doing? they're in. >> cenk: yeah, thank you everybody, dorothy lucey. >> really fun. >> michael ana, michael hastings it was terrific having you all here. great show. great weekend. we'll see you on monday. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening. i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." it was a naked display of the president's power to reset the agenda for the nation and the 2012 election. and the announcement that saw naked display of rudeness by a writer for a conservative website. on the same day that mitt romney began a five-day, six-state bus tour, president obama unveiled a major shift in immigration policy that could cement his support with latino voters a key to his re-election. the new rules would block depourtations of some 800,000

illegal immigrants brought here as children. it would allow them to get work permits and stay in the country for up to two years boomlets be clear. this is not amnesty. this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship it's not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stop-gap measure that let's us force our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented driven patriotic young people. >> eligible would be limited to illegal immigrants who are under 30, came to the u.s. before their 16th birthday. lived here at least five years and are either in school, high school graduate or honorably dis discharged veteran and neither felony nor serious misdemeanor convictions and are not considered a threat to national security or public safety. calling the new rules by rep

smith, breach of faith with the american people who bray constantly ignore the law that is the foundation of our no, sir. south carolina senator lindsey graham tweeted. president obama's attempt to go around the congress and the american people is at best unwise and possibly illegal. senator rubio said welcome news for many kids but a short term answer to a long-term problem. >> it is the right thing to do. excuse me sir. it's not time for questions sir sir. not while i'm speaking. >> eliot: monroe called out what about american workers. mr. obama's response? >> obama: in answer to your question sir and next time i

prefer that you let me finish my statements before you ask that question. is this the right thing to do for the american people. i didn't ask for an argument. i'm answering your question. >> eliot: joining me now to does the president's action is congressman raul grijahva. >> is this going to effect many lives. >> this will effect many lives many families. young people deserving of this opportunity. to continue with their lives in this country. it is good policy. and it is a courageous move on the part of the president. no doubt you are already hearing the backlash about his executive order. i'm sure it was expected, but he's in a presidential tough race with romney, and you know,

this is political capital we applaud his courage, but we believe in the long term this is good sound public policy for the country and kids who are being effected. >> eliot: we'll get back to the backlash in a moment and the politics but i want to focus on the substance of kids whose lives are going to be saved because of this and will have the opportunity, as you alluded to live the lives they deserve to live here in the united states. hundreds of thousands of kids living under the threat of deportation now can stay and be part of our society. what can be better than that? >> it is--that's the crime. these are young men and women who have been told by their families their schools churches play by the rules obey the law study hard, get good grades and there will be something at the end of the rainbow. what happened there was nothing at the end of the rainbow and there was a barrier for them not to be able to do anything else. these were young men and women who were brought to their

country with no choice of their own. their parents brought them here. they grew up next to us. they're a part of us. they played little league, cheerleading practice, school clubs. they're as american as apple pie. now with this order that the president signed, their opportunity to contribute to this nation of ours goes on. that's hugely significant for the country and hugely significant for the long-term benefit and contributions that it's going to bring to these nation. >> eliot: as the president observed in the statement and in a letter from the security of homeland security made clear often these kids don't have any other home. they've never been in any other nation and may not even speak the language of the nation to which they would be deported if they were to be deported. this is their home, the united states is their home. this is good stuff. explain the politics of this. the latino vote a swing vote or maybe not in this november's election. does this simply solidify and

make it inevitable that the president will win the latino vote by huge margin? >> yeah, the latino electorate is a smart, and becoming more sophisticated voter. and in the process actions speak louder than words. this action by the president is going to resound across our communed. and we understand the risk involved. we understand that where he'll be attacked. but i think that the action that he took is going to be appreciated. i think that appreciation is going to show up in record numbers in november. not just because of this action but the harping about back door amnesty, not following the due process and law that you'll hear harping on the part of the republican leadership about this decision the hypocrisy--every one of those individuals including our senator mccain who is talking on tv about this

will fight tooth and nail in congress, in the house in the senate not to allow the dream act to pass. and romney has already said if it comes to my desk i'll veto it. the president realized that, he took this action as commander in chief, and people will appreciate it. not just latinos. when these kids come out of the shadows and you see their faces and you see who they are that's going to settle the argument for itself. >> eliot: now there has--you already said there has been a backlash that has begun. the predictable voices saying this is amnesty, anti-american, in my view and in your view i presume, none of it is true, but there will be a political backlash. what will the house of representatives under the leadership of john boehner be able to do to attack this policy, if anything? >> they'll do as they've done with others. as they've tried to do through

order and through the secretary remove areas of you uranium mining in the grand canyon, cutting funding to effectuate that. you'll see gestures like that. the harping. the republicans have made hay, particularly the extremeist branch of this party has made hay by beating up on immigration and these kids for the last two election cycles. they'll continue to do that. i just don't see with this group of kids the symbolism that it involves, that that is going to have the same effect that they enjoyed the last political cycle cycles. difference times and more importantly when you get a look at these kids it's not the same argument. it's a different argument. these are our kids. these are our neighbors. i think the decency in the american people will override the harping that we're going to hear the next month.

>> eliot: i couldn't agree with you more. as the president said what he's trying to do is effectuate the dream act. the dream act had been a bipartisan bill supported by both sides of the aisle until the last couple of years. arizona congressman raul grijalva. thank you for your time. >> thank you i appreciate it. >> eliot: for more on the politics of the president's immigration announcement and the rest of the political news of the day i'm joined by ken vogel politico chief investigative reporter ken and craig crawford, author of "the politics of life." ken, let me begin with you. does this up stage mitt romney or put him in a bind or both. >> it does put him in a bind. i agree with the representative to some extent. these are kids that we're talking about here. you don't want to be seen--it's bad politics to be seen as pushing any kind of policy that

clamps down or deprives kids who through no fault of their own finds themselves in a particular situation. beyond that you have the politics of this vast block of swing voters for whom this is a very appealing policy pronouncement regardless whether it was through executive order or how long term it is. this is something that appeals to them. as far as the basis, i don't think it changes the dynamics there either way. anyone against immigration against immigration reform was not going to vote for president obama. anyone for immigration reform, amnesty or whatever you want to call it was going to vote for president obama. it's good politics. >> eliot: when you read what i've seen of mitt romney response thus far it's very muted. it says senator rubio said this is a short term answer.

when he says it's a short term answer, that does not seem like a criticism. hardly crisis criticizing this is not american. is he trying to walk a tight tightwire? >> senator rubio does not want to criticize anything that mitt president obama does. i'm not sure i agree with ken. i'm curious about the swing voters. i'm not sure that this policy is going to help with immigration policy with white working class and independents where obama is struggling. while i think it's a fair and just policy, i just wonder about the politics to be crashly political about it, what he's doing is risking irritating a lot of those voters where he's

struggling to appeal to a voting group that he's already leads by 2-to-1. >> eliot: let me jump in. you framed the equation the right way. there's no question that this policy will appeal to swing vote, the latino vote and solidify that report and persuade what had been an ambiguous latino base that president obama is doing clearly what he can do. but you're right it might alienate the white base independent vote who says those are the jobs and this is the fear and those kids are going to encroach on our turf. how do you balance out those two sides of the equation? >> it's definitely a balancing act but i just don't see how republicans, whether it's romy or outside groups acting on his behalf target that argument. each time that we've seen republicans or opponents of immigration reform trying to target that argument, expanding immigrants rights, expand

amnesty, it's going to hurt--take away jobs from americans. it just comes across sounding borderline racist, playing a race card or ethnic groups or racial groups against one another. i just don't think that that is a winner. you could try and you could be subtle and say these are jobs that americans don't want to do, but i think a lot of people hear that, and they hear coated racial or ethnic discriminatory language that turns them off. >> i think it's important to remember one reason the administration felt it necessary to do this for latinos is that they are really getting hammered by a lot of latino leaders because deportations in the obama administration has hit record highs double what they were under bush. this is why a lot of latino leaders have been complaining about a lot. and the devilish details of in this proposal has not come out.

what kind of proof, will there be a fee to pay? how high is that fee. a year ago they made a policy similar to this. and they did not--they fell way short. so a lot of hispanic leaders privately are saying we need to stay on this. this may not be what it appears to be. >> eliot: craig, i think you're right. the effectiveness will remain to be proven. there is a real question whether people will choose to go down to a government agency, hey i'm illegal, and give me my two years not knowing what will happen two years from now. the emotional impact of the president doing this somewhat akin to the president saying he favors same-sex marriage. a push push-button issue. he came out with a rhetorical statement and got applaud for it. whether or not it changes the law remains to be seen. ken, let me come back to you. you wrote a remarkable piece on the koch brothers who seem to be amazing their own political machine, hundreds of millions of

dollars in the dark of night. is there a secret handshake when they get together with their buddies and raise $400 million? what are they up to and what is their game plan. >> in the conservative movement this is setting aside the arguments made primarily by liberals and opponents of this explosion of outside money and politics saying this is a di di torsion of our democracy you hear a lot of conservatives are established g.o.p. operatives who are worried that kochs are trying to claim expanding role and republican infrastructure the kochs came up and were libertarian activists and funded think tanks and advocacy groups that took positions that were outside of even the g.o.p. mainstream. now they're moving into it, largely driven by their enmity towards president obama, and there are some operatives who are allies saying thanks but no

thanks. we're worried you're trying to take some of our vote by form of our donors who the kochs are actively recruiting through the summit like the ones we wrote about, and that they'll infiltrate, to some extent, some pre-existing outside groups that are well established republican, sort of republican-leading groups like the national rifle association who they fear some of their funds--national right to life, these are not groups that we think of as koch-associated groups, but they are now. >> we need to remember what they're buying. they're on the crusade of the epa. they have chemical companies that have paid over half millions in fines. and even president bush fined them for dumping chemicals and lying about it. they would love a friendly president with the epa and they

would make a lot of money. >> eliot: pseudolibertarians whose tries depend on a tax code made of swiss cheese, libertarian in name only hypocrites is what we call them. ken vogel and craig crawford, many thanks for being on the show tonight. >> good to be here. >> eliot: a programming reminder. i won't be here next week but you're in luck, the one and only joy behar. one week only until the fall right here on current tv. the iran you don't know next. admitted that that look, we were able to keep a lot of the folks because of the stimulus. >> bill: absolutely. again, do you great work, judd. thank you.

all of your colleagues at think progress. we'll see you again next really? no. it comes with a hat. see, airline credit cards promise flights for 25,000 miles, but... [ man ] there's never any seats for 25,000 miles. frustrating, isn't it? but that won't happen with the capital one venture card. you can book any airline, anytime. hey, i just said that. after all, isn't traveling hard enough? ow! [ male announcer ] to get the flights you want, sign up for a venture card at capitalone.com. what's in your wallet? uh, it's ok. i've played a pilot before. after the commercial. >> it is a combination of low self-esteem, low blood sugar and missing red wine with my -- and

mixing red wine with my painkillers. >> eliot: feeling a little stressed? having a hard time? you're not alone as you'll see

in our numbers of the day. 18% and 24%. that's how much there's levels have risen for women and men since 1983 according to researchers at corner carnegie-mellon university. what started entering your home? the computer. first as a big clunky word processer, then beepers and internet e-mail cell phones iphones, ipads. it's impossible to cut the cord to work. i love computers and there is no turning back from them. but it means that your world virtually never shuts off. the second thing since the 80 days. ronald reagan's trickle economics that didn't work. we all know median income has been stagnant for decades. here is the good news. it's friday. your next cup of monday morning coffee is 60 hours away.

chilly and unplug. tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to stick to a script? >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight.

>> eliot: with the volatile situation in egypt iran has faded from the public conditions. the only remembrance we get is that all iranians hate american. two things that nicholas kristof found are not true during thinks trip across iran. >> iran is a country of contradictions but there is a

common thread. >> thank you so much. >> the people of russian like american people. >> i learned that the regime does have some support. especially in rural areas. but i met lots of people who are increasingly frustrated. >> eliot: joining me now opponent he had nicholas kristof author of" and who returned from his road trip across iran. welcome. >> thank you. >> eliot: when you get behind the walls of a regime that we not know a great deal, there is a changing dynamic. >> the most amazing thing, as an american to go and wander around and drop in villages and factories and the moment people find out that you're actually an american, then all of a sudden they grin and they want to offer

you tea and/or our trip kept getting delayed because people wanted to invite us in to lunch and take us into their homes. it seemed to me it was partly just an intuitive reaction to the distrust that they have to official media. the official media sees how awful it is, and i was their proxy. >> eliot: you were also there as representative not formerly, of course but for them emotionally, an representative of the united states. what is it that they see in that imagery? in that notion of what we stand for that is so appealing? what is that core value that they cherish? >> there is a variety. two-thirds of the country almost is under 25 years of age. and they want to have fun. they watch american videos. they go on facebook. they play video games.

they want to engage. i think a lot of them america represents that pinnacle of popular culture of a society that does know how to have fun and that it has the freedom in which they can enjoy it. among young people there is frustration about male-female relations. for them the u.s. is a free society not only politically, but in male-female relations. that means a lot to them. all this kind of melts together and leaves them some resentment at american government policies, but overall, a real embrace of american society. >> eliot: obviously, we have been at war, we have been blockading financial--all sorts of restrictions upon trade and information flow to iran over the past many years. so that's why it is almost shocking, the populous there continues to get enough information and see enough of us to develop this emotional interaction with you. >> well it's fascinating. i've traveled a lot in pakistan,

and we pour billions of dollars in pakistan. everywhere we go people want to tell you how much they hate the u.s. you go to other countries in the middle. egypt, which as you know poured vast amounts of money in support to the military there. and again it hadn't won us any popular support there. then we go to the country that is our enemy and everybody wants to buy you lunch? it really is pretty weird. >> eliot: of course, look, i don't mean to draw a crash and prompt correlation but in egypt there was a regime and they resented our presence. in iran, they embrace us, could that be a correlation? does that make sense? >> in the 1970s there was resentment of the u.s. for supporting an oppressive government and the oppressive secret police.

people rebel against oppression. in so much of the secular islamic world--there was a backlash about women embracing the hijab and islam. you have an oppressive government in iran and people rebel by embracing secularism sex, drugs rock-n-roll and the u.s. >> eliot: do you get the sense that there is any possibility of an arab spring that would reach into iran? some sort of opportunity for the public to rise up cohesive enough to overthrow the current government? >> it always seem to me that the best predictor of whether people are going to rise up is not how disgruntled they are but rather the willingness of the security forces to fire upon them. as long as the troops or the police or in this case the revolutionary guard are willing to shoot and kill then i think it's hard to have that kind of

up rising. in iran for the time being that is still the case. but i think all the sources are working against ayatollah. i think their time in that respect is on their side. education is rising. there is real an real antipathy. >> eliot: unfortunately, your conclusion is exactly right the willness of the government to shoot their own citizens is indicative. nicholas kristof author "half the sky." thank you for. >> thank you. >> drinking chocolate milk out of the stanley cup. the viewfinder is next.

gaeme inc. thank gaemezilinsky, thank you for joining

of sununu, you're wrong. mitt romney, you're wrong. we need more teachers, not fewer teachers and more cops and more firefighters that support our

>> eliot: coming up obama versus romney coming up, it's starring to sound like hamilton versus jefferson. but first dopped's birthday and the president's musk career. >> the birth king. don't forget don't trump. i'm not making this up. it is also donald truck's trumped birthday. >> the first thing he did this morning. he demanded to see his own birth certificate. >> he didn't want a big party. he invited a few close friend to to come over. >> he didn't even want a clown. >> there is initiatives about

legalizing marijuana. >> if they make it on to the ballot i say romney is doom because we all know pot smokers are highly motivated organized and punk actual. >> sorry i'm late, this new schedule totally confuseing. >> drugs are dangerous and cause confusion go we have a special interest contributing 10s of millions of dollars trying to buy the election for mitt romney. >> all of this super pac, super cash is thanks to citizens united. the supreme court decision which established in politics money equals free speech. as justice anthony kennedy explained in the majority opinion, and i quote. [ cha-ching ] >> mr. president times like this call for big action. you need to monday advertise this presidency. >> obama rock with all the president's ♪ i-- >> let's stay together.

sweet home chicago ♪ let's stay together. and who can forget, sweet home chicago. >> those sound fragments can be yours for $2,500. [ cheering ] [ blowing bubbles ] >> eliot: all right, president obama and mitt romney are having a very old argument about the economy. more than 200 years old, stick around for more "viewpoint." until the fall. what happens if you ask her to tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to stick to a script? >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight.

when we come back, gay rights seemed to have a victory in washington. it was pulled back. the guy who pulled it back. the guy who is against gay marriage will be on the program. we will have an interesting conversation when we return. >> speaking against the vocal

what happened to george prescott bush. >> no, he was jeb bush's son. >> oh, that one. >> the ricky martin look-alike yeah. >> going in another direction. the direction away from his father. you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account.

>> eliot: yesterday's dueling economic speeches in ohio were right out of the playbooks of alexander hamilton and jefferson. mitt romney wearing the badge of honor declared private enterprise not the federal government holds our economic future. while in cleveland obama saying the future of economy can be placed. michael lind points out in his new book "land of promise" that the government has historically played a vital role in the american innovation. lind argues, what is good about the american economy is largely the result of hamiltonian developmental tradition and what is bad about it is largely the result of jeffersonian producerrist school.

with me, michael lind, thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> eliot: you present in your book two different narratives. the jefferson jeffersonian and the hamiltonen. >> the alexander hamilton, the first treasury secretary, sees government as partner along with business. and in the 20 utah century along with organized labor and research in the forms of higher education. all of these sectors are partners in the common project of national economic development fostered by fluster by sound national banking system, and by support for our manufacturing. the jeffersonian, the first secretary of state and alexander hamilton's arch rival in the presidency of george washington, favors small business, small government, and small banking

against its launcher counterparts. today it's cited by libertarians but the jeffersonians were not in free markets but to protect the smaller markets from larger ones. >> eliot: there was a new deal up through nixon of a vision of what government should do, and then there is what you called the dismantling of the economy and it's not surprising we've seen slower growth, greater inequity. what now resides of the jeffersonian are tradition and how does it stack up with romney and obama. >> there has been a neo-jeffersonian consensus going back to jimmy carter and in many ways, richard nixon embraced much of the new deals vision of government and business as partners in development.

jimmy carter and reagan with the government was the enemy. you could simply dismantle regulation as possible and market would produce wealth and then tax the social safety net. it was the vision of the government as an un umpire rather than a coach of a team. to my surprise the crash of 2008 and the great recession since then has not really seemed to discredit the strangle hold of this neo-jeffersonian anti- anti-government ideology especially on the right, although i give them credit for supporting banking regulation and part of a new consensus. but as it becomes clear that we're not going to go back to the world before 2008, that we really do have to rebuild the county and it's economic institutions. at that point i think it may be

possible to have something like a neo-hamiltonnen consensus for the first time in 30 or 40 years. >> eliot: you focused on something that is fascinating. a mythology of riding on horseback into the west who has built the america economy. the ronald ray gran and almost the marlboro man who has built the economy how does that change. >> americans are jeffersonian in their hearts. we misremember the past. we remember ed di son, we think of the it revolution being a few geniuses in garages if you look at the early stages of the development of the transitionter or the internet it was largely the work of the defense

department and large considerations like ibm. there is a place in our innovation ecosystem for entrepreneurs and small businesses but there is also a place for government providing public goods like r & d infrastructure. also for large organizations which is what small successful organizations turn into. >> eliot: you're so accurate. the investment in infrastructure or technology or r & d is so negative these days most elected officials are afraid to go out there and support what is, in fact, the foundation of our economy and most of our growth over the last 200 years. michael lind, author of the new book" land of promise: an economic history of the united states" we appreciate your time and your book. >> thank you. >> i that the with joy behar next. that's coming up.

the new slogan should be "we own that's my view. desk top, lab top, ipad. iphone. >> pleasant your hearts. >> the big one.

>> stephanie: all i know, the little flower is there and it means go to meeting. i love go to meeting.

>> eliot: a nine-year-old girl in scotland does not just beat the system. she beats it down. next. at the top of the hour in "the war room," jennifer will surround today's news on immigration looking at what impact the president's move will actually have in latino families with maria hinojosa. and the history of war and women, with hemmingway and gell gellhorn director, all that will be next with "viewpoint" will be right back. what happens if you ask her to tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to stick to a script? >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight.

[ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: citizen activism protest and holding the government accountable. we love that around here. especially when it starts young. so we're inspired by a nine-year-old girl in scotland who led a crusade for freedom and human rights despite the intransigence and overweaning suppression of an uncare government authority well maybe i'm overstating it just a bit. but what martha payne did was taken pictures of her school lunches and post them on her blog so everyone could see just how bad the food was. that simple idea sized the world's attention and in the last six weeks her web side got more than three and a half million page views. this isn't exactly the arab spring we're talking about but who hasn't wondered what is in the mystery meat? this is true activism, and you

can see the difference it made. here's one of the first photos on martha's blog from early may when she complained, and rightly so this wasn't enough food for a growing kid. compare that to one of her lunches this year. martha scored this 9 out of 10. but after the daily record ran a headline saying, quote fire the dinner ladies, a local council told her to stop taking pictures and putting them online. but you cannot reverse the river of history or unring the bell of liberty or delay the dawn of a new and defining idea. or to put it another way, the council backed down after an onslaught of complaints of martha that's fans. including celebrity she have jimmy oliver. good news, the page raised $31 million for mary's meals.

a local governed tried to go against a 9-year-old girl and lost. this proves that determination and unity can rise up against forces of fear and censor ship and win back the right of a 9-year-old girl to take pictures of launch.

and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. 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... ♪ 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.

everybody's hatred on guy people to take away their rights. >> i'm not sure why you needed me on this program. you are making my arguments for me. >> cenk: mission accomplished. thank you for join us but i don't want to thank you for the hateful referendum that you're putting forward in washington that is hatred. that should be apparent. >> watch as a man who plays gaeme inc. thank gaemezilinsky, thank you for joining >> eliot: next week i will be taking a vacation but you will becoming out way ahead. joy behar will be here. current tv's newest host in the fall she'll be on every day at 6:00. next week it will be called joy

behar one week only until the fall. >> right. >> eliot: i can't wait. i'm going to be on vacation. i'll miss the show, but i'm thrilled that you'll sit in for me. >> i'll send you dvds. can i just say this is an extremely masculine cup. >> eliot: it was made for me, not for you. we'll make-- >> it's heavy, masculine. >> eliot: you want a thin one. >> no, i like it. i think it's perfect for you. >> eliot: i was talking about one for you. >> no, no, my cup will be different. >> eliot: we drink from different cups. joy, that has been clear for many years. i'm thrilled to have you here. we've worked together on another network. but people stopped watching that network so we're over here. >> they still have a few viewers, but we're not there. >> eliot: only a few p.m. have figured out they should be watching us here. what are you going to do? >> next week?

yes. >> i'm going to have a few celebs. you have show, "the view." i've never seen it. >> you've never seen "the view"." you're a guy. >> eliot: i'm not your demographic. >> no. >> eliot: it's during the daytime. i'm not there. >> we get celebrities all the time. >> eliot: didn't you get the president. >> we had president obama a couple of weeks. we're trying to get romney but he has been resistant. >> eliot: i heard you said something about burning his house down. i would be afraid. let me play prosecutor. did you railroad did you not say that. >> i did not say that. >> eliot: did you say that you wanted firefighters to light a fire under the house. >> i did not say that. the reporter said to me that romney doesn't did believe in expanding the firefighters etc. on the federal level. i said in a joking way what

would happen when his house burns down. who is he going to call, the mormon patrol? i did not say to have his fire burn down. >> eliot: who had the audacity? >> dobbs who is on fox business, ron zimmerman was on with him last night. i want him with me. he defended me against what's his face. >> eliot: lou dobbs. >> yeah. >> eliot: lou dobbs, he has his view. he became a big populist and then he went to the dark side. everything is rate i guess driven. >> everything is ratings driven. >> eliot: who are you going to vice presidential request.

have on your show. >> we'll have news-- >> eliot: politics-- >> nothing too wonky don't get carried away. >> eliot: someone told me to ask, can you're a canian. >> i'm a freudian. i'm not a cansian. >> eliot: where did you grow up? the bronx. >> my husband is from the bronx. we dated for 28 years. last year we married. >> eliot: 28 years you dated. this is not the typical thing that we talk about on my show. 28 years of dating. >> we move in together about ten years ago. before that we were commuting. he was living in riverdale.

>> eliot: there must be something good about the guy. >> he was a bronx math teacher. >> eliot: which school. >> i don't know. you lived with him for 28 years? you don't know what school? >> they have a number, 49, 36. >> eliot: you lived with the guy for 28 years but you don't know where he works. we'll talk after the show. maybe we can give you some advice. but we're going to talk about the show. you're going to get celebrities. barak is going to be on the hoe. >> are you on the first name basis? >> eliot: no madonna, we can call him barak. >> no, no, respect for the president. i don't think he'll come on my show but i would love to have him. >> eliot: you got him on the view. >> the view has a bigger audience than what i'll have here. >> eliot: it will be bigger than "the view." >> i can hope.

>> eliot: i don't have a doubt. who is your guest going to be? >> i don't know who they all will be we have a few people lined up. i do know next friday--next week i have john lithgow. >> eliot: he's a great. >> andand then a great journalist. we'll talk about gay issues with him. i have another guy i want to come in, gustin burrows. he wrote a book called "running with scissors." then he wrote a new book on how to live your life. he does it from a quirkry point of view, i love it. >> eliot: one thing i didn't know about, we were chatting before this, you were in movies. i always thought of you as a tv--the only person i know who talks twice as fast as i do. >> have you heard of elisabeth

hasselbeck. >> eliot: she's on your show. >> right. >> eliot: i'll have to watch and see how you can do that. you're registered democrat or republican. >> democrat, democrat. >> eliot: you're progressive. >> of course. >> eliot: i just want to make sure. you're sitting in this chair. i want to make sure. >> you'll be a freudian by the time i'm through with you. one of the reasons why i wanted to be on current tv is al gore runs thetation. i'm still ticked off by the 2000 election. i'm ticked off at the supreme court. that was not an election but a decision. >> eliot: can i recommend anger management? >> i'm still mad at that. do you think that was a tipping point for the country? we started to go in the wrong direction. >> eliot: it was a tipping point for the country. it was a tipping point for our respect for the supreme court. it could be the single worst modern supreme court decision. it was wrong, it was horrendous. it proves one of my lines, five

is the most powerful number in the country. five justices can do whatever they want. rewrite the constitution. >> look what they did with citizens united. motheranother bad decision they made. who is going to die next? who is going to die on the supreme court next? >> eliot: you're burning down mitt romney's house. you're picking who is going to die next. >> retire. who is going to die retire, then we put another conservative justice in there? we're in a lot of trouble. >> eliot: this is one of many reasons we have got to reelect president obama because of the choice of who the justices are going to be determine foss 50 years what our rights are. >> do you have any doubt that he'll be re-elected? >> eliot: sure, i have some doubt. the economy is in trouble. this is going to be a close election. mitt romney, if his house doesn't burn down, it will be a high risk. >> don't start that. >> eliot: joy behar will be