. does it bother you that the catholic church institutionally has been so recalcitrant on this snsh. >> the church was a beacon of light on questions on civil rights, on social justice. but unfortunately, the bible has been used, i would argue, has been manipulated, whether to support racism, sexism, anti-semitism and in this case, homophobia. so we can manipulate the language of the bible as we will. i would argue the bible should be a source of transcending suffering and arguing for better angels. there are those who ignore a

swath of what leviticus says from touching a pigskin on monday night football but they still uphold certain prohibitions that are focused on leviticus. so it's selective interpretation. >> that's what i wanted to ask you. you have studied the text in a way that certainly deeper than i have. so when you look at what is presented as argument by religious leaders, do you think they are simply flat out wrong? you use the word manipulate. are they distorting the text or is this -- do you have to acknowledge, maybe it's a fair reading we just disagree with it and it's susceptible to multiple interpretations. >> they are taking a literal translation and some would argue whether or not it's an accurate literal translation of a certain segment but then ignoring whole swaths of other segments of scripture that would prohibit them from doing things that we typically do today in american society. so we have to understand where we have to look at scripture through the prism of a modernist society. and the purpose of scripture was not to engage in the prohibition

of what i consider it to be. as a christian of law. and so i think the bullwark of the judeo christian ethic is to have an understanding of a transcending god. not one that engages in religious-based bigot tree. >> the argument you just made is identical to the argument i as a lawyer make frequently about the constitution. there are multiple ways to interpret any document, whether it's the bible, the constitution. i'm with you in that camp. this is a debate that will no doubt go on forever. do you think there's progress within the church hierarchy on this issue? >> i think there's progress. and the reality is i have friends who are gay priests, and friends of mine that are gay rabbis and they wrestle with these questions. i'm proud to belong to an organization called faith in america that tries to put these issues in front in the religious agenda to have a constructive dialogue, to move the li re lidgeuous community forward. the religious community can be such a source of progressive voice and god willing that's where it ought to be. >> are you going to run for

public office again? >> no. i'm work with women in prison and that's where my heart is and prison advocacy. i'd love to come back and talk about what's not happening in prisons in america. >> jim mcgreevey, thanks for being here. coming up, the other side of this issue, i'll talk to the minister who helped pass legislation banning gay marriage rights in california. he's just begun to fight. stay with us. start with soup then have salad and biscuits followed by 1 of 7 delicious entrees and finish with something sweet all for just $15. right now at red lobster.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] and just like that, it's here. a new chance for all of us: people, companies, communities to face the challenges yesterday left behind and the ones tomorrow will bring. prudential. bring your challenges. took some crazy risks as a kid. but i was still over the edge with my cholesterol. anyone with high cholesterol may be at increased risk of heart attack. diet and exercise weren't enough for me. i stopped kidding myself. i've been eating healthier, exercising more, and now i'm also taking lipitor. if you've been kidding yourself about high cholesterol...stop. 80% of people who have had heart attacks have high cholesterol.

lipitor is a cholesterol lowering medication, fda approved to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients who have heart disease or risk factors for heart disease. [ female announcer ] lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems and women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. great ride down. if you have high cholesterol, you may be at increased risk of heart attack and stroke. don't kid yourself. talk to your doctor about your risk and about lipitor. now for the other side of tonight's america issue. my next guest saw this coming in 2008. he helped pioneer proposition 8 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. jim garlow is senior pastor of

the skyline wesleyan church and author of "encountering heaven." he joins me from san diego. thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> so you heard in the introduction to the show, i think, reverend pat robertson's statement, and i want to read it. no civilization that tolerated homosexuality has survived. do you believe that? >> well, let me respond first of all by saying the intriguing conversation, the privilege of getting to hear two former governors discuss biblical aspects. i'd like to respond specifically to that issue. i think probably you have a keen mind in legal issues, and i respect you for that, sir. when it comes to biblical issues, let's draw the reality the bible begins with a marriage and it ends with a wedding from genesis to revelation. and a male and a female. when jesus spoke on this issue, he spoke clearly male and female were created, matthew 19, for the purpose of putting them together. and he says what i have put together, god speaking now in the text, don't let anybody mess

with the definition of that. that's a loose paraphrase of that. that's precisely what the bible says. that's why in 31 states you failed to point out when you talked about the american people and the shift, every state, 31 states that have voted, all 31 states have voted for traditional marriage. there's never been a single state that has voted to obliterate the definition of marriage. >> the reason we said the public's attitudes are changing is that the national polling, and i think you'd acknowledge the gallup poll and others showed that over 50% now say they favor same-sex marriage. i don't want to go off on that detour. >> let's talk about that. that's one poll out of many. and i might point out that when we started here in california, the field poll said our definition of marriage, the natural definition of marriage was behind 38% to 55%. but when people go in the polling place to vote and they are not intimidated or bullied any longer, that shifts anywhere from 2% to 19% based on surveys done across america. when people walk in to vote, they vote what is right their conscience and new yorkers should have had the privilege to have done that.

>> we will perhaps have a chance to deal with that issue down the road in other electoral context. here's the question i want to ask you, though. i don't mean to come back to where i started but do you agree with pat robertson as he said that a civilization that tolerates homosexuality has not survived. >> my question would be framed broader than that. not the issue of pat robertson. it has to do with god and the bible. god knows better than you and me put together. i believe the bible speaks on this issue crittal clear. i stand with it. i don't judge it. it judges me. i am confident god's word is true and great harm is done any time we violate any aspect of god's word, including the definition of marriage. there's enough judeo christian values in the country, even among people that don't go to church. consistently 7 out of 10 americans are voting in favor of traditional natural marriage. >> let me come at this from a different angle. i'm not in a position nor would i think it appropriate for me to challenge your religious views or anybody else's religious views. >> i'm not interested in my

religious views. i'm not defending that. i'm defending what the scripture has to say about this. not about me. >> and i'm not opining on -- even when i was talking to jim mcgreevey, i was not weighing in on the proper interpretation biblic biblically. that's an area where i'll let you, you've studied it more than i, even though we may disagree about it. there's a fundamental distinction. i think on this you'll agree with me, between how civil society, not religious society, not you as a pastor, not religions, but how the -- our civil society defined by legislatures in a civil context defines marriage and that is separate and apart from how you as a religious official can define marriage. do you understand that duality? >> no, i don't accept that duality because that tries to intimidate people like me to be silent and assume our views as we walk into the voting place or vote for somebody that somehow our views based by biblical scripture that we somehow kant

carry that particular understanding into the voting booth. we happen to be in a democracy. you have the right to vote the way you do. i have the right to vote the way i do. and if in reality mine is framed by scripture then i have the right to vote that way. it's not separation of church and state as you are defining it. it's the reality that god established three forms of government, civil government, church government and family government. and he's the foundation to all three. that's what i believe. that's why -- >> maybe that's where we disagree. if you had said he's the foundation to your religion, absolutely. the first amendment rights you have the separation of church and state. family, i will leave to each family. but the civil society where rights are defined through our political process and just so it's clear, new york's law does not, nor could it require any religion to recognize a marriage, that religion does not want to recognize. so doesn't that separation permit a civil society to vote to have marriage between same-sex marriage between men or

women, whatever combination and you will still reject it. isn't that something you conceptually understand even though you might disagree with it? >> you are making my case. why don't we let new yorkers vote on it. one of the neatest things you can do for the american public. you are the former governor. you know what went behind the scenes. you do an expose on what actually happened for republican leaders sold out not for 30 pieces of silver but for an identifiable $1 million raised and the mayor of new york was involved in that. the back room dealing was done. doors locked on the capitol. cell phones shut off. the closed door policy, the violation of the three-day rule. you know what took place on this. you are privy to that information. you have access to it. do an expose on what actually happened in new york. the voters of new york would be insulted if they heard that is. >> a fair bit of that has come to light. agree or disagree. i'm not asking about the specifics of those transactions or those votes. i'm raising the theoretical argument because i have great respect for your views. i may disagree but respect them.

i understand the zone protected for those rights by the first amendment. and i am just trying to get us to acthink, get you to acknowledge that there's an equivalent zone on the other side so that even if it was voted by the legislature, not the people directly, which is certainly what our constitution permitted here, you understand that this is not only legal, but fairly now represents what new york state government is entitled to do. you can -- you have to accept that, i presume. >> well, based upon a $1 million payoff to a few key republican people who sold out, you are exactly right. it is going to be law. i recognize that. what you fail to point out in the religious exemption. a christian counselor is not covered. the language regarding religious exemptions is very weak. a religious counselor is not prote protected. individuals. a photographer of a gay wedding. if they prefer not to, they are disallowed. businesses and individuals will lose their individual religious expression. there's plenty of historical

precedence for that in the nation already. >> let me -- time runs short. we don't have enough time. as a matter of law, i think you are wrong about that. but let me raise a different issue. >> no, religious exemption it does not include christian counselors. it does not include private individuals, organizations or companies. it includes only pastors, not being forced to perform same-sex marriages. and i'll offer myself to come back on the show and talk more about this because my time is about up. >> now i want to raise a separate issue. we'll have you back. trust me. the question i have for you is if you had one of your parishioners, somebody who was a relative of yours, close friend come to you and say, i am gay. what would you counsel them? >> i will love them and care for them. they are created by god. they were not created gay as your previous speaker just said a few moments ago. there's no verification of that statement. but they are created. they are special. i love them. i have many people in my congregation are homosexual. we love them just the same at anybody. but that's not what you brought

me on here to talk about. we have a wonderful ministry to people who consider themselves homosexual. what you brought me out was the issue of this definition being changed. a 5,000-year institution being trashed by a few people who sold it out in albany. >> again, i disagree. i don't think it was being trashed or destroyed. let me ask you this. you counsel them. do you counsel them to not be gay? do you counsel them that it is wrong? do you counsel them that somehow they have to view themselves as being imperfect or flawed because they are gay? >> you won't like my answer because the mood of the nation is to drop the standard of whatever lifestyle we're following rather than hold the standard to biblical truth. i counsel them the same way i counsel every other person that comes to me with whatever issue. we're in a broking, hurting world with lots of people impacted by heartache, sin, a lot of trauma on the lives of people. when people democ me, i counsel them the same way. let's bring ourselves to a position of submission to almighty god, jesus christ as

lord and savior and rise up to live in accordance with the way he calls us to live. that means in the case of homosexuality, people can be and are set free from that particular practice. but i don't focus on just that one. any issue. i would say the power of jesus christ can set a person free. >> time does run short. one last question. do you tell them that it is sin for them to be gay. >> according to the word of god it says my opinion doesn't count. but the bible calls that sin and anybody who comes to me struggle with areas of sinful areas, of course, i use that word because the bible used that word. but the glorious news is people can be set free. all of us for that matter can be set free from that. >> all right. look. dr. garlow, you are right. i don't agree with you. i don't like some of what you said but i have deep respect for it. still intrigued you acknowledged we are all creatures created by god and what we are is created by him or her. >> good to be on with you. thank you.

coming up, only weeks away from the deficit deadline and default, the president joined the debate today. we'll see if it changed anything. first, edie hill is here with a crisis in american health care. >> we're about 40,000 primary care doctors short. we've got millions more coming in with health care. and the way the president has decided to look at this problem, study it has doctored frustrated and furious. we'll examine that. >> should be interesting. thanks, e.d. looking forward to it. we'll be right back. up next, the president meetds with congress youngal leaders just in time or too little, too late? stay with us. host: what, do you live under a rock? man: no way! man: hey rick check this out! anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save 15% or more on car insurance.

♪ you are my sunshine ♪ my only sunshine ♪ you makes me happy ♪ when skies are grey ♪ you'll never know, dear ♪ how much i love you ♪ please don't take my sunshine away ♪ [ male announcer ] as long as there are babies, they'll be chevy's to bring them home. ♪

remember the billboard saying the world would end on may 21st? thankfully that one didn't happen. but there's a new disaster countdown and this one is real. we are less than six weeks away from hitting our national debt limit. if the president and congress can't make a deal by august 2nd, the u.s. government could default for the first time ever. what kind of deal are we talking

about here? the president wants to cut the deficit by $2 trillion with 80%, $1.6 trillion in spending cuts. and just 20%, about $400 billion over ten years in raised revenue. that's chump change, folks. with republicans saying no new taxes, it may be enough to blow up any deal. senate leaders mitch mcconnell and harry reid each met with the president today. dana bash is here with a progress report. welcome, dana. am i right? just 20% coming on the revenue side is really penny ante and especially given how he's suggesting they do it? >> that's what the democrats are saying. that's why they are insisting that this deal, this global deal that they are working on in order to get votes to raise the debt ceiling does include some of those -- getting rid of those tax subsidies or tax loopholes. i was told by sources who are involved in these negotiations that's were going on before, led

by vice president joe biden they could have found close to $2 trillion in spending cuts but democrats, really for the first time in a series of these negotiations over the past six months or so, are putting their foot down and saying, no. we're not going to do that. we want to have what jay carney said several times today is a balanced approach. >> here's what i don't understand. i think as you just said, a fact, the white house and the democrats have lost every one of these negotiations over the past year and a half and it has been much more on the spending cut side. nothing on the revenue side. most importantly the extension of the tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy. but putting that aside. if the president's opening bid is 20%, clearly that isn't going to be the final deal, so the 20% in revenue is going to come down and the way they are doing this is just a couple of the sort of most obvious loopholes. nothing fundamental. none of the fundamental loophole closures suggested by bowles-simpson or even by the white house. that's why i'm mystified over where they are. >> the bottom line is that republicans feel that they have

serious leverage here. in some ways, they're not wrong. they feel that they -- that the president -- both sides would get the blame, obviously, if, god forbid, this ceiling -- we got to august 2nd and nothing happened. but republicans feel in terms of the narrative, the political dynamic and political atmosphere right now there is much more of an appetite to cut spending. and that's why they are pushing this. and that's why they've been setting up this narrative. it's not just today that we heard from mitch mcconnell, but also really for weeks saying over and over again they perceive anything that is cutting subsidy, cutting a loophole as a tax increase because they know that politically, as you well know, that sends the fear of god into certainly republicans and many democrats up for re-election. >> isn't there another reality? nancy pelosi got it right when she said john boehner, the speaker of the house may need democratic votes to pass this. so he may need some democratic support. nancy pelosi is saying, i've got to have a chair at this

negotiating table or this deal isn't happening. is there some truth to that? >> it's so interesting the way she's handling this. she got iced out the last couple of times there were these big negotiations over keeping the government running earlier this year and over the tax cut extension late last year. and both times, eliot, you remember, she's right. republicans did need democrats, especially the house, to pass it. because no matter what, you are going to have a chunk of republicans who are going to say i'm not voting to increase the debt ceiling. doesn't matter what kind of condition is on it. so she's trying to push her will here and trying to use her power here. a meeting last week with the president and some of her deputies. she's had a series of interviews with candy crowley saying i want to sit at the table. she's one of those democrats that will say we have to fight for less spending cuts. >> we will fight hard. we'll try to get a seat at the table. the democrats who might end up voting for the package are not democrats she might control. it's unclear that she's the one who gets the seat at the table. thank you dana bash. my next guest is a ran

congressman who is pushing for what may be the toughest deal of all. a cut, cap and balanced budget pledge. he vows to appose any debt limit increase without substantial spending cuts. $650 billion next year alone. caps on federal spending, meaning over a trillion dollars a year in permanent budget cuts and passage of a balanced budget meaning no more deficits ever -- ever. congressman joe walsh joins me from illinois. welcome to the show. >> how yoare you doing? >> good. let me ask you a political question. if you refuse to vote for this, aren't you empowering nancy pelosi by saying democrats are going to provide the votes to get this over the finish line and they're going to undercut your position. aren't you really empowering nancy pelosi? >> no and eliot it was curious to listen to your interesting exchange with dana. i just -- i think that too many people in the media and

truthfully too many people in my profession are behind the times on this discussion. i am back home now. obviously, i'm not in d.c. people back home want us in washington to be bold. and when we talk about $2 trillion worth of cuts over ten-some years, that may sound big to folks in washington, but, eliot, we'll have another $1.5 trillion deficit this year. our debt is $14 trillion to $15 trillion and it's going up. unless we change, eliot, i think structurally, the way that town changes money, our kids and our grandkids are still in a heap of trouble. >> congressman, do you and i agree on one thing. i don't think $2 trillion over ten years is bold at all. i think it is merely at the fringes. if you are talking about fundamental reform and entitlements or reforms you'll have to deal with numbers much bigger than that. at least what bolles-simpson did and paul ryan, your budget

chairman actually adds $6 trillion to $7 trillion deficit over the next ten years. i think you heard when i introduced you. you want to cut $650 billion next year. how are you going to do it? where are you going to take out that battle ax and cut? >> everything is on the table, eliot from nondefense discretionary to defense to, i mean, cuts in every single aspect of government. we've got to get serious. i love this discussion that we always have about subsidies to big, bad oil companies. agreed. they should be gone. but we're talking about $18 billion or so of cuts. i give -- when i ran for congress, i hit both parties over the head for spending us into the abyss. but you got to give the republican party some props for at least having the courage to acknowledge that unless you look at medicaid, medicare and social security, you aren't going to solve this problem. and shame on the president for

ignoring that. >> congressman, i interrupt you only because time is so short. i agree with you. the $18 billion and i said this just a moment ago. closing down the loopholes, the ones that are really meaningful in the long run if you are going to be serious about this. but again iask you this. where would you because you are talking about $650 billion in one year. that's a -- that is a huge number. where are you going to raportio it? you and i both know -- are you willing to say right now you'd have to cut and make real cuts in medicare, medicaid, social security to hit that number. are you willing to do that next year? >> absolutely, eliot. and i may be alone, but absolutely. look. i think we're going through something, eliot here that we haven't gone through in a long time. we're having an honest to god discussion about what our government is going to do. and this is an education process. we've got to look at everything, including entitlements. unless we reform these things, eliot, they are going to be gone. the american people are starting

to realize it. >> congressman, i am one of those folks who said we must deal with them in the long run. you are saying $650 billion next year. you just said you'd cut medicare, medicaid, social security next year. you are willing to do that for beneficiaries who are expecting those checks next year when the alternative would to be raise taxes on those who have income over a million or $2 million or $3 million a year who are seeing the lowest marginal rates they've seen in many decades. that's the choice you want to make is cut the social security rather than -- it's a policy choice. >> no, but again if you want to extend my policy choice, again, we're not going to raise taxes on anyone. this economy right now is quaking. the last thing, eliot, they need are more taxes and regulations on them. you know, part of the problem in this equation is the economy is not growing. we talk about revenue increases. we're not going to get them, eliot unless we grow the economy. the only way we're going to do

that is get government off the backs of businesses. so, yes, from defense, everything is on the table. >> okay. there are some things you said that i agree with. only growth is going to solve this problem. the reality, though is there's $2 trillion of capital sitting on the sidelines, not because of marginal tax rates, not because of regulation. there's insufficient demand. we're going to -- can you do me a favor? we're out of time. i want you to come back. we'll continue this conversation, for better for worse, this issue is not going to be resolved tonight. >> thank you, eliot, love to. >> thanks for joining us. michele bachmann may not always get her facts straight but she speaks loudly and clearly for the tea party. now she's running for president. we'll look at her chances when we come back. we're the wassman family from skagway, alaska. livin' so far out and not havin' a bank within 90 miles... i was runnin' into dead ends. happened to come across quicken loans online. [ chris ] walked over to the computer... i was able to see all the paperwork. while i was on the phone, i was able to go through the checklist. [ kathy ] they were quick and efficient.

quicken loans is definitely engineered to amaze. they were just really there for us. whose long day starts with arthritis pain... and a choice. take tylenol arthritis and maybe up to six in a day... or choose aleve and two pills for a day free of pain. happy chopping. so every year my family throws this great reunion in austin. but this year, i can only afford one trip and i've always wanted to learn how to surf.

austin's great -- just not for surfing. so i checked out hotwire. and by booking with them, i saved enough to swing both trips. see, hotwire checks the competition's rates every day so they can guarantee their low prices. that's how i got a 4-star hotel on the beach in san diego for half price. ♪ h-o-t-w-i-r-e ♪ hotwire.com

she's best known as a tea party fire brand prone to making embarrassing gaffes. now representative michele bachmann is officially a candidate for president. democrats privately snicker at the idea of bachmann as the

republican nominee in 2012. as the race for the white house, who will have the last laugh? joining me is susan delprisio and the host of grit tv. susan, is this just a mini wave that michele bachmann, she did okay in the debate and she's the flavor of the month and is an alternative to romney or is this going to carry her to some place to be dealt with? >> it's too early to be a tsunami. there's a lot of time between now and the upcoming primaries. six, seven, eight months. and we have to see a few things. can she raise the money? two and most important, she's been extremely disciplined. and will she be able to stay that way and will her campaign team have her too tightly wound that maybe her tea party people won't like her that way. >> is she just the fringe candidate like ron paul last time who gets the 15%, 20% of the real angry outsiders but she'll never be able to expand and think about sort of a mainstream candidate? >> the thing she has going for her is people don't really know her outside of a certain demographic.

so she has room to grow, unlike other people. >> laura, now i think we can agree she would be the democrats' favorite candidate because, inconceivable she could win the presidency. isn't she also mitt romney's favorite opponent. doesn't she make him look centrist and reasonable? >> except at this point he has to define himself. she is very well known to her base. what it comes down to is this question of growth. what we need to see grow is some real reporting like the great reporting being done in her home state about her liabilities. i mean she, could be brought into testify in a case coming up in january that involves a former money launderer who set up a ponzi scheme and say major contributor to her campaign. there are a lot of skeletons in her closet that don't just have to do with misstatements but real problems she's got to face. >> and maybe this is unfair but i still don't take her seriously as somebody who is likely or even conceivably the republican nominee.

i think what's interesting is that she has eclipsed tim pawlenty. she has eclipsed huntsman. she's eclipsed other candidates who three weeks ago everyone was saying they are viable, serious governors. >> in the media when we set this bar so low that suddenly when she didn't -- she didn't flub every line, she didn't come out as a flame thrower, suddenly she was an eye opener for the press. same thing. the continuing focus on the flubs can have the pundits going all the way to her winning the nomination. you can talk about what happens after that. i wouldn't write her off. >> if pawlenty clearly hasn't had any traction. huntsman doesn't seem to have. >> i don't think christie is going to jump in. it's too early to say they don't have traction yet because they can go another three, six months and see if she makes a lot of mistakes if romney makes mistakes, as long as they hang on and don't make terrible gaffes, they can still become viable. >> it's got to get beyond gaffes. we need somebody out there talking about jobs and housing. >> i was i was --

>> if it's just going to be about god and gays, neither of these candidates -- >> here's where i disagree. it is still an eternity. 24 hours an eternity these days. pawlenty and huntsman haven't had any traction even with the media focus. each of them given a chance to explode on the stage. neither has done what michele bachmann has done to have that sparkle, that attraction. >> mitt romney hasn't had it either. and he's -- >> he's winning somehow. >> but the point is that i think everyone is trying to keep their powder dry and stay in this as long as possible. >> i'm going to change gears. what is the unemployment rate below which barack obama wins or stated the other way. what is the unemployment rate above which he cannot win. if it goes up to 9.3% is he in trouble? >> if we talk about real unemployment we really have something for obama to grapple with? >> 8.7, 8.8. >> unfortunately it may be where the stock market is that really matters. >> i think it's going to be

where inflation is. >> i think the -- i was interested in something that susan said earlier which was, you know, bachmann is attractive in part because she adds a certain kind of a spice to a picture of a lot of stuffed shirts. the more that she tries to hold in her personality, you were talking about, susan, the more that her own base may say, where's the fire? i think that's an important point. >> you are making a critical point. something about politics. passion, drive. obama had it, more when he was running than as president. when you are a candidate you have to have that energy so the audience feeds off you. you feed off it. mitt romney doesn't have it but he's there as the lum berg front-runner. i hate to do this. susan del percio, laura flanders. coming up, violent video games. the justices still say they are free speech. i am very grateful and appreciative that quicken loans can offer service members va loans. it was very important

for me to be able to close and refinance my home quickly. i wanted to lower my mortgage payment. quicken loans guided me through every step of the process. the whole experience was amazing! [ tony ] serving those who serve us all... one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ [ male announcer ] what is the future of fuel? the debate is over. ♪ lexus hybrid drive technology is designed to optimize any fuel source on the planet. even those we don't use yet. because when you pursue perfection, you don't just engineer a future-proof hybrid system. you engineer amazing. ♪ you engineer amazing. [ bedistracted driving. ♪ [ disco ] it accounts for 25% of car crashes. and it's why the best agents help safe drivers get a lower rate. - exactly. - oh! [ announcer ] we are insurance.

♪ we are farmers bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

it's official. video games are art. you could have fooled me. the supreme court today said video games, even extremely violent ones should be characterized as a kind of art and should be protected by the first amendment. joining me for an up close look at the highest court's opinion is jeffrey toobin, cnn's senior legal analyst and an expert on all things emanating from the supreme court. are they nuts or is this the first amendment at its best? >> this court for all its divisions is a very protective court of the first amendment. and they said, look. what's really the difference between a video game and a rap record? or a book for that matter. i mean, these are a form of expression and this extreme court is not going to let you ban it, even for kids. >> this is an easy case to me. this is core first amendment speech.

it may be awful, ugly, disastrous. here's the question a lot of people are asking. why, then, my 13-year-old wants to go to an r-rated movie. he can't get in. she can't get in. why? is this different? >> yes it is different. the motion picture association of america, mpaa, which makes the ratings, that's a voluntary organization. that is not the government. the motion picture business set that system up so the government wouldn't regulate them. the video game business has the same thing. these video games are rated. so basically, the government has stayed out of the movie business and the court said they should stay out of the video game business. >> what you are saying is something that unfortunately not everyone appreciates. the first amendment limits the government from doing things but not private parties. the movie industry says your kid is not coming in. that has nothing to do with the government. >> correct. >> the supreme court came down with another decision about campaign finance which you think is even more important. >> i think this is like son of citizens united. is yet another example of the

supreme court saying, this time in a case out of arizona, that if you are spending money, that's like giving a speech. that the expenditure of campaign money is like -- it should be protected by the first amendment. and basically what they are doing is they are deregulating campaigns. they are getting rid of limits on campaign spending, limits on political contributions, who can give, you know, corporations, companies. i mean, we are basically looking at, soon, the law of the jungle when it comes to political campaigns. >> so you are saying the equation of cash and speech is where we're heading under the supreme court? >> exactly. people remember the citizens united case. corporations can spend money. corporations have free speech rights. this is another case where they are saying, government, get out of the business of regulating things. >> do you think they are wrong about this? if you were sitting up there? >> i do think they are wrong. in this country, we have had rules limiting campaigns for 100 years. whether it's limiting campaign contributions to -- by corporations, and that, to me,

spending money by -- in a campaign is not free speech. >> contributions have always been viewed differently. there's there's a countervailing concern of corruption. when you give someone $1 million, they are going to be indebted to you. but here is the other thing. buckley v. vallejo, that dealt with somebody spending his own or her own money when you overrule that as well. >> absolutely. mike bloomberg spent $100 million to become mayor of new york city. and his opponent spent, you know -- around $10 million. that's not right. but it is currently constitutionally protected. and that's why rich people have -- >> okay. >> have had a lot of success. the problem is then you're going to say to somebody you can't spend your own money to make your own political argument. that does get dicey from the first amendment. >> you know what i say to them? tough luck. that's the rule. >> jeff toobin says tough luck from the highest bench in the world. great to have you here. >> the highest bench at this table. the president's ex-physician makes a house call.

e.d. hill asks him if obama care is good for what ails us or will it lead to a shortage of doctors. new citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. we like to go the extra mile for our clients. with the wassman family, it was 2,500 extra miles. we're the wassman family from skagway, alaska. livin' so far out and not havin' a bank within 90 miles... i was runnin' into dead ends. happened to come across quicken loans online.

[ chris ] walked over to the computer... i was able to see all the paperwork. while i was on the phone, i was able to go through the checklist. [ kathy ] they were quick and efficient. quicken loans is definitely engineered to amaze. they were just really there for us.

just how difficult is it to get in to see a primary care doctor? president obama wants to know. so the white house has a team of mystery shoppers calling doctors' offices randomly to see if they can get an appointment. why? because millions more americans are about to gain health care coverage. and at the same time, there's an increasing shortage of doctors to see them. how bad is the problem and what's the solution? we're joined by the man who treated president obama for two decades. dr. david scheiner. thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> so the president wants to study this some more. doctors complain this is kind of spying on them. and they say no more research really is needed to know what the problem is. do you agree? >> well, first of all, the spying aspect, in 1994, a similar study was done about medicaid. so this -- these kinds of

studies have been done before. i agree with doctors, though. we don't need to have another study. it just pushes real reform further away. we know there are too few primary care physicians. we know that when the 30 million some new patients come aboard there's not going to be enough primary care physicians. >> let me ask you, doctor -- >> 17 more million medicaid are not going to be handled. >> why is it there is such a shortage of primary care physicians? you know, the typical country doctor, the guy, you know, the marcus m.d., the person that you went in to see and, you know, and just was sort of your first line in preventive care? >> well, you know, there are several reasons. studies have been done about this. one, the number one is not just money. although money is very close to the top. a dermatology resident finishes and goes into practice, makes twice as much perhaps as i have ever made in my life after 50 years in medicine. so the discrepancy in money is significant. but lifestyle is apparently the

chief problem. doctors don't want to lead the kind of life that an internist or family practitionero general pediatrician lives. they want a better lifestyle. they don't want such devotion to medicine. it just isn't there anymore. i think perhaps some of the ideal is gone. >> but these are the doctors that really would be the very first line, the ones that the medicare or that the health reform is really based on. you go and see these doctors. and they would be the ones treating the vast majority of patients as the first stop. is there a problem because i understand a lot of doctors say i don't want to deal with the government insurance. they say private insurance or, you know, cash. that's it. why is that? >> well, first of all, medicaid, which is a major problem now, the states are cutting medicaid payments to providers now. the payments are bad enough as it is. in illinois, there's three to six months before a physician is paid and he isn't paid anywhere

near what he paid -- is paid by other insurance programs. that's part of the problem. the gooft medicare is fine. medicare is not a great problem. as long as somebody isn't acting purely out of greed, medicare pays perfectly fine. if everybody had medicare, i think we would be in much better shape. medicaid is a terrible problem. it's third class care. when a patient shows their medicaid card, i have talked to people. they are ashamed of it because they know they will be looked down upon. medicaid is a badge of shame. if everybody had a medicare card, we could eliminate medicaid. medicare for all is an obvious answer. every major economist agrees to this. and we can't seem to get the message across. >> but if you got that -- >> only western nation -- >> if you got that message across -- if you got the message cross, if everybody is in the same program, still you have that problem. how do you attract enough doctors with the pay being what

it is compared to specialists, attract enough people into primary care? >> well, one obvious way is that the subspecialists are going to have to give up some of their income. this has been done in other countries. there has to be some control over the number of physicians that go into various specialties. in other countries, 50% of the physicians are in primary care. i think in the united states it's going to be down to 16% to 17%. >> but they come out of med school at -- they have $200,000 in debt at least when they come out of med school. you are telling me you are going to cut the salary and they have that kind of debt? >> well, what they should be doing is, to get more people into primary care, they could pay for their education if they made a life-long commitment, not just a five-year or three-year commitment. if they made a life-long commitment to primary care, i think they could pay for their medical education. i think perhaps the kind of rev cruiting of students should change, too. perhaps we're not getting the right kind of people to go into