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. bubububububububububububububububububububububububububu [ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. 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. ♪ ♪

etch-a-sketch candidate, an image where romney is anti gas. >> 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 >>now let's get some real news. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >> current tv, on the roll. (vo)followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>ah, thank you. >>it really is incredible. (vo)bill press and stephanie miller, current's morning news block. weekdays six to noon. vaccinations save lives. >>we are very committed to the safety of our products. >>but are mandatory shots doing more harm than good? >>i see children injured every day. >>the controversy has gone viral. >>how many are being sacrificed? >>see "the greater good" on current tv. >>and while you watch, join the live chat at current.com/greatergood. >>our system is not working. >>there are always some risks. >>i don't think it's that back and white. the science is not there.

>>only on current tv. ♪ >> 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? 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! 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.

>> 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 if you have an opinion, you 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.

>>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital. [ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. 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. ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] e-trade was founded on the simple belief that bringing you better technology helps make you a better investor. with our revolutionary new e-trade 360 dashboard you see exactly where your money is and what it's doing live. our e-trade pro platform offers powerful functionality that's still so usable you'll actually use it. and our mobile apps are the ultimate in wherever whenever investing. no matter what kind of investor

you are, you'll find the technology to help you become a better one at e-trade. so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies. ♪ >> 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? morererererererererererererererererererererererererererererererere >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is coming to current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show

to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. premiers friday may 18th. only on current tv. it's go time. >>every weeknight cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media. >>the guys in the middle class the guys in the lower end got screwed again. >>i think you know which one we're talking about. the overwhelming majority of the country says"tax the rich, don't go to war." >>just wanted to clarify that. ♪ >> 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 [ 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! ♪

polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans? our conversation is with you the

viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. 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... ♪

>> 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.