rrenttv

ia. >>the guys in the middle-class the guys at the lower-end got screwed again! i think you know which one we're talking about. >>overwhelming majority of the county says: "tax the rich i just wanted to clarify. >> eliot: dick ballen all this was a classmate of bill and hillary clinton at yale law school. he was a law clerk for blackmun. he is now the soon to be senior center from connecticut.

we can ask him about anything and that's what we're going to do. senator blumenthal, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you very much eliot for having me. >> eliot: let's begin with this enormously important decision from the supreme court last week that put mitt romney in a bind with the healthcare act that was upheld. mitt romney, it seems bizarre beyond words is now attacking chief justice roberts for being political. does this make any sense to you? explain this crazy dynamic to us. >> you know, i wish i could explain it. but it is bizarre. first of all for governor romney to be switching his campaign characterization initially calling it a tax and now a penalty and vice versa. i think the public is justifiably confused by this shifting labeling but bottom line, the supreme court upheld it because it could

constitutionally interpret it as a tax and it has a duty to uphold the law if it can. and you and i know from our cases in the united states supreme court that the first argument we make is that laws have to be presumed constitutional. that's why i predicted from the very outset, from the very beginning that it would be upheld. >> eliot: it seems to me mitt romney has been his own campaign called him etch-a-sketch. he's a weather vane. there are so many metaphors that can be used. the frequency of which he changes seems to me to undercut his viability as a candidate as the days go on and the credibility issue he has with the public seems to be growing. you're out there campaigning and talking to the public. >> credibility is the right word eliot, that he's losing because he could have left the healthcare issue and gone to what really i think concerns most americans today which is jobs and the economy. that is where quite frankly the

people care most about what our two presidential candidates are saying and more important doing the latest job figures are somewhat encouraging. we still have an economy that is recovering all too slowly, all too fragilely. that's where the people's hearts and minds are right now. >> eliot: you referred to today's numbers from adp which are sometimes a good predictor of what the bureau of labor statistics numbers will be. we have to wait and see what happens over the next couple of months. let's talk about dobbs for a moment. struggling to create an environment and a stimulus. does mitt romney have a single idea that you believe will actually create jobs? >> he is failing on that score to set forth an agenda and i don't want to write his campaign book for him but that's where people care about what he is proposing and he's failed utterly and completely to set forth anything proactive

anything other than simply cut taxes to benefit the wealthy on the old trickle down bush economics that have failed, obviously proved to be failures and so i think even the financial community and others who might be inclined to support him rightly with -- and you have only to look at the "wall street journal" of today really faulting him for failing to adopt consistent initiatives that will benefit the economy. >> eliot: you refer to the wall street editorial that ran one of the most acrimonious sharpest editorials it has writ been a republican, going after him not only for the inconsistencies, failure to use healthcare as a distinction and his economic plan saying he hasn't given us anything. that's why i wonder what is his campaign all about? >> he hasn't given us anything, for example on what i regard as the central core challenge for healthcare system and for our economy, one of them these days

which is to bring down the cost of healthcare delivery. we can see that there are ways to do it to protect patients and increase patient safety. these patient protections in the healthcare bill are really central. you know from your very extensive law enforcement career how important it is to protect people against insurance company abuses. and that's where he is failing to set forth an agenda. bringing down cost of healthcare is one of the central challenges and job creation. >> eliot: i think you and i would certainly agree that mitt romney has not offered anything. we hope the president will prevail. he has an agenda. it is working in some regards and not well enough in others. let's switch gears. citizens united, the supreme court decision that has changed the landscape about campaign finance, something you care deeply about. what is the answer given we have to accept citizens united will be there as part of the constitutional framework? >> we have to accept that the constitutional fabric will include the doctrines i believe they're misguided about

corporations being people for purpose of the first amendment about the striking down of restrictions on spending but we can adopt statutes that require disclosure. the great threats to our democracy, i think are the unlimited amounts of individual spending through the super pacs and even more threateningly the so-called social welfare organizations, the 501c4s that have no limits at all and that's where statutorily we can take action under the proposal, the disclose act that i hope will be voted on in the united states senate within the next few weeks. >> eliot: it is so important -- i agree with you 100% we go beyond the rhetoric attacking citizens united, we think it may be constitutional. that was right as it related to the first amendment. the remedies are what we have to focus on. the 501c4s are masquerading

that they don't need to disclose is a travesty. also the issue of independence whether the super pacs are independent of the campaigns when so many of the same people are running them. isn't that another area where we have to really force a division? >> very, very clearly. absolutely right. that's a very important point about these so-called 501c4s and the super pacs. we need more effective enforcement by the internal revenue service. to make sure that they are independent and also, another feature of the disclose act will be to require a disclaimer like is required of all political candidates when it comes to the super pacs or the 501c4s, i'm richard blumenthal and i paid for whatever, that kind of identification. very important for the public knowing who funded it and who sourced and supported it. >> eliot: very quickly control of the senate. obviously hugely important in terms of your capacity to move the agenda that you believe in. we share with you next year.

how do you assess right now what are the two or three races that are most likely to determine the fulcrum decision of control of the senate? >> i think the races will come down to ohio, sherrod brown incumbent democrat, missouri, the incumbent claire mccaskill and florida bill nelson, all democrats. where i think the president needs to win and i think he will win as well as virginia, pennsylvania where in pennsylvania, we have an incumbent. in virginia, we have a -- hopefully newly to be elected tim kaine and i think the races will come down to those five. >> eliot: if we hold the senate, you will be chair of which committee? we want you to be chair of the judiciary committee. i don't know whose toes i'm stepping on. senator richard blumenthal, senator of connecticut, thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> eliot: joe walsh doubles down on his attack on a purple heart recipient.

stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack. and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪

junk like it did at any an arby's in colorado. yikes. >> stephanie: i guess we do know where the beef is. [ buzzer ] >> that's wrong.

>> eliot: nothing says 4th of july like bad hot dog puns and fireworks. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> i don't think there's any question this city is hot dog in the culinary -- is top dog in the culinary world. that may be perfectly frank. this is one of my favorite traditions. i relish it so much. no question, it's going to be a dogfight. one of their dogged pursuers

will finally catch up, cut the mustard and be pronounced wiener. >> sonia the black widow ate 45. [ cheering ] >> who wrote this? [ laughter ] >> take a look at last night's fireworks display in san diego. all of the fireworks apparently accidentally went off at the same time. >> on the 4th of july, we think about who our heros are in america. what do you think? >> congressman walsh is running for re-election against war veteran tammy duckworth who lost both legs in iraq. >> i am running against a woman -- that's all she talks about. our true heroes, the men and women who served us. last thing they in the world they talk about.

>> do you regret what you said about your opponent who lost two legs fighting for the united states in iraq, that she's not in your words a true hero? >> no, not at all wolf. it is good to be with you. happy 4th. >> my hero is ronald reagan was my favorite president. >> favorite flavor of ice cream? >> rocky road. give me chocolate with nuts and marshmallows. >> joe walsh is an embarrassment. he should get out of the race. >> iran, will sanctions defeat missiles.

ever. 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

break the ice with breath-freshening cooling crystals. ice breakers. septic disasters are disgusting and costly, but avoidable. the rid-x septic subscriber program helps prevent backups by sending you monthly doses right to your door so you will never forget to maintain your system. sign up at rid-x.com. >> eliot: tensions rising in the middle east. iran this week is engaging in a three-day war game known as

great profit 7 meant as a show of defiance against western sanctions. war games included the test firing of dozens of missiles including long-range missiles with the capability of reaching the u.s. bases in the gulf, prompting one iranian general to claim that iran is prepared to launch these missiles at u.s. targets within minutes of an attack on iran. iran's increasingly bellicose attitude may be evidence it is having an impact. as many as 65 iranian oil tankers have been turned into floating warehouses for months with no place to deliver their cargo. the harshest catchingses dmikd including a complete embargo. all of this comes against a backdrop of the mideastern turmoil with high level defections in syria following the egyptian elections. here to discuss this is columnist for foreign policy.com, james traub. sir, make sense out of this. is what's going on in iran a sign we're winning or losing?

>> you know, one of the underappreciated dmefntions of diplomacy is time. i think the obama strategy has always been we don't have a good solution. it is really terrible but time may be on our side. they've been abused for that by romney and others. you're vacillating you're being too soft and so forth. there was no hard, easy, fast solution so the solution has been let's force iran into a position where we'll be negotiating a way things otherwise would not do. it is not -- it's not clear that we're there yet. i think it is arguable we're getting there. >> eliot: let me take the other side for a moment. the more time they have, the greater the likelihood they actually develop nuclear weapons. the timeframe for that, of course is so elastic. you see one c.i.a. report, one leaked report. is it six months, a year, as they move toward some line in the sand. house those two collide? we impose sanctions.

it takes time for the economic impact to be felt. are they in fact getting closer to -- >> this is an argument between israel and the united states even though both sides say it is not. both sides say we agree on the intelligence. barack, the defense minister yesterday said several years a little bit longer than what has been saying, than what benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister has said. it is clearly a race against time. we don't know quite where that's going to wind up. i think the hope though will be something like this. that the iranians are now in a situation where there is mass national discontent. there was a survey that the iranian tv station accidentally put on their web site saying that the large majority of iranians would rather limit their nuclear enrichment program and get rid of the sanctions. that's a thing that the iranian administration has to deal with. that ahmadinejad and khomeini have to deal with. they're in a difficult place. the west is in a difficult place. nobody's in a good place on this

one. >> eliot: that poll along with the article in "the new york times" suggests there's some greater fragility of what's going on in iran. we think of it as monolithic, one mindset, it is not. and yet there's no question what's going on internationally with the threats to close the gulf, close the shipping lanes they're launching the missiles, we're beefing up our military presence in that region. it is an accretion of factors you worry the spark will generate some sort of explosion. >> it is worth bearing in mind, iran is dangerous but not as dangerous as it says it is. iranian generals say we'll wipe out israel and destroy american bases in the region. they would like to do that. they can't. they say they would like to build a nuclear sub. they say they'll build 20 nuclear power plants. they can't. so the fact that they want to do that makes them a dangerous country and they have to be dealt with. their capacity to do harm is not quite as great as they claim. their willingness is not quite as great as they claim. >> eliot: how do we measure

the sanctions? >> the economic harm we can know. that's not the question. the question is what is that going to cause the regime to do? what we've seen in recent months is a willingness to make concessions on a subject they had not made concessions on before. that's the following. the issue is not the enrichment of nuclear fuel. it is the enrichment of it to a point where it can be made into material. the iranians have begun to say in their unclear ambiguous way they're prepared to stop enriching to 20%. that's the key. >> that's the threshold. >> if that's true and it is not clear, it has to be tested, if that's true, there may be a way to a solution. >> eliot: true and verifiable. >> this is the big problem. if you ask me, i would say the ultimate place this is going to come out, if it is going to come out peacefully is the west will accept iran's right which it claims, the sovereign right to enrich nuclear fuel. iran will accept the right of international community to engage in invasive inspections

to make sure it is not going beyond low enriched uranium. i can't see any other solution but that one. >> eliot: the only problem with your analysis is it is based upon reason and logic which has not been what's pervaded this negotiation until now. on their side certainly. >> all true but we haven't had a war yet either. clearly there's some element of restraint. >> eliot: moving across the middle east. to syria where assad hangs on. are we correct in seeing the first sign of fissures in the wall around, generals defecting things getting more severe and more acrimonious and more violent rather than less? >> we have to remember this guy has a huge army. he has 500,000 people under arms. so we see defections of dozens, hundreds of people, generals, it is bad. he has hundreds of generals. there have been no defections so far from the community his own ethnic group -- >> eliot: significant minority. >> only 15% of the country. there was a very important

defection today of sunni general very close to his father and to him. >> eliot: i can't pronounce it. >> they must know. we don't know. that's important. each one of these things are important. we hope they'll have a cumulative effect. time here is a terrible enemy because he's killing hundreds of people every week. but nobody has the willingness to go in there with a big libby style intervention. >> eliot: is there anything we can do that would be meaningful? no-fly zone, military or nonmilitary action, anything of significance we can do? >> let's put aside what we hypothetically won't do and what is possible we might do. the issue there is there is a civil war going on there. you can't put that back into pandora's box. the u.s. has begun ways to try to help organize the military and diplomatic forces of the rebel groups. that's going to continue, i think that it probably has to become more forceful and more

explicit. u.s. working with turkey, working with saudi arabia, qatr and others. >> eliot: there are real tensions there the shooting down of turkish. for clearly series becoming more isolated. the possibility we create that alliance and impose structure on the rebel forces. >> it will be very slow. even the turnings, if they wanted to, the turks could have used the shooting down of the plane as a cause to go to war. they could have invoked article five of nato. they didn't want to do that. they were quite reluctant to do that. yes, they desperately want to get rid of assad but they don't want a war. >> eliot: behind putin russia. >> also the fear of civil war. even leaving aside the support he has libya, the destruction of a qaddafi's regime was not a disaster for the region. the fear is that this could be an ethnic war that could spread to lebanon and elsewhere. >> eliot: syria always the most complicated.

radiates out in ways that have been unpredictable. james traub, thank you as always for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> eliot: back to the supreme court this time for same-sex marriage. more "viewpoint" coming up.

>> eliot: a tax that could slow down global climate change. first, let's check in out west with jennifer granholm in "the war room." what have you got for us tonight? >> jennifer: the president has taken off the gloves on tariffs over american cars and china. we're going to tell people why it is a critical move to bolster the american middle class and to create jobs in the u.s. we're going to look at that. we're going to follow the bus tour and check out how the president is betting on america. we've got michigan congressman gary peters who is my guest.

that's the congressman in whose district chrysler is headquartered. we'll look at the battle for ohio as well. we'll have some fun with mitt romney's art of the flip-flop which i know you have taken on tonight as well. we have a lot going on in "the war room" at the top of the hour >> eliot: mitt the gymnast. i want him on the olympic team. floor routine is the best i've seen. man, i'm impressed by that guy. if only he stood for something he could be qualified to be president. >> jennifer: thanks, eliot.

nice to talk to you. [ applause ] >> when someone stumbles across the show, it usually doesn't end well. >> stephanie: it ended better do. all right. just a truce. all right. 45 minutes -- it was a wash. 45 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> eliot: it's hot out there. we're all sweating out this midsummer heat wave, hoping for some respite. while a couple of days of intense heat don't really indicate anything scientifically about global warming, it does remind us we haven't done anything meaningful to address what is one of our most serious long-term crises. unlike the budget, global warming seems to have disappeared behind a rhetorical curtain for the past couple of years.

nothing being said or proposed to remedy a crisis that creeps up on us bit by bit. this despite the real scientific evidence the average global temperatures have gone up by one degree fahrenheit over the past century and glaciers have been melting worldwide. an op-ed in today's "new york times" gives us a clever proposal that's worked not just in theory but in application. economist bauman and hsu start with a premise if we tax things, people will do less of them. that's why we tax sig rhetts and alcohol. -- cigarettes and alcohol. the idea is this, tax carbon emissions. that way we create an incentive to use noncarbon-based energy resources and use all of the revenue to fund a reduction in other taxes. from the individual income tax to the payroll tax to the corporate tax. in the end it is revenue neutral. in british columbia, this idea was put into effect and greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5%, even as the population and economy have

grown. the province has been able to cut its tax rate significantly as a result. they calculate that a tax of the same level of that in british columbia would raise $145 billion a year here, enough to permit a 10% cut in corporate and individual income tax rates. not a bad bargain! who would oppose this? the same groups that denied global warming exists and the suppliers of carbon-based energy, coal and oil companies. it would be great in the campaign that has been devoid of any talk about global warming to hear and see a useful idea like this at least get some airtime. let's heat up the climate debate, not just the environment. that's my view.

hey joe? yeah? is this a bad time? no, i can talk. great -- it's the 9th inning and your hair still looks amazing. well, it starts with a healthy scalp. that's why i use head and shoulders for men. they're four shampoos for game-winning scalp protection and great looking hair... go on, please. with seven benefits in every bottle, head and shoulders for men washes out flakes, itch and dryness. and washes in... confidence. yeah it does. [ male announcer ] up to 100% flake free scalp and hair with head & shoulders for men.

>> eliot: without much fanfare on the east of independence day the obama administration requested the supreme court review two cases challenging the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. the administration maintains section three of the 1996 law defining marriage as between one man and one woman violates the fifth amendment. the justice department submitted a writ of certain orie to the supreme court explaining and i quote "we respectfully seek this court's review so the question may be authoritatively decided by this court." if the court decides to add the case to its docket, arguments would likely take place this winter with a decision returned sometime in 2013. let's bring in attorney, richard socarides who also served as an advisor on lgbt issues to president clinton. thank you for joining us and bringing your wisdom to this issue. >> good to be here. >> eliot: how important is it the administration has asked for review of these cases and why? >> well, i think it is pretty important, pretty significant a very unusual procedural move

because you know, they had one below in one of these cases in the first department a case we call gil out of massachusetts. the losers, the house of representatives who is defending -- which are defending the defense of marriage act they had asked for certiorari. >> eliot: usually you appeal when you lose not when you win. >> i think in the gil case, they felt it very important to make sure that the court took the case and that the court gives a lot of deference to the justice department request. it was even more unusual in the galenski case. the obama administration, the justice department fought tooth and nail to keep karen galenski's legally married spouse from getting health insurance. now they've come full circle. they're asking this court be heard by the supreme court even before it's decided by the intermediate level the ninth circuit which is extremely unusual. i actually had to get out my civil procedures book. it turns out it is technically

possible. >> eliot: there are two issues that this raises for me. one and i think the answer to this should be obvious. will they now necessarily argue that the constitution requires that there is a due process equal protection right for two individuals of the same sex to get married? >> no. >> eliot: you don't think they're going to argue that? >> i don't think they're going to argue it, no. >> eliot: intermediate position? >> intermediate position which says -- which basically says that once a state has decided to allow its citizens who are in same sex relationships to get married, that the federal government has to recognize those marriages. >> eliot: you think they will argue this only as a federalism matter meaning states' rights rather than the broader constitutional issue which i assume you would prefer they make a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. >> i think they should take that position. i think there is a right. and i do think that they will argue on equal protection grounds. i don't think they're going to just -- i think that they will

say that there is an equal protection right that once a state says that you can get married, that the federal government shouldn't be allowed -- has to recognize the marriage. >> eliot: it is a state's rights argument. >> i hesitate because it doesn't sound so good. >> eliot: jim crow. >> i don't think it is. what could happen which is the more interesting situation is the court is going to take those doma cases but the court is going to be asked to consider the proposition eight case out of california which is the david boys ted olsen case where they'll have to face squarely. if the supreme court takes it, they'll more likely have to face squarely, is there a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. >> eliot: how does the obama administration frame its brief? i view the intermediate position as certainly commendable position to take. >> long way. they've come a long way. >> eliot: moved dramatically but not as dramatic -- the evolution won't be complete

until they recognize under equal protection rights. >> you know how lawyers do this. they won't say they're against it but they'll say that if it's just, the cases related to the defense of marriage act those cases don't present this issue. so they don't have to address it. but if the proposition eight case also gets accepted by the court, the government is likely going to have to come in and say something. >> eliot: are there enough votes to win this intermediate argument and if so, whose vote is going to be the critical one? kennedy, roberts? roberts we look at with favor this past week. will it continue next term? kennedy? >> we kind of foreshadowed that. we talked about roberts and legacy cases. i think there are certainly five votes on the supreme court now to overturn the defense of marriage act. i think you've got the four progressive justices democratically appointed. i think we have anthony kennedy who's written the two most important progay rights

decisions so far. the real question is are there enough votes to get to 6-3 to declare the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. i think after last week and after what we saw roberts doing and i think with ted olson arguing the case for the gay rights plaintiffs, that we may very well see the court overturn the defense of marriage act 6-3. >> that would be a very dramatic moment. many people think that roberts having gone sort of overstepped his ideological comfort zone with the healthcare act will need to pull back and once again show he's -- this is all pop psychology none of which relates to somebody who is at his core, someone who trusts the law and follows intellectual view of the law. i'm not going to make any predictions. switch gears to something purely political. >> which is that. >> eliot: we're pretending we're lawyers. will the democratic party have a plank in its platform at the

convention supporting same-sex marriage? >> i hope so. i hope so. i think it will. i think that now that the president says that he personally supports same-sex marriage, i think there may be some language where they try to fudge it a little bit. we don't want to be seen as saying -- i think the democratic party should stand for this and president clinton says he stand -- he's for this but i think the party doesn't want to be seen as telling each state that they must adopt marriage equality although i think we should stand for that as a party. i think probably what we'll see from the platform is a little finessing but progress. each time, there is a little progress. >> eliot: evolution is good. very quickly time is really short. >> look how well it works for president obama. >> eliot: this is true. you get a lot of applause when you evolve. the executive order that set all of this off yes or no, is he going to sign it before the november election? >> this is nondiscrimination one. i don't think he's going to sign it. i think they're going to punt. >> eliot: more on tha