next week. and if he can say it let's go rangers. ♪ ♪ >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is view point. j.p. morgan chase, the nation's biggest bank. too big to fail but not too big to lose $2 billion. with perhaps another billion or two on the way. lost in a wave of speculative trade to hedge the bet against other losses. jamie dimon tried to spread the blame around in an extraordinary conference call last night. >> in hindsight the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed poorly upon forked.

we're not in a business where we're not going to make mistakes. we're going to make mistakes. we've always said that. this one we put in the egregious category. even hindsight is not "20/20" but obviously we should have paid more attention to it. >> i plays into the hands of a bunch of pundits but that's life life. >> eliot: that gives me a lot of converse in the way he runs that bank. dimon has the wash dog of who was supposed to keep 2008 from happening again. i quote, the argument that financial institutions do not need the new rules to help them avoid the irresponsible actions that led to the crisis of 2008 is at least $2 billion hard for make today. the sec sec always late to the game and other regulators say they're investigating the bank

for possible civil violations. we'll hear from them in a decade or so from now. and while dimon insists that jp morgan chase is very strong, he hedged when other banks might be making the same mistakes. >> would this be a jp morgan-specific issue oh is there a chance that others have losses in similar positions. >> just because we were stupid doesn't mean that everybody else was. i have no idea what other people are doing. >> eliot: joining me, david, how could it be after we passed all these laws the regulations financial community complaining they're overregulateed that morgan chase loses $2 billion. is this a fundamental flaw in our framework? >> we'll hear a lot of debate about that. there are three questions to ask here. one, does policies need to tear about this? there is an argument that it doesn't. there is something worse that would require bailout policy.

and maybe this is something of a warning signal that that's more likely than we want. but it's possible that this loss won't require any response from washington. the second question, could better regulations that exist done angle different. if the answer to that is no, well, then we're not sure the third question for lawmakers is, okay, do you need to acknowledge that you're not always going to catch this? maybe you need a different kind of regulation or maybe you need to say, look we're not going to catch this and this would lead to a different solution something like a bank tax that pays for future bailouts, but at this point we don't yet know. >> eliot: look, not surprisingly you frame the three questions correctly and perfectly in terms of an litcal an analytical framework. it's absorbable, but what is shocking to people in a relative relatively stable none volatile

calm market could it be so wrong. it makes you wonder whether their trading practices are in context to the risk they're absorbing, and all that we've heard from jimmy dimon how careful they are. and does this tarnish jamie dimon's reputation as being such an astute manager of the institution. >> clearly it hurts his reputation on wall street and it makes it harder for him to make the anti-regulation case he has been making in a very public way. how much it hurts his reputation? i don't think we know yet. but as you pointed out i think there is no question that even if this trade in and of itself doesn't create systemic problems or really worry for policymakers policymakers, it does, in a way. because it seems in a market like this, a market that is not extremely volatile it's not falling sharply.

we're not in september 2008, it sure does make you think boy the odds of something going really wrong much worse than this are higher than we might have thought before we just heard about this. >> eliot: i think that's exactly right, since jamie dimon has been the poster child of look how good we cantic and now he has egg on his face by what is by any measure a real number even if it's not challenged by the viability of his own bank. there has been in the past day or so renewed support for the safe bill which would break up the banks and say they're too big to fail, therefore we have to guarantee them. will there be a political move to shrink the big banks that have gone only bigger since the cataclysm of 2008? >> it would surprise me. i like to be wary of making predictions, but at this point it would surprise me because you ask yourself who is going to lead that movement? so far the obama administration

has not shown an enormous amount of interest in the break up the banks argument. so far the republicans have not shown a big interest in that. so it sort of makes you wonder who is going to do that? maybe at some point this year or after some future problem one of the two parties is going to say wow, there is a political opportunity here. we're going to do it in part because we like the policy, and in part because we like the politics. but for the medium term it would surprise me if we see any big explosion in a break up the banks movement here in washington. i think that there will be a richer debate among economists, among writers and others about breaking up the banks would make a difference and the argument for it is the bigger the bank the harder they can fall. and those against it will say it has not happened at the biggest places in the world. you will see more of that debate in those circles now.

that can always lead to policy in the longer term. >> eliot: systemic risk is not correlated simply to scale and magnitude. on the other hand, the bigger they are, the more likely they are to have ripple effects if they are to have internal problems. the only counterpoint i had say, yes, you have the safe act 33 senators in support of it, and then within the financial service community, warren stevens, whose op-ed in the wall street journal when he said we do need to go back to a glass world separateing commercial banking and scale down the banks competition in finance. will there be any traction for his perspective in the aftermath of these trades? >> i mean, i don't know. you mentioned that they have 33 senators, so it needs 27 more to

get to 60 which is what you need to get anything done in the senate these days. at this point it would surprise me if it gets there. but this issue still has a long way to go. so maybe it will. to me one of the interesting questions is would that work? if you went back to a glass eagle world which says banks can't make big bets with its basic bank deposit, will that reduce the number and consequences of bad bets like this, or are we in a world where you don't need customer deposit to make those big bets. even lacking that you could make a lot of big bets that could cause a huge amount of systemic damage. lehman brothers was not using basic bank deposits. does that lead you to a regulatory solution like glass eagle or does it lead you to say there is not one set of rules to

bail out the bank system. then the right answer is pre-funding those bailouts with some sort of finance tax. >> eliot: i think that's right. essentially what you're saying the vocal rule may not work. pre-funding, of course, is something that the republicans are trying to appeal right now. we'll continue this conversation, as fascinating as it is, thank you, david for your time this evening. >> thank you. >> eliot: for more on the extraordinary losses by morgan chase, i'm joined by labor secretary, and author of "beyond outrage" what has gone wrong with our economy and democracy and how to fix it. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us. my first response when i saw the headlines for the morgan chase was so soon. i thought they would wait for a year before going back to this type of behavior. are we wrong to be shocked by

the speed they've dove right back into this sort of stuff. >> it's not wrong to be shocked by it. we have the biggest bank in the united states by assets. it's led by someone who has been the champion of deregulation the warhorse saying don't regulate. don't overregulate and who has been trying--jp morgan chase and jamie dimon have been in the lead of trying to water down the vocal rule which was designed to stop these kinds of things. to prevent these trades that are too speculative too excessive and not prudent and certainly would effect commercial democracy and it happened within living memory. you know, we all suffer from a certain memory loss, and a short-term time horizon but it's hard to hide from the fact that this is just a few years ago. this whole thing--these kinds of errors, these kinds of sloppiness, these kinds of

excessive risk, these kinds of bizarre new instruments got us into deep trouble the near meltdown of wall street that had to be bailed out and hurt the entire economy. so eliot, we have every right to be shocked, but beyond being shocked, beyond our range i think we got to urge our politicians to do something about this. >> eliot: we'll get to the structural reforms that i think we think are necessary. a couple of years ago people would ask me, is it going to happen again? i said of course it will. the question is when. when i get a speeding ticket, i hate to admit this, 10 to 15 miles after the speeding ticket you drive within the speed limit and then you go faster and faster. this will last a few years before they go back to it. but here we are their foot is on the pedal outrageous. the banks say uncertainty is keeping the economy down.

what creates more uncertainty knowing that banks are losing billions of dollars. >> this is the source. this is exactly the source of uncertainty in our financial system. we don't even know right now the extent to which other banks are doing exactly what jp morgan chase has done. jimmyjamie dimon says he doubts other banks will be as stupid. but if jp morgan has discovered a way to do it that circumvents the rule then i can guarantee you every other major bank on wall street is trying exactly the same thing. there is a competitive dynamic on wall street. every one of these banks want to make more money than every competitor. and every opportunity they can get to bend and twist and expand the loopholes they are going to use. and if its happening at jp morgan chase, the biggest, it's going to be happening elsewhere.

>> eliot: and they're running over the same cliffs at the same time just different speed. >> that's what we saw in 2008. that's why this attention deficit disorder we all have can no longer be claimed as an excuse. we got to take action. >> eliot: none of the cases that i prosecuted used add as a defense. mitt romney wants to repeal god dodd frank. does he have any idea what to put in there instead? >> i have no idea--if he wants--if he thinks that the magic of the free market will work and protect investors and protect our financial system and protect the sanctity of our economy, i don't know what planet he's on. after 2008 that would have been a bizarre position to take. even alan greenspan said he was fundamentally wrong in his faith of the market. right now when we have an example of the biggest bank in

the entire united states banking system basically making this kind of sloppy errors of judgment, how can you--how can you think that the market is going to take care of it? you need regulation, responsible regulation. every market needs it. >> eliot: you knowness the other point and i mentioned this in a prior conversation a couple of moments ago. these losses are in a relatively stable market. this is not a choppy market or a difficult market to trade in if you're a sophisticated trader. to lose $2 billion in this market you got to be really, really bad. >> it's even worse. in the mid-april there were rumors circulated on wall street and i even heard them, and i'm in california about this rogue trading unit under the supervision of jamie dimon. he proud in big hedge fund supervisors. is jamie dimon was asked about it and this was mid-april. he said they're making a tempest

out of tea pot. there is no problem here whatsoever. look, if this rumor was circulating in mid-april and now jp morgan chase and jamie dimon said we have least $2 billion in losses maybe $3 billion, where is the transparency? where were the regulators? i mean, we are back to where we were before 2008. >> eliot: and they still don't even know the magnitude of it. professor, the title of your book is perfect. "beyond outrage." that's what we should feel. robert reich, as always sir thank you for your time. >> thanks. >> eliot: the republicans say there is no war on women. but they sure don't want to defend women either. that's coming up on viewpoint. jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office.

battle speech right? may i? [ horse neighs ] for too long, people have settled for single miles. with the capital one venture card you'll earn double miles on every purchase, every day! [ visigoths cheer ] hawaii, here we come. [ alec ] so sign up today for a venture card at capitalone.com. and start earning double. [ all ] double miles! [ brays ] what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no. [ dennis ] switch to allstate. their claim service is so good now it's guaranteed. [ foreman ] so i can trust 'em. unlike randy. dollar for dollar, nobody protects you like allstate. new 5 rpm gum. stimulate your senses.

>> eliot: in the year 2000 when ray kelly was the commissioner of u.s. customs. he said some and frisk trait ticks in new york sowed new seeds of miss trust. nypd have embraced those it was tick. the number of the day 168,126. that's how many times black men between the ages of 14 and 24 were stopped and frisked by the new york police last year. that means the nypd searched nearly 10,000 more black men in in 2011 than actually live in the city. one of the primary justifications for the stop-and-frisk policy is that it leads to the recovery of concealed firearms. while blacks and latino were tries as likely to be frisked while whites were nearly twice as likely to be carrying a concealed weapon. mayor bloomberg offered a spirited defense of the policy

yesterday saying the stops were, quote, a deter deterrent and hopes that the next mayor builds on the system because he plans to live in the city. he should be reminded that stop and frisk tactics also sow seed of mistrust. to cover their bets. >>we are the investigators fiercely independent, and we don't hold back. >>we're here because we're independent and that's what we love. >>...and we don't do talking points. >>i think the hypocrisy is so blatant. >>and above all... and there's only once place you'll find us. >>weeknights on current tv. it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. 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 ♪ >> eliot: in recent years few things have garnered such bipartisan support as the violence against women act. first passed in 1994 the bill has been renewed twice without incident. but this year things have not been so easy. the bill has yet to be extended. joining me now, jerrold nadler a proponent to extending and fully funding the violence against women act. congressman, as always thank you for joining us. >> pleasure. >> what explains the backdown this time over something that should be so central to a common view. >> the breakdown is the republicans refuseing to extend

the bill even the way it was. the senate passed a bill with a few changes to the bill to add eligibility for grants to groups that deal with domestic violence among gay and lebanese people. to help those on indian reservations. the republicans won't hear of that. and rolling back. >> right now, for instance if an immigrant woman whose legality is here because of her husband, makes a complaint of domestic violence the husband is not advised of that until arrangements are made for her safety. they want to change that. that doesn't make any sense at all. they want to say that the confidentiality of women complaining would be violated if

they're immigrants. you wouldn't get the complaints. >> eliot: this is a common thematic. every issue these days seems to become infused with a partisan edge that frankly didn't used to be the case. it brings me--i thought it was a fascinateing article, centerrist thinkers not partisan, not liberals whose very persuasive article argued that the republican party is the reason for the breakdown in governance. the republican party going far far to the right off the playing field in terms of fair governance. is this what you see? >> well, yes any liberal conservative point of view, the democratic party has become much more liberal on social issues, somewhat conservative on economic issues. the republican party has become extremely right winged on everything. even more than that, it's not only that they've gone off the deep denned in terms of their

ideology, but in methodology. they will not admit compromise. compromise itself is a dirty word. you cannot deal with the other party. even things that everybody agreed you had to increase the debt level. increase the debt level is not a policy now. it's responding to decisions made two, three, four years ago. suddenly they won't do that. they would rather have the country default on its debt. these are impossible conditions. >> eliot: the contention within the republican party put aside what you and i as democrats might articulate our view of the republican party when you saw the individual who beat senator dick lugar the nominee richard murdoch, bipartisan view is something he didn't believe in. he just wanted to bludgeon the other side. >> a lot of republicans are terrified of right wing primaries. they don't think they can do what they think ought to be done in terms of reaching any kind kind of compromise.

if you have a house in the senate--if you have a democratic house-senate and president you can do what you want, ditto for the republicans. but if you don't, you have to compromise, but they think compromise is selling out. >> eliot: john boehner, the speaker of the house has been held hostage, as it were, by the tea party members. >> he has been held hostage on even the transportation build. there are many who believe that the government has no role in transportation and should not fund it. you're back debating jackson versus clay. >> eliot: those are good debates andand a different intellectual level than what we get in washington these days. >> yes, but it was settled in the 1930s. >> eliot: that is true. the republican water wants to live in the last century. we've known that for some time. >> abraham lincoln was a great

proponent of infrastructure. >> eliot: you're the smartest guy in the house. but let's move president lincoln aside for a moment. let's come to this week's political story, same-sex marriage. the president a huge step forward in terms of moral and human rights. you'vethe president will have to confront the constitutional issue. when he does, what do you think his decision will be. >> he has already confronted the constitutional issue. they have declineed the marriage act. they announced that they feel that it is unconstitutional and that is key constitutional question. and they've already addressed that. >> eliot: for the more difficult issue, the affirmative case. do you believe and should the president say there is affirmative constitutional right to same-sex marriage because marriage is a fundamental right. >> i believe that.

that's currently being tested in a number of cases, and i think the president took an enormously bold step not on a constitutional level but on the level of saying we ought to have same-sex marriage. it is the right thing to do and he believes in it. it has tremendous impact on just driving the he debate. on removing the political cover of those such as governor christie who is saying i agree with the president, and given the fact that opponents are trying to drive a wedge in the black community given the president's popularity in the black community that will defuse that to some extent. >> eliot: this will reach the supreme court and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out. >> unless we pass my bill before it goes through. >> eliot: i hope it happens but i'm not confident that it happens, unfortunately. congressman jerrold nadler thank you for your time tonight. >> eliot: thank you. obama, has he lost the beach boy

vote? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the tight-turning, space-saving eco-friendly smart. escape your stuff. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: still to come, sheriff joe arpaio on the wrong side of a big-time lawsuit. but first will ferrell has new pants. gretchen carl learns italian. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder. ♪ ♪ everybody is talking ♪ about my tight pants ♪ about my ♪ tight pants ♪ bonjourno. >> nature has ordained only a man and woman can have a family. gay people have been disqualified from nature. >> why do gays like to see people perishing. >> you used to think that it

would all end with all this marrying. which incensely you would have gotten the republican senators to support it. ♪ ♪ everyone in town ♪ loves my tight pants ♪ i got my tight pants ♪ i got my ♪ tight pants on ♪ ♪ good vibrations ♪ >> unless you're not interested in having money. >> there has been blame afforded to him because of what happened to jm morgan chase. >> if he's president he's president of the banks. >> i don't think i'll play the president around the golf but i'll take him through a course. >> now you listen to me, you sick [bleep] i don't know who you are or where you came from, but i'm the only one in this town who can wear tight pants. >> i got to confess i was reading it and i was sexting my

husband at the same time. >> when i was in afghanistan i was manually raped by a guy--making sure is one thing. this guy it between-- ♪ i got my tight pants ♪ on ♪ >> eliot: all right, coming up it's not a crime to be latino, but some say that's why they're getting arrested. anotheranother torous arizona sheriff enforcing or breaking the law? next on viewpoint. better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now.

♪ >> eliot: quote, the maricopa county sheriff office and joe arpaio continue to to engage in the

pattern or practice of unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at latinos. jail employees referring to latinos by derogatory names such as wetbacks and stupid mexicans and holding inmates in solitary confinement just because they don't speak english and a latino woman was physically abused and held in the backseat of an un-air conditioned patrol car for 30 minutes. stories and incidents like this go on and on, a cornucopia of evidence. in addition to the discriminatory treatment of latinos, the suit claims that arpaio's office has focused so much on low level i am placing offenses that is it has resulted in a failure to up old other

duties. >> i'm not going to surrender my offense to the federal government. i will fight this to the bitter end. >> eliot: joining mow now house state leader chet campbell whose district is part of maricopa county and alisonandr ra sola ra. it appears to be a police state based on racist principles. >> i think the sheriff has been doing this for quite awhile in maricopa county. he has been playing the politics of fear, division, and he has taken an issue, a legitimate issue, there are a lot of concerns about immigration both in arizona and other parts of the country, but he has used it to capitalize on his political career and gain off the fear of people and really use misinformation which is the biggest problem.

but what he has done outside of intimidating this community, the latino community, he has done this type of tactical strategy maneuvering against politicians who have tried to stand up against him. we've seen it in the county board of supervisors. he has been in legal battle with them for many years. he uses the game of intimidation and fear throughout his administration, and i think it's finally catching up to him. i think the d.o.j. is finally on to what is going on in maricopa county. >> eliot: alisandra, let me ask you what is the tougher legal question. when we believe there is discriminatory treatment inherit with what they're doing how do you take individual incidents and demonstrate that there is bias, an inherent intent to discriminate based on these individual incidents most of which do not involve the sheriff himself?

>> well, as you know quite well, eliot, the u.s. supreme court said you can use circumstantial evidence to show a pattern of behavior on the part of law enforcement agency. that's what the d.o.j. has done in this lawsuit. it's what we've done in our separate lawsuit. you provide example evidence from the sheriff's own files e-mails that demonstrate that he's making decisions about where to conduct these raids based on racist e-mails. that he condones these types of actions. that he responds to these e-mails, you could use statements, and in this case and the d.o.j. has used statements coming out of the sheriff's own mouth saying i'm not concerned about the crime. i'm going to go after the illegals first. it's a combination of a change in practice, and the d.o.j. also said this. in 2006 it was to make

immigration enforcement a priority. he redistributed resources and created this new aggressive human smuggling unit which has been deliberately targeting mostly u.s. citizens. >> eliot: continue chet, hop in. >> i think she made a great point. he has redistributed resources within his agency, and he has left other crimes unsolved, most noteably sex crimes. there have been hundreds of cases of sex crimes in the county that have been left unsolved, not investigated because he's redistributing resources to these other areas for political gain. he has not been doing his job for many years in the county and if has cost taxpayers money safety and health. >> eliot: the question that i have, and i say this as a lawyer horrendous as this behavior is, and can you actually find that behavior illegal? he's making a judgment that we find revolting but does that violate the civil rights laws?

one of the most pieces of evidence, i'll read, most strikingly in the northeast portion of the county of maricopa county the study found latino drivers are nearly nine times more likely to be stopped than non-latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. you see this disparate conduct does that help you in proving your case, and if it does, what remedy do you want at the end of the trial? >> definitely. i think that demonstrates there is plenty of statistical evidence in our lawsuit which goes to trial on july 19th. the judge in this case said there is enough evidence for reasonable fact finder to agree that there was evidence of racial discrimination. and so there is a separate analysis done both by our experts that show that between 76% and 85% of the drivers that were stopped were latino u.s. citizens.

in the d.o.j.'s own analysis they were four to nine times more likely to be stopped if you were latino. all of this combined, this is what is going to be the subject of the trial on july 19th. so i think it's extremely important. they're going to be focusing on this. they're going to be focusing on exactly the types of enforcement actions that he took, and as representative campbell said it's a question of priorities. he was so abscessed with immigration enforcement, and the majority of the people that he stopped were u.s. citizens. u.s. citizens should not be jacketedsubjected to police tierany because of the color of their skin. >> eliot: the arizona bill before the united states supreme court has evoked a lot of passion around the united states. is there within arizona any hesitancy now? are people more reflective now? are they saying maybe as a state we went too far and this is

playing into the worst images of what arizona is and should not be perhaps? >> i think there is. i think both within the voting community, the average every day voter as well as the business community as well as the elected community. i think people are starting to take a step back and say how do we handle immigration in a more thoughtful constructive way? now, again, you have the far right extremists and the tea partyers and people like that who don't want to have that conversation, but i think the overwhelming majority of arizonans do want that conversation. when i talk to people across the state, be it republican, or democrat, they don't want to punish people for trying to find the american dream. they want to make sure that people are here abiding by the law but having the same opportunity that everybody he is does. i hopeful that we're moving in a new direction in arizona. it was refreshing to see in the legislature that all the anti-immigrant bills were stopped. they weren't passed this year.

the business community has been lobbying against them. i hope we have more a constructive dialogue and less partisan dialogue around this issue as we head into november of this year and beyond november. >> eliot: i certainly hope so. that would be a wonderful thing in a sea of bad news. chad campbell, and alisondra a solare, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> eliot: when it hurts to hit yourself in the head, stop hitting yourself in the head. blank

and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. no! but, i'm about to change that. ♪ every little baby wants 50% more cash... ♪ phhht! fine, you try. [ strings breaking wood splintering ] ha ha. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? ♪ ♪ what's in your...your... ♪ [ train whistle blows ] [ ball hitting paddle ] [ orbit girl ] don't let food hang around. yeah! [ orbit trumpet ] clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling. ♪ eat, drink, chew orbit! ♪ ♪ >> later on viewpoint. so the president said gays should be able to get married. is that the end of the story? hardly, but first let's head out west and check in with jennifer granholm. what is on the show tonight,

governor? >> well, eliot we'll looking ahead to this weekend because as you know governor romney has given a come men'sment speech at an university where they teach that mormonism is a cult. we'll see what motivates romney including those error man roots. and we have more on the jp morgan chase scandal, and taking a slightly different look at it, and we have politics, religion and a relaxed atmosphere. a bit of fun. and a whole lot more. >> eliot: i have to move out to california. we don't drink on the set. >> that's serious i do not liberty university a well-known center of open-minded thinking. i'm glad that mitt romney is going there-- >> i bit of irony i think. >> eliot: you think so? more viewpoints coming up. stay and watch jennifer's show. the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around

the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. >>liberal and proud of it. we have a big, big hour and the i.q. will go way up. how are you ever going to solve the problem if you don't look at all of the pieces? >>tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >>you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. >>sharp tongue, quick whit and above all, politically direct. >>you just think there is no low they won't go to. oh, no. if al gore's watching today... ♪

>> eliot: president franklin roosevelt fought the great depression with aen approach that was maybe his greatest legacy. take an idea and try it. if it fails, stop doing it and try something else. what mystifies me about mitt romney and the republicans is that they want to take methods that have already failed and keep doing them. keep deregulating financial services. we used to have rules created in the aftermath of the great depression and those rules brought us financial stability for 60 years. then government and both democrats and republicans were complicity in this repealed them, and we've seen the result. the financial cataclysm of 2008. so what does romney call for? the repeal of the few remaining reforms we passed in 2010 so we can replaced them with nothing. this even today after a jp morgan chase lost over $2 billion in some high risk trades. big banks still have the knack for making huge losing bets with our money.

here's another example. the bush tax cuts. they were supposed to create jobs. but instead of jobs we got deficits. so the republicans answer? do it again. yet another example global warming is getting worse. so the republicans say give oil companies more tax cuts. sure, let's become even more dependent on fossil fuels. conservatives may slam roosevelt for expanding federal power but his greater legacy should be a government that experiments and learns and throws out the stuff that doesn't work. it would be nice if romney could acknowledge even that much. that's my view. is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary.

just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... ♪ [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed. while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great. and if you got your home insurance where you got your cut rate car insurance, 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. unwrap your paradise. soft, sweet coconut covered in rich, creamy chocolate. almond joy and mounds. unwrap paradise.

the gavin newsom show is a search engine for solutions and that's the focus. we want to focus on solutions and ways of bringing people together. collective action is the only way we're going to solve the world's great vexing problems.

>> eliot: on saturday the presumptive presidential nominee mitt romney will deliver the commencement address at liberty university. the move is aimed at solidifying his support among evangelicals. but according to my next gift governor romney may be fighting an against a growing trend. 50% of young evangelicals actually support some form of same sex unions. joining us "faith of our own" following jesus beyond the cultural wars jonathan merit. fascinating new twist on what many of us improperly presumed to be an unified voting block. explain what you found. >> what i've seen is that the next generation of christians differs substantially from the previous generation.

they're not resonating with the religious right. not even the religious left. i think you're seeing at least three shifts. there is a shift from being largely a partisan movement to being more independent. there is a shift from being focused on the narrow agenda to a broader one. and then there is a shift from really a relying on divisive rhetoric to now, really wanting to use dialogue when we discuss these issues in the public square. >> eliot: that is a very affirmative set of three sets of shifts. i say that not as a batter son but the nature of our political discourse. i think it mirrors what is happening across the rest of society. the evangelical folks under 35 are looking more similar to non-evangelicals below the age of 35 than their seniors. >> well, in some ways they are. but in other ways they aren't. you have not seen a shift with them on life issues, for example. >> eliot: what you mean? >> by abortion issues. they are more pro-life

statistically than their parents generation was. they're shifting on same sex unions but not on issues like abortions. we're not seeing the rise of the evangelical right or the evangelical left. you're seeing the evangelical stuck in the middle. >> eliot: i'm trying to square the division on issues of choice and abortion on one hand versus same sex issues. i'm trying to see an ideological thread that is saying we're open-minded and willing to see two folks getting together, men or women, and yet not on the issue of choice. how do you make sense of that intellectually. >> the statistic that i think makes sense of this comes down to relationships. so young evangelicals 18 to 35 are twice as likely than their parent's generation to have a close friend who is gay. being in these relationships they're finding that it's easier to fight a faceless agenda than to war against a friend.

being in these relationships is totally changing the discussion. >> eliot: to a certain extent because individuals who are gay are not more open about it, there is just a greater likelihood that all of us have close friends who are gay and therefore this bias and easy prejudice that existed among seniors are hard for maintain. >> and they're more willing to form relationships with these individuals. what you're finding where the last generation wanted to turn back the tide of shifts in terms of the american cultural revolution, this is coming at a different time and they're quite comfortable living in a world that is post modern and pleasure pluralistic. >> eliot: how is this dealing with your conclusion and what you're projecting forward will be a more diverse fracture voting block. >> i'm seeing two responses from your evangelical leadership. the first one is total

dismissal. we don't want to listen to this. >> eliot: denial. >> power as long as we can have it, we'll take it. then there another group, and i've seen this from a blog post on comments that i made on the family research council blog. it's like we've been with you all along. of course we want a nonpartisan movement. of course we want to be civil as if they're not on record about some of these things. it's fascinating as power slips through the fingers. these older evangelicals the way they're reacting. >> eliot: we could spend hours talk about these substantive issues. but i want to come back to politics. is mitt romney misjudging what he hopes will be an evangelical base and should he read your book and say wait a minute i got to be a bit more open-minded on the issue of same-sex marriage in particular. >> actually i like mitt romney. i think it seems like a really good guy. but what i'm seeing in this campaign with this move of the

commencement address at liberty university. it's like the campaign adopted the tactics of the g.o.p. 30 years ago. 30 years ago they would march down to pat robertson's office or gather folks in front of a camera in lynchburg, virginia, but they're not listening to those leaders any more. we saw it in north carolina where they got together and said vote for rick santorum and 65% of them decided to vote either for the mormon candidate or the thrice devised roman catholic. they are not leading to these leaderships any more. >> eliot: a new leadership will emerge that is more in sync with the group you're talking about. >> i hope so. we need a more centrist, central nonpartisan leadership if we're going to save this faith. >> eliot: come back. fascinating conversation and an amazing conclusions