ar. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com

exist? some say all this drama is nothing more than a diversion from the real issues. joining me now to discuss this so-called women's vote slate senior editor, dahlia. thank you for joining us. now you wrote this article "full disclosure." i also write for "slate" so we're colleagues. you wrote and said this is dramatic. counter intuitive. explain your thesis. >> well, i'm not suggesting that the war against women isn't real. what i'm suggesting is that weaponnizing the mommy wars, which i think is an entire fiction, this is something that was created as best as i know in the late 90s to get traffic where they pitted women against women. working women were supposedly passing judgment on stay-at-home

moms. stay-at-home moms were supposed to be risen with fear and rage. and everyone was angry at each other. and after this week, every woman has the luxury to sit around, opting to sit at home. opt to go working, judging one another. that's not the reality of women's experience. women work largely because they have to work. they're delighted they have a sister-in-law who stays at home. they're delighted they have a neighbor who works. we don't judge each other. the idea that you're going to deploy all this as a way to vote romney or vote obama strikes me as completely not mapping on to the reality of women's lives. let me see if i understand it. there was a word, the word choice. that women were choosing to pursue one or the other of the options you laid out.

what you're saying there is really no such freedom. these are imperatives, and some how the prism through which we were seeing some of the so-called choices were not in themselves real. >> i think it's one notch deeper. what i wanted to suggest in that piece when i cowrote it. we wanted to suggest why do we only talk about women through this lens of choice? we never talk about men, oh, and then they choose to work. they choose to stay home. they choose to take three months off for paternity leave. men get to live. women are bound up in this language of choice. and choice suggests to me not just already fraught with the word choice because of the abortion wars, but already fraught yet again because of the idea that at every turn women have to bargain barter, settle, compromise that the well's life is a sum of complex choices.

what i wanted to suggest in the article, and i think this is posh, we talk about men in terms of maximizing field. we talk about women in terms of choice. it might an youthful thing given the economic reality that a lot of men stay home, a lot of memory are on flex time. a lot of women work full time, that we should talk about men and women in the same terms. men make choices and women want to pursue freedom and get away from the illusion that women are about choice. >> you're saying that it continued to say that if women have this choice, but there is an imperative. the distinct distinction is wrong and unfair to use in language referring to women. >> it's wrong to suggest that women have a menu of choices. we know that's wrong. on the other hand it suggests you're always have to choose. most women do what they have to do. most men do what they have to do. let's get beyond the confining and as you say incident

fanaticizing language of choice. >> any time i would see one block of voters voting in a significantly different way from the remainder of the electorate, you would view one coherent block. it could change from a concernible double digit margin voting in favor of president obama opposed to mitt romney, which would suggest that it is, in fact, a separate and distinct group. do you disagree with that as a way of understanding the politics or do you disagree with it as an ideological matter? >> i think if if you slice and dice those numbers you'll see that women's votes vary along age lines profoundly along religion lines profoundly along income brackets.

to say that it's this monolithic vote that tacks one way or another is to diminish all the things at play. i would just ask you do we think there is a men's vote? no. we would find that notion laughable. we need to look at it much, much more subtly, much more respectfully and to understand that women, sure overwhelmingly they tack for obama but that is-- >> look, if what you're saying that we on tv and cable tv are completely superficial and draw conclusions that are much more interesting if you did what we say in economics was an analysis, you wins hands down. i won't dispute with you on that score. but i would say there is a men's vote. right now people looking at the romney and obama race, i don't think these distinctions are meaningless. if you're saying there is a much more subtle way of understanding

it, you're right. do you think there is a theological universe of female voters who felt that rick santorum had it right and those voters will be with romney and there will be those who will not be mitt romney. >> i think it's interesting. i hate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. of course there is a black man's vote and a white man's vote. right there you made a distinction that we have to keep making. >> that's what i'm--that's what i'm trying to throw in the notion of theological women's vote that you can add subtilty. it's not always good on tv but let's give it a shot. >> let's try. we're going for broke on subtilty. religion is a driver as much for women as it is for men. that said i think this fear became very fraught on that front because of questions of contraception, not abortion any more but contraception.

basic economic questions about women's ability to choose how they can create an economic life if they cannot use contraception contraception. remember 99% of women in this country say they've used it at some point. once you sort of fold that into the conversation about religion and freedom, it becomes very, very fraught for women in ways that are different from the way men talk about it. this year we confounded the religious conversation with a conversation about basic economic freedom, the ability to work, and that's a harder thing for women to get their hits around, and i think this will make this a very tough election. >> interesting. senior editor dahlia who injected subtilty in the conversation. thank youthank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> jeb bush wants marco rubio for president. marco rubio wants jeb bush. oh no.

the viewfinder next. it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar, nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate.

[ male announcer ] cookies with smooth caramel and chocolate. ♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter. ♪ ♪ beth! hi! looking good. you've lost some weight. thanks. you noticed. these clothes are too big, so i'm donating them. how'd you do it? eating right -- whole grain. [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't.

multi-grain cheerios -- 5 whole grains, 110 calories. [ female announcer ] now get this: creamy, dreamy peanut butter taste in a tempting new cereal. mmm! [ female announcer ] new multi-grain cheerios peanut butter. [ woman ] oh, my gosh -- it's so good! [ kristal ] we're just taking a sample of all our different items in our festival of shrimp so we can describe them to our customers. [ male announcer ] red lobster's festival of shrimp starts now! for just $12.99, pair any two of 9 exciting shrimp creations like new barbeque glazed shrimp or crab stuffed shrimp. the crab-stuffed shrimp are awesome! [ woman ] very creamy. that's a keeper! [ woman ] shrimp skewer. [ woman #2 ] sweet, smoky. [ man ] delicious! [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] any combination just $12.99! [ woman ] so what are ya'lls favorites? [ group ] everything! [ laughter ] we're servers at red lobster. and we sea food differently.

>> alec on the ropes but first obama strikes a pose and the simpsons say thank you--sort of. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder viewfinder. >> i think the republican party if the democrats came out against eating yellow snow, rick santorum would eat yellow snow. >> it was hysterical. >> you think it's funny. >> and frightening and hysterical. >> democrats and republicans are interesting because republicans really laugh at themselves more. >> president bush had a very different outlook on these comedy shows. he liked them, respected them but he never went on them. >> if expectations were so low i would say hi, i'm president

obama. president bush president bush. >> he'll point to you and you'll get it done. >> i will treasure this except when army or navy come by. >> let's be clear, i don't want dead people voting in the state of north carolina. >> i see dead people. >> do you know robert? >> he's communist. >> communist slash socialist. >> karl marx. >> i came here to endorse romney. >> there it is. [applause] >> i mean, i'm a great admirer of mitt romney, and i'm a huge fan of marco rubio. the combination would be extraordinary. >> that's very nice. i hope jeb will say yes if governor romney asks him. [simpsons theme song]

>> robert reich is a commune mist. nowcommunist.now that makes sense. exposing alec next on viewpoint. mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.

♪ ♪ okay, so who ordered the cereal that can help lower cholesterol and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. that's yours. lower cholesterol. lower cholesterol. i'm yummy. lower cholesterol. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste? honey nut cheerios. want whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. it's a win win. good? [ crunching, sipping ] be happy. be healthy. can i try yours?

>> when is a charity not a charity? turns out alec, the right wing group which models bills like florida's stand your ground law and big tax cuts for businesses was spending over half of its money on lobbying for its donors. if true that would be a direct violation of the law defining charitable organizations. but no one has thought to challenge alec's tax exempt

status until now. today, the advocacy group non-cause filed a complaint with the irs claiming that alec is actually a lobby group masquerading as public charity. alec claims it does not lobby but instead provides a forum for legislatures and private corporations to come together and advance the fundamental principle of free market enterprise limited government, and federallallism at the state level. bob edgar, thanks for coming in. what is alec doing that it's not allowed to do. >> common cause has been looking at alec for the last year. we've been provided documents and we came to the conclusion that they spend 60% of their time and revenue lobbying. they give corporation abouts 140 about 140 corporations the opportunity to

lobby in a tax-free environment it's giving to a chair glit tax deduction for a business when giveing to a charity. >> tax deduction. we decided to go to the irs, the whistle blower act to the irs and charge them with fraudulent practices. if common cause were to have the kind of links to a corporation or series of corporations that alec has, we would be violating the tax code. we want the irs as a whistle blower complaint to tell us whether or not they are operating fairly and appropriately under the rules of the irs. >> you are a former congressman. i was the attorneys general and states have jurisdiction responsibility of enforceing charitable laws such as alec or what pretends to be a charitable

entity. what is the distinction between lobbying and what alec said it did which is giving companies an opportunity to con together, consort and get ideas. >> i served in congress for 12 years. lobbyists would come to me with talking points and give me memos on issues that they cared about and when they liked the way i voted they would give me legal contributions. but all of those activities were hard-core lobbying. they had the file with the appropriate documents and paperwork. in this case companies like coca-cola, pepsi kraft foods and 140 other corporations could, in fact give a charitable contribution to alec, which is found under the charitable rules. they claim on their tax forms that they do zero lobbying. >> zero. alec--just so it's clear, alec

in the 990 forms submitted to the irs say they do not do any lobbying at all. >> they do not do any lobbying. we hired legal counsel, and our legal counsel happens to be experts on whistle blower lawsuits or complaints. >> right. >> and they took this challenge reviewed it, and we put together 4,000 documents that we received from alec that show e-mails show talking points, show score cards where they watched the legislative process. this all blew up with the case in florida-- >> the stand your ground statute, which needless to say has rightly focused enormous attention on alec's insidious behavior on certain issues. >> exactly. the focus want to give everybody a weapon, passed the stand your ground law in florida.

and then they took that and gave it to the american legislative council. >> what would happen to alec if your lawsuit is successful, if it is determined they had been lobbying, whether it's 10% 50% if that determination is made by the court or irs, what then happens? >> they pay fines and penalties. they would have to change their tax status and the corporations that hang with alec stay with the organization could face fines and penalties as well. because they have given between $7,000 and $25,000 a year and they get tax credit for that. >> to see the companies that gave to alec being penalized but as a political matter going forward, companies that had given to alec or were at the present timed to give to alec

would pull back. wait a minute, if this was a lobbying organization, a coke or pepsi, has a different feel than giveing to a charitable entity. >> 14 companies that have important grants to protect have left alec and we think more will leave. if the irs agrees with our complaint, our whistle blower complaint, and alec is fined any companies that would stay with alec would face some penalty and fine by the irs for giveing to a charity when, in fact, the organization is a lobbying organization. >> you were in the belly of the beast. you know the lobbyists when you see one. your antennas go up and you can smell them a mile away. will alec be put on notice so when it tracks legislation, that it will know that it is crossing

that line? >> it has. there have been a number of cases in the past. alec knows what the rules are, but they've hidden for the past 20 or 30 years behind the guise of a charity. let's face it, about 2,000 conservative state legislateters pay $100 for a two-year membership. they're wined and dined several times a year by special interest groups. they sit side by side by corporate leaders. the corporate members have veto power over the model bills that go through their task forces. it is lobbying. >> and without any doubt. real quick question, does common cause lobby? >> common cause does lobby, but we have a 501 c-4 which gives us permission to lobby state by state. we have a 501 c 3 which is our educational arm where we study.

but we give no money to candidates. when we go to capitol hill or state capitols we register as lobbyists, fill out the forms and we're completely transparent. >> you're saying there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. you stay transimportant, you say this is our lobbying vehicle this is what you stand for and you don't masquerade behind the guise of being a charity. >> full transparency. we don't behind being a charity. register, report, and file the tax code the way it's set up and don't try to hide your lobbying in a charity. >> all right, former congressman and now president of common cause bob edgar, thank you for being here this evening. no justice, the d oj dragging its feet. my view coming up.

it's completely inappropriate for television. [ male announcer ] at green giant we know nature gives us the most nutritious of gifts. but only when they are ready to be given. that's why green giant picks vegetables at their peak. ...and freezes them fast locking in nutrients ...for you to unwrap. ♪ ho, ho, ho. green giant ♪ [ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.

>> calling romney a turn around artist. that takes a lot of license. but let's head out to san francisco and check in with governor jen jennifer gran homed and "the war room." >> tonight we're all about wildcards on this campaign and secret weapons. so is the tea party in the wildcard category the ace of spades or the two of clubs? we'll put that question to former pennsylvania senator arrestarlan specter. and then we'll get the inside scoop from the folks at politico, and we'll find out

from our friends at buzzfeed about ana romney's history. we have more on the top of the hour. >> bill clinton is a great secret weapon. arlan specter is a wildcard. republican, democrat, has hair has no hair. i shouldn't say that. that was not fair. highways been a spectacular senator. when he came over and gave the democrats the majority in the senate. >> he wrote a book called "life among the cannibals." we'll find out who the cannibals are. >> it makes you want to run for senate. more viewpoint coming up next. that. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two term governor. >>people like somebody who's got a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure that people have freedom. >>driven to find the truth... >>what's really going on? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct.

en i think its brilliant. >>current tv welcomes two new hosts. news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>i know this stuff and i love it and i try to bring that to the show. >>and humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>politically direct means no bs, cutting through the clutter. >>bill press and stephanie miller, current's new morning news block. weekdays six to noon. ♪ >> up next, how romney made his millions by raiding the middle class. but first here's my view. the essence of law enforcement is looking backwards in time. unearthing past acts that violate the law.

even when, indeed especially when, those acts are committed by the powerful. so it is inauspicious when the obama administration, shortly after assuming office, said of the issue of torture and so-called enhanced interrogation that they were more interested in looking forward than backwards, and, indeed, there have been no prosecutions. likewise, it seems that the absence of criminal cases against any major wall street figures or firms reflects the same focus on forward looking judgments. will a prosecution destabilize the market has been the question, not did somebody violate the laws relate together markets. again no, cases against the big players. now comes a third arena. the justice department has made such of its prosecutions under the fcpa, the foreign corrupt practices act. now you can debate how important that law is, but it is the juts department that has chosen to make a big deal of it.

truth be told, most of the cases have been made are small fry. but now come the two big cases. and the big test for the justice department. the first, walmart, amazing reporting in "the new york times" laid out a classic case of major league bribery and coverup at walmart most of the bribes took praise in mexico. and cover up reached close to the top of the company and second, news corp. news corps has admitted to a major scandal bribery, hacking and wiretapping, if, doj doesn't pursue these cases with criminal and civil cases then doj will have shown itself to be toothless, and unwilling to really enforce the law. looking forward is fine, but it is only part of the equation. meeting out justice is an enhanded way means the big fish get justice as well, and here that means looking backwards at

bad acts and not pulling punches. now is the time for the justice department to prove itself. and it may have failed itself and all of us. that is my view.

>> he couches experience in building companies in the private sector and says he's the best candidate to turn this country around, but critics say romney's company bain is the same type of company that put this country in a recession. still, romney and his investors grew richer while thousands of americans lost their jobs. is this capitalism at its best or worst? joining us now is writer for the village vicinity who authored " "mitt romney, american

parasite." you view mitt romney as being a parasite on the american economy, explain why? >> he would buy companies for 10% down and then borrow the rest of the money. then he would begin to pay himselfe nor husband dividends that didn't have any relationship to how the company was performing. what he would do is he would try to spin these companies off very quickly. the best way to spin them off and reduce all that debt that he chalked up for the company was to begin laying off workers cutting customer service basically cutting everything that would help long-term development of a company. >> give us the story of one of the companies which they bought, what happened to the workers and the exit. >> the great story is g.s.

industries in georgetown, south carolina, and kansas city. they purchased the company began to pay themselves back on borrowed money, ran up an ungodly amount of debt in the hundreds of millions of dollars and began cutting everywhere cutting maintenance, and cutting repairing equipment, cutting ear plugs, profit sharing and about five years later was on the brink of bankruptcy simply because it could not afford all the debt that romney ran up. debt is the recurring motif in all of his countries. >> the leverage and debt incurred was the same narcotic infused in the housing sector that led up to the recession. it's very easy when you see something and buy it and then borrow money, extract money and leave it as an empty carcass and leave it bankrupt after you've taken all your money out of it.

>> he would basically play with borrowed money most of the time. >> i think it's critically important--there is nothing illegal about any of this. this was a business model when you could use these companies as a basis for pulling out a lot of capital. >> the business model is still there. private equity is still doing business in a similar manner. but now the banks have requiring 40% now opposed to 10% now, so now private equity companies like bain have skin in the game and they can't walk away like they used to. >> so a certain wisdom is being applied as banks are now beginning to say that you need to apply when you borrow a house. you can't do it with zero money down. they will look for capital. >> it's analogous to the mortgage crisis where banks gave away money and after they got burnt they realized it probably

wasn't a smart idea. 22% of the companies went bankrupt. is that typical in this world that he was operating in? >> well, from what i understand romney was one of the worst among people at that time. he was in bed with drexel and goldman sachs and all the famous names back then but he was ruthless about cutting labor. he was ruthless about cutting research and development. he was ruthless about cutting service development and he was ruthless borrowing as much money as he possibly could all of which went to the debt of these individual companies. the debt did not go to bain. >> you said earlier on that he put down 10%. that was money that he raised in a fund and he was the manager or partner in that fund, he would get the override sometimes without putting his own money in. >> correct.

>> so you had ref leverage after leverage. >> that was wonderfully arcane. >> arcane is our experiment. here's the question that i have for you. are you suggesting that this was a business model that worked in a particular of time where you could borrow that much, interest rates were low but it does not reflect upon him as a morning which is his entire argument for being president? >> well, i don't think there is any real evidence that he was a great business manager. the companies that he cites are staples, sports authority or steel dynamics, he was a minor investor. he rarely mentions successful companies that he actually managed at bain. there is great speculation that he really didn't have any successful companies in terms of longevity. >> pete, we'll have to stop it

there. this w