here. he's going to give me our version of celebrity jeopardy. i'll show more of the chris matthews clips and we'll see how well they did, and are these questions going to embarrass me michael? >> i hope so. [laughter] i expect that they will. >> cenk: okay, well, looking forward to that. check that out on www.currenttv.com/youngturks. thank you so much for watching. viewpoint with the sheriff, eliot spitzer is next. ♪ >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer, and this is vow opportunity. washington's partisan warfare

the violence against women's act suffered the set back while the good faith and credit of the united states may be at risk. first, the violence against women, house passed a version of the bill. just six democrats joined 216 republicans in rejecting the senate version that would have included the lbdt community, allowing portion of native americans and protecting the confidentiality of immigrants women facing abuse. congress won sandy adams said her of the aisle did not want to repolitcize the issue. it now goes to a congress committee of both houses to see if reconciliation is possible. president obama has promised a veto of any version that includes the restrictions and

omissions a version given the realities of congressional reality will never reach his desk. joining me now representative jackie speer, democrat of california. congresswoman, you have been such a powerful voice for the expansive definition of violence against women for the bill as it should have been passed. how do you feel after the vote? >> i feel that the republicans are showing their hand. they want confrontation over compromise. at this junction we're not reauthorizing a bill that has been reauthorized three times before and bipartisan support, every senate republican woman member voted for it, we're spending our time now with republicans nickel-and-dimeing issues that should be part of the bill, including whether or not a native american woman can bring an action in her tribal

court against her husband or domestic partner who has been violent to her and immigrants who are married to u.s. citizen who is are victims of domestic violence. and the lbgt community, who in a domestic partnership where there is violence, regardless of what the sexual orientation or whether or not you have a marriage license or not, we should be in a position where resources go to the law enforcement to provide services grants to provide aid, and it's just an absolute disgrace. >> eliot: you know congresswoman, as you point out on the senate side this bill passed with 68 votes, which is in today's environment, a remarkable show of bipartisanship. it's only when we come back to the house when you see a house republican leadership driven by the tea party these days that can't even accept the notion that we need to define and protect lgbt individuals and

couples. how did we get to this spot on a bill that passed in 1994 reauthorized several times, how did we get to this unfortunate point. >> i think there are people running on the other side that don't have their credentials. i think that they have really lost both a moral campus and a political acumen about what is really important here. we have done nothing about improving job growth making sure that the economy starts humming again and we're picking on these small elements, although they're significant for those groups of people and not doing what everyone believes must be done. >> eliot: you know, i almost feel as though we lose sight of that the violence against women act has been a huge success. it has insureed critical

protections against individuals who have been abused and it's only been the recent past year or two that the republican leadership have been defining groups that comport with their understanding. aren't they worried about a backlash about this? >> you would think so. i think their recent move to try to show that they're supportive of women is to try to redefine themselves. truly when the word came down that there was going to be an issue on reauthorizing the violence against women act it was jaw-dropping. we couldn't comprehend what could possibly be a problem within that legislation. so it was tactically a huge mistake. the president has indicated that he's going to veto it. it stalls the bill out. we'll have to go through this exercise again. i believe in the end that they'll have to accept pretty much what the senate bill looks

like. >> eliot: one would think that given the bipartisan support in the senate, something closer to the senate version would be the result of a conference committee. that's pure speculation. the republican argument about not specifying that lgbt are not covered. if they're not already covered, why not make it explicit and clear. the argument does not make sense to me. >> the argument does not make sense. they're also saying that that's tangential. that's not what we're trying to address here. single-sex coupled should not be eligible for this. domestic violence course against men and women. and regardless of sex oregon yentation people should be able to avail themselves of these

services. >> eliot: they said we would induce fraud if we permitted people to take advantage of the statute and gain protection of the statute, it would induce people to make false claims. is there anything anywhere that would suggest that that would happen. >> there is no eched. that's why that is per flexing as well. when an undocumented individual or immigrant who is married to an u.s. citizen finds himself in a situation where they have violated in a domestic situation, they want to be able to get out of that relationship and remain in the united states. that's where the rub is. >> eliot: you know my theory is on this, the republicans wield out fraud any time they want to diminish rights to a group they don't like whether it's undocumented immigrants or documented immigrants. or voters of a certain type all of this ask a complete canard.

>> it's like food stamps. yeah you're absolutely right. >> eliot: democratic congresswoman jackie speer. thank you for coming on the program tonight. >> the second victim may be the good faith and credit of the united states. house speaker john boehner seems eagle for repeat the debacle that cost the u.s. credit rating last year. >> when the time comes i will again insist my simple principle of cuts reform is greater than the debt limit increase. >> eliot: boehner made that point again today with a lunch with the president and other congressional leaders, although the speaker insisted he did not want to lead the country into a financial abyss. >> woe, woe, woe, i'm not threatening default j i'm joined by aaron blake political reporter with the "washington post." thanks for joining us tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> eliot: this is what confuses

me. this thing was a train wreck when it came down the tracks for everyone involved. it's deja vu all over again. why is boehner raising this now? >> because he has to, essentially. we don't talk too much about the tea party today but the tea party mentality very much lives on in the republican party today. we've seen in the last couple of weeks a couple of states in went down in nebraska because they were not efficiently conservative. we're seeing that john boehner knows where his bread is buttered. it's with the conservative part of the republican party, and he needs to do exactly what they want on this issue because that's what the voters on his side of the aisle are demanding. he's putting a line in the sand saying look what happened last time. i want the same thing this time. i want enough cuts and i'm going to hold firm to that. >> eliot: when you say he has to, you mean politically because

of the balance of power in the republican house is so tilted to the tea party that is looking forward to the train wreck--or most of us thought it was a train wreck because nothing of substance was gained by this cataclysm that took place. >> this view is very much part of the republican party mainstream. the republican party of six years ago, obviously voted for a lot of debt limit increases and it wasn't an issue for them. the fact that the national debt increased so much, it's more of a pressure in their eyes. i'm not saying that john boehner doesn't think that the republicans shouldn't gain these concessions for raising the debt level but the political realities are that his base demands it. if you enjoy the debt limit fight in 2011, you might enjoy it in 2013. >> eliot: it depends on where you're sitting. it was like gladiatorses from the middle ages. set the stage in terms of where

things really are. the debt ceiling will not be hit, most people believe until early next year or very late this year. so with the super committee that failed to accomplish anything, led in the jargon of washington to an agreement that made certain cuts but none of which will go into effect in january 1. but none of that needs to be remit gated, as lawyers call t until after this november's election, is that correct? >> the super committee is a perfect example of why things may be more difficult this time. boehner essentially said we're not going to be doing any of thighs kinds of gimmicks. it's clear he was referring to the super committee. it was a great way for members of congress to essentially pass the buck in a way that they've done several times throughout history when they have a tough decision like this. if boehner is not willing to do something like that, some kind of bipartisan commission or anything like that then bringing the two sides close enough together to reach a deal

is going to be that much harder. >> eliot: now his initial offer, the line in the sand he drew was every dollar that we increase the debt ceiling he wants an equal and off-setting cut in expenditure. maybe if they have to increase the debt ceiling by $3 billion, a ten-year period in which they cut the $10 billion but he's going back to the austerity republican economics which is in sync with what mitt romney is talking about. do you think he did this in concert with might might to intent to define what the debate going into september should be. >> this is a message that republicans are going through right now. mitt romney's campaign and the republican national committee has spent the large part of this week going after obama on the debt and the deficit issues. i think the fact that john boehner came out and said in this week is pretty convenient timing for the republicans.

the fact is even if they are collaborating on this, it's an issue that their base cares about and they intend to pursue, and the 2012 election is a great tool for them to try to get what they want after the election. >> eliot: of course, if you were to look at the european election one must be cautious. but voters in europe are rejecting the austerity politics because they're seeing in dragging their economies through recession, and they're saying that there needs to be a better answer. i'm not sure that that is the beth model to follow right now. >> it's not clear coming out of the last limit fight they got the upper hand. there was some polling that people may blame the republicans for getting near default, but i don't know that they paid a bigger price as far as their favorable ratings or approval

rating. president obama saw his approval rating drop in the aftermath too. politics is still a zero-sum game. as long as both sides paid a price for this and the price was somewhat comparable to each other, then i don't think they'll be scared to go back in in the gladiator's arena, so to seek. >> eliot: and it may an situation where neither party wins, which is was the take away in the tobacco where nobody looked good nobody looked senator, congressional aaron blake, thank you for area insights this evening. >> thank you. >> eliot: coming up, current's exclusive report in american turn against his country to wage jihad. now his jihadi friend have turned against him. and 41 senators can filibuster a bill. but can four members of congress stop the filibuster? stay tuneddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

(vo) don't miss your chance to catch the premiere of the gavin newsom show. with special guests: >> i'm lance armstrong. if somebody put my back into a corner, i'm coming out swinging. [ male announcer ] cookies with smooth caramel and chocolate. ♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter.

[ 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.

[ 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! ♪ jot ipo that is setting hearts on fire hits the market on friday. and mark zuckerberg puts a lot of money in the bank. but the money of the day is not the $100 billion market cap the ipo will create for facebook. it's $10 million. that's the amount that general motors will not be paying facebook for advertisement. gm started reevaluating it's facebook strategy earlier this year after it's marketing team ban to question the effectiveness of its ads. the issue that companies have to confront is how to monetize all the information that they have.

the information that they have up till now is targeted ads. gm's decisions to pull its ad you're about to watch an ad message created by a current tv viewer for allstate save 11 campaign. >>every day an average of 11 teen driving deaths occur on the roads of america. teens are at an increased risk when inexperience is combined with road dangers like cell phone use, speeding, drunk driving and hazardous road conditions. the results are heart breaking. as teens face a fatality rate that is four times higher than older drivers. the number one killer of teens is car crashes. more than homicide, suicide and disease combined. this is why allstate is taking a stand. the safe teen and novice driver uniform protection act could save many young lives. when states have implemented comprehensive graduated driver licensing programs the number of fatal crashes among 16 year old

drivers has fallen by almost forty percent. it's in our hands to make america's roads safer for our teens. let's stand up to save thousands of innocent lives. join the movement to help prevent teen driving deaths at facebook.com/save11 >> eliot: some people think it is the single most important reason that nothing is getting done in washington. it's not a person. or an organization. it's the filibuster. created in 1806 by mistake it now permits senators from 21 states representing only 11% of the population to block any bill. but fortunately some people are looking to change that. on monday common cause a civic wash dog organization along with four members of the house filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to declare the filibuster unconstitutional. joining me now is the president

and ceo of common cause from pennsylvania bob edgar. congressman. thank you for joining us tonight. >> it's great to be with you eliot. >> eliot: i'm one of those who thinks that is against democracy, but explain to me where it's constitutional. >> it never was in the constitution. it was insented by accident by aaron burr an historic figure. then three days after aaron bur created it, it was called the filibuster and used more often in history to protect segregation and lunching laws than any productive purpose. only in the last few years has it been used as a tactic or tool of conservative minority to have have, in fact, have a veto over legislation they didn't like. we saw it with the disclosed legislation. it passed the house.

it was ready to go to the president for signature. it got 59 votes in the united states senate but failed. common cause believes that the filibuster is not only unconstitutional but the filibuster has add to the partisanship that we see in washington. we filed in the federal courts. while the constitution does give the senate and the house the right to set their own rules, we have pointed out in our litigation that points in history where the courts have said yes, you have a right to make your own rules and to live by them, but they can't be unconstitutional. >> eliot: now look, as i said, and i've said it many times in the show i'm sympathetic to the notion that the filibuster has been overused abused, i would like to eliminate it and see pure majority rule in the house and the senate. the constitution does permit and require were majority votes

for certain votes like overriding the president's veto, impeachment, situations like that. the constitution recognizes some instance where is the super majority is required. do you go from there, and then it says do you therefore say it's implying that in our instances there isn't and can't be an obligation for super majority? >> well, our researchers and went out and read the federallest papers, english common law. there is no other democracy that has a rule where one part of the legislative body has veto power over all the legislation. and our founding fathers were pretty bright. they put six instances into the constitution for a super majority vote. you can't impeach the president without a super majority. you can't bring a treaty without a super majority. you can't change the constitution without a super majority. if the senate wants a super majority vote then they should go through the process of

amending the constitution and add this issue or that issue to their rules. but if you get down and follow what jefferson, madison and others of our founder fathers intended, they said these issues should have a super majority. they intended all other issues to have a simple majority of the house. with respect to the minority. and a super majority in the senate with respect to the minority. and the president is the one who could veto and even there, there is a super majority to veto the president. >> eliot: i think both of us know that courts are hesitant to intervene in the rules that dictate of how a co-equal branch of government operates. putting aside the likelihood of success, the senate could amend it's own rules. it could have done so in the first week of 2011 when the rules are subject to veto. was that a missed opportunity and can they do so again in the

future and will that happen when the opportunity arises? >> just last week harry reid took the floor to apologize for his actions in january of 2011. a group of senators, including tom udall from new mexico tom hark enfrom iowa, and several others, recognize there is one point in the legislative year at the beginning of the congress where an extraordinary procedure can take place. when that extraordinary procedure takes place you can amend the rules with a simple majority. on all other legislative days it takes a super majority even to correct the flaws of the filibuster. we're hoping that the pressure that we're building with our federal lawsuit and with the support of not only some of the members of the senate who know the filibuster has been destructive, but also harry

reid's comments last week. we think we can build momentum. there is a bill that senator hearken introduced who said, let's keep it at 60 votes. but three days later make it 57. three days later, make it 54 and then eventually get to a majority vote. there are many changes that could happen. i would also like to see us go back to a talking filibuster like we saw in the movie "mr. smith goes to washington." in 1939 when jimmy stewart did that movie there were zero filibusters. in the last three years there were 80 filibusters, and in the language congress there were 140 filibusters. >> eliot: i wish you the best of success in the litigation and to get the congress and senate to form its own rules even before you have to go through the course of litigation. this is the single most process issue on the capitol hill right now. former congressman bob edgar

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

or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help.

♪ >> eliot: coming up, our exclusive interview with vanguard's christof putzel and the follow up to his documentary "american jihadi." but first mitt romney gets auto tuned. cory booker gets on chris christie's nerve. and a 12-year-old girl shows she understand how the banking system works more than others do. when it doesn't fit we put it in the view finder. >> mayor, thank you for coming. we have a fire, and yes a little girl has lost her cat in a tree. and i got this.

>> booker. >> governor, stand back! i got this. i got this. >> booker. >> hey gov, gov sit tight. i got this. >> booker. >> mitt romney led this gang. >> what, what kind of gang would mitt romney lead? we are are the argyles. >> it's the ri double twizzle. [singing] >> rush limbaugh big fatty boy rush limbaugh. [laughter] fatso blow-hard rush limbaugh. nobody loves a traditional marriage more than rush limbaugh. he has had four of them. [singing] >> economics is too complex.

too tough. people can't wrap their brain around it. they want the economy to be better. but how you get from "a" to "b," that's the complex stuff you don't want to talk about. let's talk about that gay thing again. >> it's obvious to me a 12-year-old canadian, we we are being robbed by the banking system. what will we do to stop this crime? >> that's boring stuff. [singing] >> sir, with all due respect i know you need a-- >> excuse me. i got this. >> christie. >> eliot: i love the rappin' romney. that could be his campaign theme son. a kid from alabama wages jihad. now the jihad wage

>>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. that's the only way we're going to solve the world's great vexing problems. 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... ♪

in 2012 alone. go to our website, current.com. up next it's out to the campaign trail. a surprising new poll, and that's next right here inside "the war room."

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.

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. >> eliot: suing jp morgan chase to no one's surprise. they say the bank has not been truthful. we all knew that. and in one way it has. but first we'll head west and

check in with jennifer granholm, governor, what is going on in the war room.tonight. >> we have a different angle on the showdown. i have got chris van holland to try to explain what it's like to negotiate with the tea party fanatics and what it's like to run against the tea party. we'll look at the newest hottest senate races in the battle to get 60 votes. that's the indiana senate rate with joe donnelly. we'll be throwing some uppercuts and jabs and right hooks at the tea party. >> eliot: you look like you've been inside the ring practicing that. >> i hope you don't see my black eyes. >> eliot: you know, the republicans are going farther and farther right in the senate primaries. that will help the democrats hold on to the senate--from your mouth to

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. >> eliot: a number of smart friend of mine are asking why we care so much if jp morgan chase lost $2 billion. after all, the bank can absorb it. but just because you survive a heart attack does not mean you don't care about what caused it. you should do more to stop the disease further on. the doctors at jp morgan chase are trying to give us the wrong diagnosis. in a letter to shareholders just a couple of days ago, ceo jamie

dimon said it will be harder for mep banks to compete. what makes it hard for compete is a dumb $2 billion bet that would not have been made if proper rules had been put in place. many are not happy about this and they've sued. jp morgan chase said this was just a hedge gone bad but all the evidence points to something very different. these look like the same risky bets that caused so much trouble for other banks only a couple of years ago. if these losses came from a cautious investment unit trying to hedge against risk, how did that same unit end up contributing $5 billion to the banks' profits in one year? that was 25% of jp morgan chase's profits in 2010. this was no hedge. so instead of letting jamie dimon repeat his misdiagnosis, we need a clear volcker rule to

outline when and

(vo) don't miss your chance to catch the premiere of the gavin newsom show. with special guests: >> i'm lance armstrong. if somebody put my back into a corner, i'm coming out swinging.

[ kristal ] we're just taking a sample of all our different items in our festival of shrimp. the crab-stuffed shrimp are awesome! tequila lime tacos. [ man ] delicious! [ male announcer ] it's festival of shrimp! for $12.99 try any two shrimp creations like new barbeque glazed shrimp. offer ends soon. we're servers at red lobster. and we sea food differently. >> eliot: it began as an authorizeed biography with the author who viewed a mentor to the subject. it ended up stirring a hornets nest of controversy when the author brought up what appeared to be doubts that that the ben bradlee felt. >> "yours in truth: a personal portrait of ben bradlee"," by jeff himmelman. thanks for joining us tonight.

>> i'm happy to be here. >> eliot: you did not anticipate this. you wrote a book that you thought was in a way a lauditory book but look what you stepped into. >> i thought watergate would be interesting to people but the water storm that it generated i wasn't expecting it. >> eliot: just so we understand what the controversy circles around one the claim that woodward and bernstein did speak to a grand jury, something that had been ambiguous and second, the notion that ben bradlee, who is a demigod in washington circles wasn't 1,000 convinced about certain aspects of the way the story was reported. is that right? are those the centerpieces of this? >> that's correct. the grand juror, it's not a claim, it's a fact. they said they did speak to a grand juror.

that's the larger piece of this. the interesting historical piece. but what has caused the firestorm more was the stuff about ben's doubts about the hollywood portrayal of deep throat. in the reportings of of the "washington post" but its doubt about of the how old story of the executive editor of the post. he was responsible about what went in the paper. he said you cannot hold me to the film version of this. >> eliot: just so it's clear none of it goes to the facts pertaining to the watergate break, the cover up and any of the substances that was historically reported in the newspaper? >> that's correct. >> eliot: at that level i wonder why has there been such a strong visceral response to what you have reported? >> i think the answer to is that we're in a stage in current media where print media is

struggling, and watergate is the founding story of print media and people are protective of it. that's an understandable phenomena. but 40 years has past passed, and its time to be candid. these are human beings, and my book shows really show and one of the things about doing the research, these were not perfect people and we're not perfect people. these people have become myths and deservedly so, they were heroic. but they were people. they made choices and compromise compromises and situations and for whatever reason it's become a hot-button issue. >> eliot: you stepped on superman's cape. that isn't something that people appreciate, and they don't enjoy it. is that part of what is happening here? >> it depends on who you're calling superman. ben bradlee is the superman of the book. in a lot of ways this adds a complexity to him and who he

was, and brings you the challenges of being an executive editor of a newspaper in 1972, which none of us can fathom given the age we live in. >> eliot: you were in the tent. you lived with woodward. were his research assistant. you were a confidant, part of the family. is there an element here? people don't like it when you turn against your own family. >> i think you're describing the reaction accurately. your characterization of what i've done in the book is accurate in the sense that i haven't turned against anybody. i think that whole characterization of me is a misdirection from the truth of what i reported. i feel like i've been combating that narrative for a couple of weeks now. if you read the book you'll see that it's very plain, very simple and very unbiased. all of these narratives have been loaded on me. i understand why. that's what people want to talk

about. but i don't agree with that portion. >> eliot: that's a fair point. i have read excerpts. that is the narrative that has been pushed into the media. >> right. >> eliot: tell us how you feel about ben bradlee. do you still view him as someone one would want to emulate in terms of the journalistic world? >> ben bradlee without any question. i love that man. i'm unequivocal about it. if you read the book, anyone who reads the book will see what a loving portrait it is of him. i was an inspirational figure to me. working on this book was one of the true highlights of my life. he's a remarkable man. that comes through in the book very clearly but you haven't heard that in the coverage of him or me in the last couple of weeks, and i'm hoping to change that. >> eliot: is there an irony here that the individuals ben bradlee and woodward and bernstein who were so instrumental in showing the flaws of someone else when the magnifying glass is turned

against them, even these tiny little fissures has invoked this reaction? >> yes when the lens is turned around people are more uncomfortable. the last two weeks as borne that out to a false. >> eliot: at one level its easier to be on this side asking the questions and not answering. you don't look at the other side but you clearly prefer to be on this side. >> the research of the book was fascinating, and there is so much in the book that is not about this stuff. i hope people check it out because it has so much more about ben bradlee and his journalistic principles which in this day and age are i have relevant. >> eliot: jeff himmelman "yours in truth: a personal portrait of ben bradlee." thank you for being with us