>> i'm glad to be here. these turks are too young in my opinion, i hope you enjoyed my pink slime shirt. ♪ [ theme music ] ♪ good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this "viewpoint." mitt romney threw more red meat at the crowd today at the nra annual meeting than a zoo keep we are a pride of lions to feed. he backed an assault rifle ban. here's some of what he had to say. >> the president's assault on economic freedom begins with taxes, and his tax hikes.

of course by their very nature taxes reduce freedom. and the president is now touring the country touting a new objection to on investment and the wealthy. bureaucrats are insinuating themselves in every corner of the country. they prevent drilling rigs from going to work in the gulf, they keep coal from being fined. economic freedom hasn't been the only one of the obama administration's targets. our first freedom, our religious freedom has always been under attack. this administration's attack on freedom extents even to rights explicitly guaranteed by the constitution. the right to bare arms is so plainly stated that liberals have a hard time challenging it directly. instead they have been employing

every imaginable rues and ploy to defeat it. we need a president who will enforce current laws not create new ones. i will. we need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters and sportsman, president obama has not. i will. and if we're going to safeguard our second amend. ment -- amendment, it's time to elect a president. we have seen this president try to browbeat the supreme court. a second term he would remake it. our freedoms would be in the hands of an obama court, not just for four years but for the next 40 and we must not let that happen. >> for more on that speech and the rest of the day's political

headlines, headlines, i'm joined by headlines, i'm joined by michelle goldberg, senior contributing writer to the "daily beast" and "newsweek" and author of "the means of reproduction - sex, power and the future of the world." and official and speechwriter for national security advisor and secretary of state condoleeza rice. and from washington craig crawford, politics blogger at craigcrawford.com and author of "the politics of life." the titles you guys come up with are normally significant. elise i want to start with you. was listening to governor romney talk about the assault on second amendment rights. i haven't seen barack obama do anything about guns. >> he hasn't done much for gun control advocates at all quite frankly. but mitt romney really needed to appeal to that audience. ron paul has been the most pro nra candidate that is out there, and mitt romney is pretty so-so, kind of the basic story of the

mitt romney primary cycle. >> so what i hear you saying is because barack obama hadn't done anything, he'll make it up. just pretend a little bit? he is running for president and makes up the record to suit the audience he is in front of. >> oh, me? >> yeah. >> no, i don't think that -- if i'm an obama supporter, then you have a tough road to -- road to call because he -- obama hasn't followed through on much of anything. >> oh, that may be true. but michelle isn't the whole speech sort of make it up to suit the audience. >> yeah, we can't even feign surprise when he is wildly dishonest. no single conservative can point to a single thing he has done on

gun control. except for this secret fantasy they have in his second term unleashing. >> you are very muted in your criticism there. >> it is feeding into this kind of paranoid fantasy that obama is just waiting until his second term. they keep saying he is some kind of total tearians, they can't point to anything, but they have this mad fantasy come one more election all hell is going to break lose. >> if you look at obama's record on gun control or none he has been more conservative about that gun control than mitt romney was when he was governor.

>> that is exactly right. those who believe in gun control are frustrated with this president. >> but the problem for democrats is, you don't really want to go out and say that too much, because there are enough independent voters out there who think he really is moderate enough, maybe even a little to the left. you don't want to remind them of that. >> but i want to pick -- >> that's a difficult argument for democrats to make. >> there is a sense of a pervasive paranoia that there will be a second-term conspiracy, the president did say when he was meeting with the president of russia, just give me some breathing room. but that's the only thing i have seen him do. >> that was really disturbing, because it seems like he is being more honest with the russians than the american public. >> oh, come on. >> why is he not openly saying

to the american public what he is going to do post election. >> that's ridiculous. obviously all politicians are constrained by public opinion in their diplomasy -- >> the reset policy has completely failed. the personal relationship just isn't working -- >> i have a feeling that's a conversation foreign leaders have all the time. because they all have political realities at home, and it's easier to get harder things done after an election. >> but shouldn't he know when he has a hot mike. >> just so you know there are hot mikes here right now. let's switch gears. i want to get to the economics, economic freedom, tax policy. somehow the president is going to raise taxes. the buffet rule, the buffet plan that says for millionaires you

got to play 30%. 63% of independents favor there. >> it's a complete gimmick. it's like believing in santa claus. it will yield $49 billion and only pay for 17 days of the projected deficit -- >> those are phony numbers. [ overlapping speakers ] >> what -- the -- the republicans who get to that number are assuming that -- that it will make a difference, and that's how they get to that number. this past year this buffet plan would have brought in $50 billion in one year. they are saying $47 billion over several years. >> the argument that we shouldn't enact this because it isn't going to solve the problem is actually an argument about

almost any policy you can make. obviously this is a indicator of a whole series of policies that we need. >> correct. >> starting with letting the bush tax cuts expire, but the idea that because it doesn't solve the whole problem -- >> okay. let's have that conversation -- >> it just cracks me up this argument for republicans that oh, it doesn't cut that much in taxes -- i mean it doesn't raise that much in revenue so therefore phony. where is their plan? >> i think a logical extension of what you are saying is therefore we should do more. >> it's a policy that targets about 400 of the wealthiest americans specifically -- >> do you in fact want to say capitol gains should be gained at the same rate -- president

reagan believed that. >> i think they should be taxed at where they are right now, quite frankly. when you are -- when you are investing in something risky, you should be rewarded with a more favorable tax rate to encourage investment and economic growth. >> and i think that there we have the fundamental disagreement, i think progressives believe that work should not be taxed more than wealth, and you believe differently. and that's the heart of this election. >> i don't think a handout is the best way -- >> i'm not talking about a handout, i'm talking about a tax rate of people working over people who invest. >> there is also an economic argument which is there is absolutely no data to suggest that lowering the tax rate for capital gains is incentive for investment. you have to invest the money somewhere. craig, you want to weigh in on

this? >> under the bush tax cuts look at the number of jobs created. and then go back to clinton, and he created two or three times the number of jobs that george bush did. they talk about tax cuts but they don't talk about the other things that have been raised over the years, like cutting deduction for interest on credit cards. that was a huge tax on the middle class. people didn't realize what had happened, but there have been massive increases in the burden on middle class -- not in just taxes but in all of these other areas, and the politicians in washington never did anything because those don'ts do have a lobbyist in washington. >> those who accept you can

close loopholes and lower marginal rates, it sounds like a win-win. which of the loopholes would the republicans close? you can't do it if you don't eliminate the mortgage tax deduction. which of the magic loopholes are the republicans willing to close? >> i don't know, eliot. i have not read the ryan plan -- >> the answer won't be in there. it's like swiss cheese they are never quite there. it's the quit call piece. i want to read to you something that was written about foreign policy, and it goes like this. it says finally in foreign affairs, the republican candidate staked out dangerous ground. they want to show their strong defense. fine. we should have a strong defense, the best in the world, but that is different from having an

agreementive foreign policy stance, and every one of the candidates was aggressive there was no room for discretion, prudence nuance. they are allowing the gop to be pained as the war party. that's peggy noonan. now this is peggy noo nan putting a lance in the boil that is the republican foreign policy. >> right now mitt romney hasn't defined his foreign policy. for afghanistan he said a couple of weeks ago that he doesn't have enough information yet -- >> this is not a new issue. >> so he really wanted to differentiated him from barack obama, but those wars are so unpopular with the american public, that he is not going to

do that, so instead ratcheting up iran has been more what he has talked about. >> i think it's pretty clear that mitt romney wants to go to war with iran. and if you want another war in the middle east, he is your guy. and then he also seems to criticize obama -- he criticizes obama for letting the bloodshed continue although it is certainly not clear that he has any sort of a plan to invade and he wants us to be kind of even more responsible for a expansion in the foreign policy. i think it is clear what he would do differently -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> it is so easy for democrats to say republicans are conducting a war on women, because they want a war on everybody. and with romney talking about, you know iran and war and the

speech that was as harsh as anything i heard on the topic, this is a war-weary nation. i can't believe that americans want to hear about that. if mitt romney loses this election, it is not because he has stayed focused on the economy and jobs. >> what you are saying is exactly right. he has not stayed focused on the economy because at least for the last three months it appears it is coming back to life. and if that bubble bursts he'll be talking about it. barring that, i think we have just established he has no foreign policy, budget tax policy, he has nothing. >> i think he's on to something with china, though talking about the loss of jobs in china and attacking obama about that. i know i have harped on that with you before. >> he is going to become a pop

populis that is what is it. thank you all for coming on the program on friday evening. did the white house flinch when it comes to protecting civil rights, next on "viewpoint." ♪ quickly. so, what are us flesh and blood types going to do about it? human brains haven't gotten all that much smarter in hundreds of thousands of years. computers by contrast, in the last half century, have doubled their computational power every two years. a future where computers can no longer be controlled by us could be pretty dark for humanity. or, it can bring untold breakthroughs. some futurists beleive that humans will be able to achieve immortality by downloading our brains into machine bodies like

files on a hard drive. either way, diamandes says he'll be ready. scion: what moves you.

really? yeah, i'd like that. who are you talking to? uh, it's jake from state farm. sounds like a really good deal. jake from state farm at three in the morning. who is this? it's jake from state farm. what are you wearing jake from state farm? [ jake ] uh... khakis. she sounds hideous. well she's a guy, so... [ male announcer ] another reason more people stay with state farm. get to a better state. ♪ ♪

is forced to pay $22 million for improper practices. i think it's brilliant. me and stephanie miller in the morning what a way to start the day. >>i'm a political junkie. this show is my fix. [[vo]]this former two-term governor is ... a failure of leadership a political calculation that has trumped what the president says he stands for. that's what gay rights activists are calling the president's refusal to sign an executive order banning federal contractors to discriminate based on sexual identity.

most folks can't believe an order like this would be necessary. the move would have expanded on lyndon b johnson's law. recent polling shows 73% of likely voters would have approved of the order. the best spin that can be put on the president's inaction is that it's an attempt to punt and kick the can down the road until his second term. joining me founder and president of freedom to work a national lgbt group that focuses on workplace equality. tico thank you for joining us tonight. you were at the meeting where representatives of the president sort of said to the leadership of the gay community. we're not going to sign this order. tell us about it.

>> this wednesday the senior staff of the white house summoned four national lgbt leaders to the white house. we met in the war room where the great world war ii was stat guised and executed, and for two hours we talked and there was basically a slow-motion train wreck. they talked for two hours without giving one single valid reason why the president would not sign this executive order. >> at a political level, the community has been very supportive of this president. so there was a sense at a minimum this order was going to be signed. >> our community as largely supported the president. and he has done very well by our community. he has done more for community.

>> explain what this would have meant. explain what the scope of this executive order would have been. >> 22% of all jobs in the united states are covered by the current contractor executive order signed by lbj 45 years ago. if you work for a federal contractor and you are fired because you are black, a woman, or jewish, or muslim or catholic, you can fire a complaint with the department of labor and get that redressed. but if you are fired because you are gay or transgender, you are out of luck. the department of labor's doors are closed to lbgt americans. >> and there has never been an order that says that a federal contractor isn't fire someone because they are gay. >> sadly no. >> when this issue first hit the newspapers on thursday the meeting was on wednesday, people

couldn't believe that there wasn't already a legal prohibition on firing someone because they are gay. >> 90% of americans think this law already exists, and yet we are still struggling to get it through. he said the obstructionists in congress, when everybody you failure to pass a law, and that failure hurts the american people or economy, barack obama said he felt an obligation to act on his own to help the american people. he has done that very well. he said we can't wait 20 or 30 times signing executive orders so why not this one? >> valley is one of his closest confidants, what was the best articulation they gave. >> at one point senior staff suggested that there would be a

legal challenge from a federal contractor. and i said i accept your hypothetical, there will be a legal challenge, but you will certainly win it. the executive order has been challenged numerous times by people who wanted to fire black people or women, and every single time the federal courts have cast away those -- >> can i go one step beyond. not only would you win, but if they are worried about the politic, they should have welcomed the challenge. it is abhorrent to over 75% of the public that someone would be fired because they are gay. it would be something that they say bring it on. >> i think this was a missed opportunity to lay a trap for mitt romney. >> uh-huh. >> i think he might have

complained about this executive order, and then suddenly mr. romney is taking a position that only 20% of americans hold. mitt romney has had several positions on this very issue of workplace equality for lgbt americans. >> several different positions. >> yes. >> why should this be different than anything else with mitt. >> exactly. who knows which mitt will show up. but if he complained about the executive order it would have been a perfect opportunity. i hope there is a reconsideration, but it would have been a perfect opportunity to use this as a wedge against the conservatives. >> i'm still confused by the fact that somebody is going to challenge an order if you sign it if you think you are going to win? >> i'm an attorney, there was a representative there from the white house council's office. i asked her have you read all of

the orders. i said will you please name one decision that gives you concern. she said i'm not here to talk about cases. >> fast forward if the president is reelected, was there a wink wink, nod, nod, give us some breathing room, we'll sign this in january or february. >> at various points my notes say the president will not sign it at this time. so my last words in the meeting was i urge you to reconsider this mistake today. and that we would urge her to reconsider very publicly until the president follows through on what was a campaign promise. he was asked and in writing, candidate obama said yes. >> right. >> and now we're waiting. >> we'll see what happens.

i do not think he'll do it between now and november. but i think he will do it next january or february. >> i think we can't >> tico almada, founder and president of freedom to work a national lgbt group that focuses on workplace equality, thank you so much for being here and reporting on that meeting. >> thank you. the viewfinder is next. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪

[ mocking tone ] i'm ms. brown. i'm soooo chocolatey. i'm giving away money to make people like me-eee -- is what he said. and i was like "you watch your mouth. she's my friend." friend is a strong word. [ male announcer ] chocolate just got more irresistible. find the all brown bag and you could win!

if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain,

or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. still to come the politics of the boss. but first, the best of the rest. it's our daily look through the viewfiner. >> put it up a there all the time. >> i don't know whether mitt romney should condemn a sitting kongman that says 78 to 81 members of the democratic party in the house of representatives communists? >> well, i -- i mean why should

he condemn him? >> many of the left believe it is morally superior to hire some foreigner to raise your kids. >> now play it on a loop. >> his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. >> this was the situation. oh, my look at that. trying to get the alligator out of the way. that is above and beyond the call of duty for a tour caddy. >> look here is a panda! hello, panda. [ sobbing ] >> just stay right here. >> now drop a back beat on it. [ laughter ] ♪ >> i punched through the kitchen and the flames and saw detective rodriguez, and he grabbed more as well, and we got her down the stairs. >> i had a lovely 10-mnlt chat with him. >> you did?

>> yeah. got a boyfriend. haven't seen him since. >> are you wanting to share your life at this point? >> the night megan and i got married, she thought she was marrying cedrick the entertainer. ♪ [ laughter ] >> i just got to say cory booker, hero of the week mayor pulling a person out of the flames. goldman saks gets penalized but do they care next. i know this stuff and i love it and i try to bring that to the show.

sir... excuse me, excuse me... can i get you to sign off on the johnson case... ♪ we built this city! ♪ ♪ we built this city ♪ [ cellphone rings ] ♪ on rock & roll! ♪ falafel. yeah, yeah, i love you too. ♪ don't you remember! ♪

[ orbit trumpet plays ] don't let food hang around. clean it up with orbit! [ ding! ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling... after any meal. eat. drink. chew orbit. ♪ just to add this to their legal tab, goldman sachs has agreed to pay $22 million in

fineings tad after financial regulators found it failed to -- in other words they were cheating. the goldman research analysts attended weekly huddle meetings to pass on to 180 priority clients, under the asymmetric service initiative, or asi. these practices were, and i quote: >> one key part of a similar case against goldman was an internal document describing asi client list as quote: this is merely one more in a string of violations that have tarnished a company that used to pride itself on ethics. a word they may not even know how to spell. joining me now is ben white,

wall street correspondent for "politico." thank for your time this friday evening, ben. >> thanks for having me. >> what is going on at goldman saks? now they are just down in the dumps wallowing in manure these days. >> on this front, they settled this thing for $22 million because they don't think they did anything wrong. the idea on these huddles is these analysts have a lot of high frequency information on these stocks to talk to traders -- >> inside information. >> it's inside information if it's an impareneding ratings change. if it's just an item of information for a fast-rating client -- >> let me stop you one second. you live and breathe in the financial world just so folks understand. if goldman sacks is about to upgrade a company, that is inside information and if they whisper that to some of their clients that's a big no-no.

it's alleged in this complaint that that's kind of what was going on. >> you are the former prosecutor who would know the evidence needed to prove that kind of thing. but i think what they had was these analysts going to these meetings. they would show up and say, okay, x-stock is going to move because of this piece of information or that piece of information, it's a short-term trade that other people might not want. >> but they are giving one group of clients information ahead of other clients. and the analysts were compensated based on how these clients said favorable things about them or not. back in '02 the analysts had been given incentive to give inside information. >> yes. putting clients over other clients, clearly hedge fund

clients they are paying enormous fees to goldman saks. >> asymmetrical means cheating right. you are giving me something different than you are giving someone else. >> or one set of client needs the same level of service as any other client. >> they all want the same service -- >> well they may not be able to afford. >> the hedge funds -- a lot of revenue is generated for goldman, and that's why they are given a little bit extra information. >> yes, and it is material non-public information or just x-information. >> but you know it's not a level playing field. >> it is not. wall street has never been a level playing field. >> certainly even within

goldman, and this goes back to the mid-level executive who resigned saying you had a toxic brew inside goldman who said it is not even a level playing field but the client's interests are not even paramount. was he accurate? >> i don't know. they did this internal investigation and didn't really find anything. is it news that come clients on wall street get joked about my traders? i don't think so. but i don't get the sense from their internal investigations that they found this wide-spread abuse of clients calling them differently -- >> does $22 million matter to goldman? >> it doesn't matter. they settled $500 million for the case in the cdo. so it's not going to break the bank. >> and their ceo got paid $12 million -- >> 16. >> 16.

okay. >> it was between 12 and 16. >> it must be why i'm not an investment banker how do you calculate 12 and 16 differently. >> he is doing fine. >> all right. ben white thank you for your incites. >> thank you.

we take care of our own how spring steen's massive new hit reflects on our-- political climate. but first, jennifer what do you have? >> we too are looking at romney's love/hate relationship with the nra, but we have the head of the massachusetts gun organization who stood right next to romney who was signing his ban on assault weapons. and eliot i don't know if you have seen that text from hilary

site, we have the young creators in "the war room" tonight. and we have a movie producer. it's friday night in "the war room," we're having beer wine popcorn. you have got to stick around. >> this is california versus new york. we drink water on the set. >> and we're drinking beer. we're having fun. hope you'll join mow. >> all right. more "viewpoint" coming up next. and we'll be watching your shoi later, jennifer. >> all right. thanks. does that. we're keeping it real. it's completely inappropriate for television.

still to come from born in the usa to the rise in the politics of bruce springsteen, but first here is my view. again, really? the metaphors don't stop it's déjà vu all over again, ground hog day, because the script is the same analysts on wall street acting up breaking the law, the folks who are supposed to tell you what to buy or sell they are supposed to help you instead they are lying, cheating, swindling, helping some mostly themselves, while hurting others, mostly you. they violate all sorts of rules that their companies give them, the law, fiduciary duties the particulars about how they misbehave really don't matter, but here is what does matter. when they get caught which isn't nearly as often as they violate the law, they are given a small fine at most, and then we

believe they are going to stop. next time they won't do what they say, they ask us to believe them. this time the fine the sec imposed $22 million bucks on goldman. we the taxpayers wrote them a check for $12.9 billion to cover their bonuses a couple of years ago. why? because they said we meat a bet on aig that didn't turn out so well. what did the president just do? he signed a law lifting some of the few rules that limit what analysts can do. these are the guys who have violated every obligation to you over the past ten, 20, 30 years. the president is helping them out once again. you know the old saying those who don't know history are going to repeat it. we are. they are going to break the law again. a couple of weeks ago craig smith resigned to goldman sacks

and said the analysts there referred to clients and muppets. they should have referred to congress as puppets. the next time goldman saks analysts cross the line, we indict the company. take back all of the money the ceo has learned in the last ten year. let's give them the right incentives, not a little slap on the wrist. something that will really hurt. because this game has gone on much too long. that's my view. candidate, an image where romney is anti gas.

we take care of our own, not the mantra of the obama campaign but the first single from abuse abuse's newest album "wrecking

ball." while politicians gravitated towards his songs, he rarely gravitated towards them until 2004 when he began campaigning with john kerry and in 2008 when he hit the campaign trial this time for president obama. he boss said he will not be campaigning this time, saying i prefer to stay on the sidelines. but that didn't stop the president from adding we take care of our own to his play list for upcoming events. for american liberalism from franklin roosevelt to barack obama" and a media columnist for "the nation." thank you so much for being here. you have written about the boss as part of this great book and also as an independent article -- >> i also wrote a book about him. >> is this symptomatic of where he thinks our nation is right

now. >> if you read the lyrics the lyrics in springsteen songs are often deaccept tiff. i think it's not a description of the current state of the united states. >> i asked a very good friend of mine who has studied springsteen's lyrics and he said that is about the yawning chasm between the american dream and the american reality. >> that's what bruce says about his work period. so in that sense everything he writes is about it. but you can say that on that song as well. >> that song seems to be so much of the moment. if there is anything that captures of the anger of wall street -- >> that's from jack of all trades. >> excuse me, yes. >> there is a line in it that said if i had a shotgun --

>> yeah i didn't quote line. that is almost violent. >> it is juvenile to expect the singer to be the person in the song. johnny cash didn't shoot a man in reno just to watch him die. the bankers probably manage his money pretty carefully. >> he hopes. >> yeah. but he is giving voice to genuine feelings. what he has been saying at his concerts, it's not which side of the 99% you on are it's which side of history you are on. so even though he is as wealthy as man could be he has put himself on the side of help. >> he went from unknown to superstar, able to gather presidents at his whim describe that for us. >> well it has been very interesting because there has been three separate occasions

where he has been at the center of national conversation which is very unusual for any rock star. the first time was when he was in his early 20s, and happened to be the first artist to be simultaneously on the covers of news week and rolling stone. and then he felt later on he really needed to look into what this was all about. and he found that -- what he found was the stories he had been telling about people losing their jobs and sense of direction, the world in vietnam, they had a much larger historical context. he had virtually no education, and he found himself mriticily,

and that's where he has been ever since. which is really to the left of any national democratic candidate. [ overlapping speakers ] >> runs very deep. populism can be left or right -- >> his populism is left. it's sort of a pete segar type populism. >> i would say it's a franklin roosevelt type populism. >> okay. >> he has at some artistic level remained true to his desire which is to find a way for the people he sang about from the very beginning with the people he grow up with, to find a way for them to be who they wanted to be. and there are a lot of things standing in their way. and politicians don't like to talk about that. politicians say if you are a failure in this country, clearly there is something wrong with

you. and springsteen is saying no there are a lot of things stacked against most of us. >> has he pulled back because he is somehow disappointed. >> we're all disappointed with president obama. i bought a $500 and they bumped me up to $10,000 ticket -- >> for the president or bruce? >> both of them. billy joel and barack, obama, and bruce springsteen, and i'm embarrassed about how i felt about the possibilities of this presidency. and i think springsteen's comments have been quite ma sure. he said i'm supporting the president but i'm not going to plait the way i played it last time, because the larger issues are more important to me. he's not condemning obama for being a whimp with the banks, and global warming, and lgbt

like he did the other day. he understands the forces are larger than that and obama reflects those forces. it's those forces -- >> but the support is now a strategic decision rather than a passionate embrace. >> he said quite clearly that he didn't believe he should have been doing what he was in the first place. george bush was such a danger to what this country ought to stand for, that he felt he had no choice. springsteen believes that artists ought to be canneries in the coal mine not up front. >> i have been to a fair number of concerts does his audience share his politics? >> i sat next to a republican the other night. most of it does but not all of it does. he can sing these songs all over the world, and they can internalize them. chris christie who is by political standards a terrible

person nevertheless finds himself in bruce's lyrics. and that's what art does. >> what is the next chapter >> i can answer that question. 17% of americans think that the government can be trusted to do the right thing most of the time or all of the time. unless that number can be raised to over 50% there is not an answer. >> that is where i have been trying to focus the debate in some of my writing. the disenchantment that the government can do anything for the community is so deep-seated, and that is the fulcrum of our politics right now. >> yes we take care of our own. >> that's right. i knew you would end up with a bruce cause: the fight for american liberalism from franklin roosevelt to barack obama" and a media columnist for "the nation," thank you so much for your time tonight. that is "viewpoint" tonight. stay right where you