hdttv

time. when he dropped his bid in the 2008 race, everyone knew he'd be back in 2012. but even after all this time his campaign still seems unable to avoid missteps.

despite all the pundits screaming over mitt romney's very bad month, polls show within the margin of error in all the swing states but that may not last if all the mistakes keep coming. attempting to push back again the american priority super pac ad accusing romney of ignore workers and their families in a closed plant by bain capital. one thing that romney is avoiding talking about romney care. saying that joe sopic's wife had been okay if they lived in massachusetts. >> if they had lived in massachusetts under governor romney's plan they would have had healthcare. >> eliot: we know how he'll handle the comments. >> i like being able to fire people who provide services to me. >> eliot: let's bring in politico, thank you. >> thank you for having me back.

>> eliot: is this what pundits call a gaffe when someone tells the truth and terribly inconvenient when andrea sol said if they only lived in massachusetts, romney care would have covered them. now romney needs to say that romney care is a good thing? there is no way out for them on this stuff. >> i know andrea well. the example is how bizarre this race is. the massachusetts healthcare law is arguably mitt romney's chief achievement while governor. what andrea said on fox has lit a fire under conservative who is are shaking their hands saying she's giving away the election to president obama by talking about the one issue that romney is weak on and we'll have no legs to stand. rick santorum levied the same argument. mitt romney is the worse person to nominate because of healthcare. now they're all coming back to that very same argument. it has got to be a frustrating

moment for folks in boston who might see that as consider this a slip on andrea's part. >> eliot: it's a slip that she told the truth. you can only imagine president obama is waiting to use that line if one of the debates. he'll say governor romney, let me quote your own campaign spokesperson if they lived under your law which you disavowed which came my law they would have had healthcare, why don't you do the sensible thing and support it. what do they do? how do they talk their way out of this one. >> it is an uncomfortable situation. i'm surprised i don't have more e-mails from democratics seizing on these remarks. mitt romneyill have to try to move forward. if you notice through the campaign he has not addressed health care in large parcel. he has addressed jobs and getting americans back to work. as he heads up this bus tour, i

expect that to continue to be the spin. and romney and staffers will say the point is not about this one statement about the massachusetts healthcare law. it's about about an ad that many people including reporters political analysts say is out of bounds and factually accurate, and that's what they'll likely focus on. >> eliot: even if the ad had been viewed out of bounds and not factually based it how has become terribly important because andrea sol has made it the argument. and the folks highlighted in that ad could have had healthcare and avoided the ravage of cancer and death if they lived in a state where they had healthcare. mitt romney cannot simply talk his way out of this one. enough on that ad. we'll see how it ripples through the campaign. not necessarily a great day or stretch for president obama.

there is viral ad, a music video that speaks to the discomfort that his base has. with some of the decisions he has made over over the past couple of years. ♪ because you cut me off ♪ now your speeches ♪ never soar ♪ as high as unemployment ♪ you took obama-care ♪ so farrering ♪ but you left me like a dog ♪ strapped on romney's car ♪ now you're not obama that i ♪ used to know >> eliot: i gather i'm too old. i gather this is a riff on a popular song that my daughters listen to. there is a line in there that this guy lives at home with his mom. he doesn't have a job. is this frivolous stuff on the fringe or does it speak to obama campaign. >> a little bit of both. it's a popular song on the radio a lot of. this video has been going around on my friend's facebook page.

i'm embarrassed to admit that. it's frivolous but it underscores the problem. there is an unenthusiasm gap of young people between 2008 and now. hope and change has not worked out for them. i think this does underscore how there is an opening for mitt romney to seize on that and to seize it for people who are disenchanted from the record levels of 2008. >> eliot: the hope and change and euphoria that gripped the nation evening among conservatives, there was a sense of new future, a new america being formed before our eyes. that's clearly gone. when you look at the polls pollsters will acknowledge, they have a hard time getting a real sense whether the younger demographics are going to vote and if so, how? they're all based on cell phones. they can't cut into that group and measure what all this means. when you talk to pollsters do you sense there is a void in

terms of measuring the youth vote. >> certainly there is a little bit of a void based on the polling, the technology that is used to complete these kinds of polls. that said, the youth vote and folks between 18 and 29 are targets of both of these campaigns. look at obama's rollout campaign it was on college campuses. mitt romney has not made it quite as much of a focus. he has visited a couple of campuses but it's the youngest section of voters, those who are more likely to support the democratic party, they are the hardest to track and could possibly be an interesting story in 2012 depending if there is someone who brings them out in large numbers. >> eliot: i'll ask you a hard question, but give us the answer. not who is mitt romney's mitt romney vice presidential choice. but when. >> some time after next week after the bus tour.

it does not seem likely to roll out a southland actual pick they will all be joining romney on a tour day date coming up. it might have been for voters if they had a v.p. pick long side marco rubio who is one of the republican party's charismatic speakers, i think he waits. >> eliot: that is going to be a bundle of fun. juanda summers, thank you for your time >> we talk a lot about the influence of money in politics. it is the defining issue of this era. the candidate with the most money does win. this is a national crisis.

there she is ! hey, i got a leak ! yoo hoo ! wait a minute, come back ! um, miss ? up here! right. like 85% of us you have hard water stains and that cleaner's not gonna cut it. truth is, you need something powerful. you need lime-a-way. it's 4 times more effective at removing limescale than the leading bathroom cleaner. because lime-a-way is specially formulated to conquer hard water stains. for lime, calcium and rust... lime-a-way is a must.

>> eliot: still to come, syria's leader is clinging to power. but how much longer can he maintain his grip. but first hillary clinton dances again, and when it doesn't fit anywhere wells, we put it in the viewfinder. ♪ i'm mitt romney ♪ let's go party >> i'm romney girl ♪ in a romney world ♪ he's oh so plastic ♪ it's fantastic ♪ ♪ >> so, the number of times a wikipedia page has been edited predicts the chances for the v.p. slot. we could be looking at vice president season six of buffy

the vampire slayer. >> no one at columbia ever heard of him or saw him. it's strange. i'm sure he went there but he's probably smoking pot and attending socialist meetings ♪ with accounts everywhere ♪ he'll dispose ♪ all the dough ♪ he's spanking ♪ you can see ♪ we hate ♪ traps parentcy ♪ if you knew ♪ we would be screwed ♪ spanky spanky ♪ [ ♪ music ♪ ] [applause] ♪ he is rich ♪ you are poor ♪ if he wins ♪ i am rich ♪ overjoyed ♪ if i win ♪ you're unemployed ♪

country's leading conservatives tweeting a person of themselves with chick-fil-a recently became a great way to express opposition to same-sex marriage. limbaugh and this middle age lesbian. >> his end game is to try to give them utopia of what a liberal left wing presidency would be. if karl marx were valuable, i think he would have it, too. ♪ everything is coming up ♪ roses ♪ come on romney ♪ let's go party ♪ come on romney ♪ let's go party ♪ a, a, yeah ♪ come on, romney ♪ let's go party ♪ [ ♪ music ♪ ] >> little bit too early

starting, and still need to elect-- ♪ i'm mitt romney ♪ let's go party ♪ >> i'm just kidding about that one, in some ways. >> eliot: got to love the political discourse we have these days. 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. so, you guys grew up together. yes, since third grade... what are you lookin' at? not looking at i anything... we're not good enough for you. must be supermodels? what do you model gloves? brad, eat a snickers. why? 'cause you get a little angry when you're hungry. better? [ male announcer ] you're not you when you're hungry™. better. [ male announcer ] snickers satisfies.

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: the civilian casualties continue to mount at syria sinks deeper and deeper into civil war. throw syrian president bashar al-assad appears hell bent on clinging to power the obama administration insists his days at the helm are numbered. earlier in the week the regime suffered it's highest defection with the sunny y prime minister

riad hijab across the jordannen broader. and they've become frustrated with the united states offering more than moral support. america will pay a price for this america is going to lose the friendship of syrians and no one will trust them any more. already we don't trust them. meanwhile, assad's coastest closest ally, iran sending one of its top diplomats. here steve clemens, he had right at large the washington note and senior fell low and founder of the american strategy program at the new america foundation. steve, thanks for joining us and explain this fraught region of the world. are we doing enough to help the rebels? are their frustration legitimate? >> i think there is always more that can be done. but in this particular case, you've got the united states working with syria--with qatar saudi arabia and turkey behind

the scenes trying to give competency building to the national resistence, and to help with some degree with intelligence and work an arms' henning distance away without sending troops and bombs and outfitting the resistence can large scale military capacity. the reason for that, as i've written recently, the problem is there are real horrors unfolding in syria and it may be soon bosnia but syria is not just syria. it's a platform for iranian interests and as of late russian interests. what you run the risk of, whatever is done or not done by the united states in europe inside sir are a could lead to real geostrategic shifts one that ties iran and russia together that we have not seen historically. people need to understand what that means.

if russia and iran had been adversaries in the past and have not been comfortable and close as people might suspect given what we've seen in syria they control the largest fossil fuel and natural gas reserve undeveloped in the world. it would basically tie together the largest geoenergies that will be in position for the next 40, 50 years. you have syria it's a horrible conflict but it is a geoconflict that is very large. >> eliot: the counter argument is if we continue to do nothing that allows assad to remain and we're getting the same result of iran-russia being proxy if we do not intervene. what i understand, do for us what you did for libya so they're not subject to the attacks of assad. why not do something like that

that at least creates a level playing field? >> i have enormous sympathy for the people in the army and enormous people in the street who are fighting for their lives and a different situation. it's a maximummist position just as in libya. you commit to something that takes you deep in the country and into a different type of war and combat than a no-fly zone would entail. in a particular case of intervening inside syria we may get there any way. one of the things that i feel hubble about these positions every bone in my body worries about an intervention because so many innocent people would die. on the other hand i think they've got the chopping block set up for everyone who has resisted assad if we don't do something. what is it that we can do? the most important thing that can be done we have thoroughfare of money and small arts through

saudi arabia and qatar. i think between turkey and others ramps that up, they can expand the capacity that the army has. the problem is what comes after? that's a real mess, eliot. on one hand what comes after could be where the backbone and capacity of syria largely remain in place with some purge of those leaders. if you take the iraq-type example which is essentially to start from scratch and wipe out all of that, you could end up with an ongoing civil war with neighboring nations controlling different factions for a generation for 15, 20 years. that could be a real disaster for the people of syria as well. we need to weigh what we do with what will come next. >> eliot: there is no question none of the options is either easy in what comes down the road is impossible to predict. you're right what happened in iraq is a disaster. on the other hand, in libya we got rid of gadhafi and there was

some semblance of order. in egypt who knows where it takes us. there is some form of democracy and we don't know where that will take us either. is there a risk of radicalization of the rebel forces if they're not satisfied with what we provide them. and will this turn elsewhere and will that become an independent type of threat. >> i think there is a responsible core but i think they have a very hard time. you have a lot of great leadership and selflessness in the leaders who have stepped down in a way to create a big tent. as i talked to different parts of the resistence from time to time, one of the things that they acknowledge readily is how to pull all the divergent factions together even though they're all opposed to the same thing. each of these--they basically see the end of assad, and many of them are already trying to position themselves, but they've been unable to coalesce and stand behind a leadership structure in the fsa that i think would be more coherent. they've made some strides.

i don't want to take anything away from the achievements they've made. but right now they send shivers down the spines of countries who want to help, and they need to resolve that. >> eliot: chaos in the future, and it's murky at best. steve clemons editor at large for the atlantic. thank you for your >>now let's get some real news. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >> current tv, on the roll. (vo)followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>ah, thank you. >>it really is incredible. (vo)bill press and stephanie miller, current's morning news block. weekdays six to noon.

rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. now in minis.

>> eliot: coming up, the former general inspector neil barofsky joins me. but first let's check in with jennifer granholm in "the war room." >> tonight we're going to answer the question. what is the matter with kansas. as you know, the united states took a sharp turn to the right last night with a bunch of all traditionultraconservatives being voted into office. we'll tell you who did their bidding and why it's so scary. we'll talk to the mayor of most dangerous city in america. stick around and we'll tell where you that is. >> eliot: wait a minute. you're not even going to tell us what city it is? >> you got to watch. >> eliot: i got to watch now. give it to us in the preview the initials the state something. >> you'll be s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ou 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. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: the entirety of mitt romney's economic agenda and the agenda of the republican party led by grover norquist for the past quarter of a century has been to cut marginal tax rates for the wealthy. the elixir that would stimulate growth has become a mantra and give job creators the incentive to invest by cutting their marginal rates. we've seen the failure here at home. gdp and job growth are greater when marginal tax rates are higher throughout the 90s and higher when you go back to world war ii when rates were 90% as opposed to the 35% that we have now. let's compare gdp growth at home to those countries where the

marginal tax rates are currently higher. sweden which has the marginal tax rate of 57%. japan, 50%. germany, higher than the 35% here. the growth rates for those countries have been comparable to ours, often exceeding ours. when it comes to unemployment we've had a consistently higher unemployment rate than they have since the cataclysm of 2008. what to conclude from this? one of my favorite sayings in life is to challenge the premise. the world-view is that we must cut marginal tax rates even if it means starving investments and let the social nets fray. it is incorrect. the data, when we look at the past 50 years of the u.s. history and the record of growth in other industrialized nations is proof that the causal link

between low tax links and vitality is flawed. this is the heart and soul around romney's economy >> this court has proven to be the knowing, delighted accomplice in the billionaires' purchase of our nation. >> and you think it doesn't affect you? think again.

[ beads rattling ] [ bass thudding ] [ beads rattling ] spearmint that tingles as you chew. stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack. ughhh. trash builds up and can make your dishwasher smell. over time, grease and residue get stuck inside. for an intensive clean use finish dishwasher cleaner. it's taking out the trash for your dishwasher.

>> eliot: neil barofsky, the former special inspector general of the tarp program and a good

friend of the show sat down with the website gawker to answer some reeders questions. the unifying theme massive disillusionment with the government's capacity to enforce the rules of the marketplace. some questions were particular and theoretical such as this one from user hamilton noland. which economic thinker would you say has the most vindicated in by the events of the last four years and which has been the most wrong. we'll get to neil's answer in just a second. and the other question, such so we're totally--expletive--right? as citizens, like no way out--expletive. neil barofsky, thank you for coming in and shedding light on this and your book and in the

world of media. >> thank you for having me back. >> eliot: i was intrigued by that question, which economic writer, thinker do you think got it right? >> a number did, i said simon johnson who has been out in front in identifying the issues of bankers and the influence that they have on washington as well as problems with the federal reserve. he has been the leading academic and identifies and hammers away. >> eliot: he has been a jackhammer. too big to fail, our financial system to provide the services that our economy needs. i would add, not to disagree, i would supplement paul krueger and robert reich. there have been reporters who have written and diagnosed properly and pounding the table saying, pay attention. and of course we haven't. on the other side of the question who got it run. >> alan greenspan is the easiest

choice. he's the architect of too big to fail, and the assumption that the market would be self- self-correcting, and police fraud in the financial industry, every tenant that it's based on has been wrong. >> eliot: if there was anything to get wrong alan greenspan got it wrong. >> i think so. >> eliot: and for years everyone bowed down and kissed feet as if he got everything right. but smart folks saw through this. >> no regulation, that we could trust the larger banks to police themselves in the end proved to be a fairytale. >> eliot: self regulation an oxymoron of all time. and josh pose near of this world few who acknowledged, you know, i got it wrong posner is one of the more interesting voices. brilliant when he changed his mind. but posner is interesting to read and think about.

>> and greenspan said too big to fail means too big. he's now preaching the gospel along side. >> eliot: but in such muted terms i'm not willing to forgive him--forgiveness is the wrong term but he did get it fundamentally wrong. the way out. to the largest theoretical this? >> ultimately what we've seen is this corrupting influence of banks too big to fail. the most logical way is to make them not so big by breaking them up through glass-steagall size caps, significantly higher capital requirements so they don't have this outside influence and power, so they're not beholden--look, when people are perceiving on this gawker list, person after person, the perception of the banks is they're being held above the law. they're operating by their own

set of rules because of their size and significance. >> eliot: interestingly, if there is a business side of architect is it's sandy workers yle. he agrees with you. he's now saying break them up because they don't work. >> from sandy wyle,'s perspective, it's self it. you can unlock the value from a shareholder perspective if you break up these banks. whatever the motives, it's good to break them up. and one of his big regrets was going up against glass-steagall and being part of that. it's a lonely island of people left who are defending the status quo. >> eliot: you're right tim geithner and the president with

residual voices just flying the status quo. the political establishment is often the last to shift because it's not necessarily a money in a paper bag but bought at different levels. mortgage reform. at the heart of what was supposed to change. >> there are isolated cases that the deadline are homeowners are getting huge principle reductions. not the way the banks are paying for them themselves, but loans that are owned by private investors. there is some benefit. but the core issue of homeowner abuse modification process appears to be going on unabated. that's what i'm hearing from people on the ground, that almost nothing has changed. >> eliot: that's one of the

travesty that you talk about in your book. process and principle write down. >> we incentivize bad behavior, the home affordable modification program, they built in that program so banks could rack up late fees month after month after month even when the borrower was making payments. then they're surprised when pull the rug out from under them and foreclose. in some ways we did not deal with the problem but enabled the problem and incentivized it. >> eliot: even though the housing of market has stabilized, still over 11 million homes with negative equity meaning they're underwater in terms of mortgage being greater than the value of the house. interesting contrast somebody should investigate the huge commercial loans to landlords to

those who own big offices, the banks have written those down. >> and they don't have the why of idea of strategic default. if you owe more than the property is worth in the commercial real estate there is no moral negative to that as on the other side in the housing people are viewed with the mark of cain. >> eliot: that's a discussion for another day. remedies. interesting analysis is beginning to emerge. those of us who have been in the trenches under this. sent to jail. the only remedy used by the government is companies pay fines. is that enough? >> it's absolutely meaningless. it's individuals who make the decisions. not corporations. when you punish the corporation by a fee, these fines are generally a weak a week, a couple of weeks or month's worth of income. not enough to change behavior. there is no turn effect.

they've made their money. they put in the pockets for bonuses and it doesn't come out of their pockets. what are they going to do? they'll repeat that behavior. there has been individual accountability if we're going to change the series of scandal after scandal after scandal. >> eliot: that's exactly right. we've turned corporations into people, given them the rights and privileges of people, but none of the down side responsibility form of accountability that individuals ordinarily bear going to jail, serious loss of freedom harm, none of that flows back to. imbalanced in risk and gain and here in the legal structure we've made it affordable for companies to do something heinous and it's something that we need to figure out in terms of legal structure and enforcement. >> to say this time we mean it, and this time it's going to end the behavior, and of course it never will. >> eliot: the degree of recidivism