obama campaign was goldman sachs. this is what is wrong with our system. even good people get corrupted because you have to get that money to get elected. it's horrible. "viewpoint" with eliot spitzer is next. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." it's two-for-two for goldman sacks. two investigations by two federal agencies, and in both cases no charges filed. and big changes may be ahead for corrupted interest rate used to benchmark hundreds of trillions of dollars in loans. goldman's twin victories first. the bank had been under a justice department investigation for more than a year, accused of betting against junk-filled

subprime mortgage securities it sold to its clients. the probe followed a 2010 report by the senate permanent sub committee on investigations. it led to hearings where goldman chairman and coe lloyd blankfein tangled with the michigan democrat senator carl levin who accused the bank of wrongdoing. >> to go out and sell these securities to people and then bet against those same securities it seems to me is a fundamental conflict of interest and is raises a real ethical issue. >> he ethical, but apparently not criminal. at least for this justice department which announced thursday that it had i quote ultimately concluded that the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be bet based on the law and facts as they exist at this time. maybe it will change. senator levin responded to the d.o.j. announcement with a statement that read in part, and i quote. whether the decision by the department of justice is the product of weak laws or weak enforcement, goldman sachs'

actions were deceptive and immoral. it sounds like businessed a usual for some on wall street. the sec sec also gave goldman a pass. this time on accusations a the bank misled investors on a $1.3 billion subprime mortgage deal in 2006. even though the sec informed gold manned sixes months ago that the charges were planned goldman announced thursday that the agency had told the banks, the investigation into this offering has been completed and the staff do not intend to recommend any enforcement action. the chain coaxer must be popping at goldman today. maybe not at the 18 banks that fixed the libor rate. british regulateor martin wheatley saying today that the enter bank lending reality faces major changes. after a rate fix scandal that cost barclays bank more than $450 million in fines and triggered investigations into a major of lenders wheatley told

reporters, i quote. existing structure and governance of libor is no longer for purpose and reform is needed. for more on goldman sachs' big day. i'm join by ben white and joe wisen tall. they're clean as a whistle? persuade me. >> arguing that goldman is clean as a whistle might be a stretch. but looking at the purpose of these desks at goldman sachs is to give different clients to different exposures to what they want. sophisticated counter parts that, and it was known to be risky. it was not a mystery in the latter years of the bubble, all kinds of stuff. and the client still went for it any way. on these things--you know, when they discovered these e-mails and so forth.

the certainly about the quality of the product they're selling and makes goldman look bad. but criminal, i think the justice department was clearly right. it did not rise to that level. >> i have to put out a caveat, i'm a former a.j. and former prosecutor. i have not seen the eched, and everything i say is based on what i've read: you're accepting a caveat of a buyer beware. even if goldman was misrepresenting a little bit fudging and putting junk into what they represented to be high quality bonds. too bad deutsche bank on the other side of the transaction they should have known better. >> yes and goldman is not a fiduciary here. when you or i may have a money manager managing money for us and they have a responsibility to make wise investments. that's not the case. >> eliot: they might have been viewed as a fiduciary is an open

legal issue. probably not other otherwise they would have brought charges. >> let's not perfect that goldman has been punished to so degree. they've paid $450 million on a similar security on the grounds they did not provide full disclosure to investors what was in this security and how it was put together. that was punishment. the reputation has taken a huge hit and it's not a surprise that the justice department said we're not going to bring a criminal case against goldman sachs. look at the history. arthur anderson being a classic example. do you want to destroy this firm because some smart investors bought these things and took a bath, i don't think so. >> at some point you do bring a criminal case otherwise there will never be remedies efficient to the violations morally and ethically that were committed. put that aside. both of you are looking at these

as sophisticated investors. but plane were not sophisticated investors who were seduced into buying things because of the of the perimeter of goldman sachs and bought these products internally they admitted that they were junk and selling them to muppets etc. it's certainly a simple case. i'm surprised that they did not bring a civil case on some of this stuff does shock me. that one i simply don't understand. >> you could make the case that they did bring one. they got a big settlement out of it. and they have the same amount of evidence in this one. >> eliot: let's talk about the word "big." $450 million objectively big joe, anybody would be given a check for $450 million. that is a big number. but when goldman is churning out the money that it does and made the kind of money that they made, much more than that on

these transactions, it's not big, it's the cost of business. >> it is misconstrued to some extent. it is misconstrued this idea that wall street has not suffer: there has been massive layoffs and reputational damage and bonuses. >> eliot: bonuses are no what--they're not what they were but you know-- >> this idea that well street got through the crisis scott free without any kind of punishment for the crisis that they were at the center of is not born out by the fact that-- >> there are all sorts of regulations. goldman sachs are not going to be able to do what goldman sachs used to do. >> eliot: wall street is restructuring because the market is responding, recognizing they won't be able to commit these types of frauds in the future. the russian of return of capital is going down. that is not recompense for the crimes they've committed not in

the technical sense. that is a market response to a recognition that there is new environment. that is not compensation that should be paid for misreputationsmisrepresentations into the marketplace. >> we had a huge bubble where multiple parties say that the regulators fell down on the job the well street, the banks the hedge funds bought into this, and horrible decisions. investors made horrible decisions. everyone is still suffering from% this massive hangover. it's not--these issues with advocateism and the e-mails that's not really what caused the whole thing to come down. it's just things that was going on. >> eliot: let me sum it up this way. i'm outvoting 2-1 but i get three votes. because i'm sitting here. you guys are wrong. [ chuckling ] i december agree with you. but as more facts come out the history will be written and we'll learn more about what

goldman and the other bangs did and didn't know about the quality of what they sold and if they did notify not violatefy disharies.violate at thisfiduciary duties. when you don't permit this would be a good idea. >> it would be helpful for us to know how justice made this decision. could we have more data? how did you decide there was no criminal case to be made. we don't know and we take their word for it. >> eliot: quickly, libor. joe, are they going to fix it? do anything meaningful? why use anything at all? >> we're not going to fix it. first of all you know, one of the things central banks like libor. the libor rate has tracked very

>> eliot: i'm going to go farther than you did. you did something about the integrity when the feds were not on the playing field. never in once were we jumping head filing charge without having them stand with us. what he did was a violation of that fundamental principle. i don't know why he did it. i spoke with other regulators who think he fundamentally misstated the nature of the evidence. i don't know i haven't seen the evidence but this will be something that will play out in an interesting way. ben white and joe wiesenthal

thanks for coming on the program this evening. >> thanks a lot. >> eliot: surprise guests for the democratic convention. the hint, they're not even democrats. more "viewpoint" coming up next. gavin newsom shifts into high gear for answers on the gavin newsom show.

had had had had had had had 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.

>> and also i think portman is someone who is a little more interesting than some my think. we call him boring. i don't know if you've seen his chicken impression that he did on cmbc, it's actually very good. >> eliot: that's the qualification for vice president of the united states. imitating a chicken. i met him only once in natural park. i was out for a run and he was with someone that i knew. we chatted about exciting budget issues. he's smart thoughtful, he'd dead

>> the people who are pushing ryan are not really in the romney camp. they have been second guessers. they have been the ones all along who wanted the party to go hard right on the economic issues and they're laying the foundation for the mid terms years from now and 2016 when

they want to move the party to the right. i wanted to quote something said by a senior campaign advisor. now, maybe i have been missing the campaign they're talking about. i have been witnessing the campaign appealing to the worst instincts of any possible person voter citizen. am i right? am i missing something on some other network somewhere? >> i mean, i don't even think one of these olympic gymnasts could keep both feet on the high and low ground like he's suggesting they're doing. i saw this political analysis that rom romney is far more likely

to lie than obama. although i must say on my most cynical days, i often think the best liar wins. >> you should pick up a political consultant to sell the make a lot of money, though most folks already know that, is my guess. different issue the democratic party brings same-sex marriage into the platform. a good piece for the base. but a lot of members of the democrat party are worried missouri maybe montana. i can't happy mccaskill in missouri is happy. how does this affect them and some of the other senators. >> i certainly give them points in heaven for this, but i wonder about votes at the ballot box. personally i just got engaged to my partner of 25 years finally, and we're looking forward to getting married in district which -- the district

of columbia, which makes it legal. so they're where i am personally. politically, i have to wonder. after all they're doing this at a convention, a battleground state, north carolina, where recently the voters banned gay marriage. and a lot of house democrats in tight races are needing to appeal to independent voters and polls show independent voters are 50/50 on the issue democrats above 65 in some polls supporting it, so it's good for the base, but i think we're going to see a lot of house democrats in tough races and swing states not come to the convention like mccaskill as you mentioned. >> although that seemed a little mysterious to me. you don't show up at the convention. that's not like it gives you real distance from the platform. you can't pretend if you're senator mccaskill that you're not part of the party. she has a tough race, but not showing up doesn't give her an

emotional divide with the voters back in her home state. >> except when they actually brag about it. that's what i look for. it's one thing not to go but when they put out press releases and talk about how they're not going, they're sending a message to the home voters. >> the last issue, the issue of who is the source for senator harry reid. a little speculation it's jon huntsman sr. i have no idea. this was an article in gawker, i may be wrong. daily codes, excuse me. yet, does that make sense? is there scuttlebutt about who the source may be and why? >> there is history of huntsman and romney and bangle and way back so he would have some familiarity. also there is the mormon connection with harry reid being mormon, so is huntsman and romney. there is been talk maybe that's the source. but one thing about harry reid, you can say a lot about harry reid, but this is not a guy

who's going to back down, first of all. nobody's going to bully him out of this. he doesn't have much to lose. he may not even run for reelection. from what i've seen, this is a guy who doesn't make up stuff. i mean, he's partisan. he gets into the rhetoric but is a pretty straight shooter and i think it's based on something. and i don't understand why all the pressure on him to release his sources. i read a lot of news articles based on anonymous sources and we just take them for granted. >> interesting issue. no doubt we'll talk about it more over the weeks ahead. you're right, harry reid is not going to back down. interesting thing, this is probably more time he's gotten on camera in the american public than anything. craig crawford, political blogger at craigcrawford.com. good to have you. >> good to be here. view finder is next.

>> still to come, new battles in the war on women. first, conan takes on the future dream team. lou boston after michelle obama and betty wright for romney? when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the view finder. >> muslims have infiltrated our government. didn't you know that the congressional cafeteria service crescent rolls? that's nothing more than warm, buttery jihad! >> we've all seen the little paper cups you fill with ketchup. they're called soufflé cups and not as common as they used to be. you like ketchup cups. >> yes. >> they're very cool. you're using it wrong. >> i didn't know that. >> yes, you are. >> oh, i see. >> yes, with simple pulling the top of the cup spreads out tongue the cup intota bowl. >> try little dip and see if

that works letter. >> there we go. >> the fry has a nice, even coating this way. one question we can answer, who would win in a basketball game between andy and i and the 2032 olympic dream team. >> let's go to the highlights in burbank where they spared all sorts of expenses. conan's a bit of a a baja. the kids fell asleep, so had a 9-0 run and put this baby away! >> going in, i was sort of focused on the fact that we're grown adults and they're very small children. >> i understand you were the very first secret muslim to be elected to congress. >> i wasn't secret. >> how much infiltration has there been of the muslim brotherhood into the united states government? >> there is been none at all. >> are you a muslim? >> yes sir. >> do you have siblings? >> yes, sir. >> so you are literally a muslim

brother. >> we, the people, of course, don't elect the first laidy but that doesn't mean we don't get stuck with the cab. she gets to be, forgive the complex, from a taxpayer perspective, certainly not her husband's perspective high maintenance. >> obama's pack is saying romney is killing people. we need to step up. >> barack obama promises change, but since his election, the only change we've seen is this and this and this. so vote for mitt romney. don't let obama finish the job. >> i'm scared to death, if you must know. >> from what i've heard it's lou dobbs. both presidential candidates need women family. that's next. >> 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.

>> it's an age old question with crucial implications in this presidential election, what do women really want in president obama and mitt romney are both attempting to answer the question, pulling out all the stops to court women voters on a swing through colorado this week the president portrayed himself as the protector of reproductive health to put women health provisions in the affordable care act. romney announced the women for to fight back on what it calls the war on women myth. there will also be a focus of party conventions. young guns network headed by

eric cantor plans to host what it calls a women's pavilion in tampa as part of its woman-up initiative. joining me is margie o'mara and judge mcintosh. let me begin with you. what happened to the gender gap? the last poll that came out, the president was leading among women by 9 but among men by 6. so a differential of only 3 much less than i and many others expected. is the gender gap disappearing for some reason? >> i don't think so. i think what you're seeing is obama's had a couple of good weeks and recent polling. if you look at the average of recent polling, you will see the gender gap is there closer to 10 among women, if you take a bunch of polls together and closer to 1 or two among men. so i think we're going to continue to see a gender gap. we've had it for decades in

presidential campaigns and i think we'll see it in november. >> you're saying a 9 or 10 margin among women is still a significant gender gap and what happened if anything is the divide among men expanded so the president is doing better among men, it's not the gender gap as we understood it? >> right, and in emily's list, we did research into still undecided independent women voters. while undecided in the presidential election, they cared a great deal about access to women's healthcare and even more about issues like equal pay which mitt romney is on the wrong side of. that will be the kind of things that make the women come to the polls and reelect the president and elect strong women to congress and senate this year. >> if i were a candidate and trying to strategize a campaign, the question i would ask myself is what argument does appeal to the independent swing female vote. there is a very small universe of such voters. one presumes, we keep hearing the number of swing voters is

small and isolated. which argument appeals for effectively or at all? the traditional generate issues of reproductive rights the president is focusing on or raw economic issues of jobs and employment that mitt romney wants people to focus on. which is the better argument? >> i'd give you a third option. i have been on the road talking to the very women wal-mart moms swing independent women who have kids 18 and under at home. they say what they're focusing on is what's going to impact their family. they're looking to a candidate to speak to them personally, talking to them about their shared struggle as moms. it doesn't matter where they are in the socioeconomic spectrum, they are struggling to put food on the table thinking about college and retirement, all of the key issues and includes a lot of the issues are women's issues but also economic issues. they may not use the phrase war on women, in fact, they don't.

but they are thinking of a lot of these issues in the context of what does it mean for me and my family. >> if i heard margie right, that actually is pretty close to the way mitt romney frames the issue. i think his answers are the wrong answers but in terms of talking about the -- what's the cost of sending your kid to college, can't afford the loan, food is more expensive -- whatever the causation, that was more in the mitt romney definition of the issue than the barack obama definition. >> the issue with the republican party is they believe they have an optics problem with the women. they think if we message something different or a ladies pavilion in tampa will solve the problem. but the problem is they have a policy a substance problem. what they are selling to women are bad for keeping them healthy, which is why when they go to the polls they will be reelecting the president. >> it's more than optics. former senator jon kyl he said

sneering, well, i don't need maternity care coverage. things you would think could be bipartisan and pro family and things republican would support they literally sneer about. plenty of exavrms. republicans had a history of voting against mandatory breast cancer coverage. it's engrained policy. >> it's true. we compiled all of this data and have an interactive calendar about the war on women. the policies have been real and republicans have been doing this since the house went g.o.p., everything from women's access to healthcare to equal pay to surrogates attacking women on the trail. it's been really consistent and the drum beat reached women voters absolutely. >> i agree with you, it is far deeper than an optics problem which is why the idea of having a women's convention at the pavilion -- >> the parasol -- >> yeah, sort of the demeaning

nature. but put that aside. the wave of problems and the wal-mart moms you're talking to are dealing with base level real-life economic issues that are out there. the price of gas is going up again, the price of food is going up. obviously maternity leave. whether you can get your kids to see the doctor. these are the real issues. on those metrics, the president has a tougher sell than in some other metrics. >> i'd argue that's not true. if you look overall in terms of who thinks that the president versus romney is best able to fight for the middle class, the president wins hands down consistently. now, with undecided swing voters, it's difficult because they're undecided swing voters. of course, this is going to be a tough election but i think for which candidate really has an argument that's about a vision for the middle class and really reaching out to families, both in policy and in how they speak in it, in a natural and warm and empathetic way, i think the president has the advantage. >> yeah, you know, the women that we interviewed at emily's

list all said, really specifically, the kind of candidates they were looking for was somebody who understood their daily life. they were more likely to credit democrats with believing that they ought to have their own healthcare decisions made in their families, but they were looking for candidates specifically who were community leaders, who were people who had given back to their towns. they talked about teachers, they talked about police officers, they talked about veterans, they talked about the kind of democratic women running with the president this year to helper sue an agenda that will be good for women and families. >> i have been saying from the first moment mitt romney is the least awkward least empathetic, least human candidate. especially if he's going to be a president of moms, that human emotions could get that far. if the female voters are still undecided, you have to wonder what more could be said by a president whose every policy favors to bring them over into the column by november. what would you say for closing

argument? >> a lot of women will be tuning in like swing voters toward the end of the election in the last month. they will watch the debate, watch the convention, and trying to figure out who's really focused on their family, understands how their families work and can really put themselves in their shoes. >> closing argument, jess. if you could craft a closing argument for mitt romney, what would it be? >> oh, my! i'm really sorry for everything i and my party have been doing for the last two to five years. we're going to adopt the president's proposal, end the war on women, fight for equal pay at work and really we apologize, we'll let the ladies pavilion into the whole convention and bring the women to the table. that's literally the only thing they can say at this point. >> all right, the three of us decide mitt romney should not get a single female vote. margie, let me ask real quick do you have any polling data or modeling that suggests what margin the president needs to win the female vote by to

overcome what most people think will be a loss among white traditional voters? >> right now he's leading among both men and women, in which case, he will be okay. if we've seen high single digits to low double sinlts, that's a good place for the president to be but right now he's in a good spot. >> jess, do you agree? >> i absolutely do. i think women will reelect him and defend reinforcements. i think we'll have a strong democratic congress. >> we did get to the congress. we'll do that next time. we can save the next 90 days. margie omera president for research for momentum analysis, jess mcintosh, spokeswoman for emily's list. appreciate you being here. we'll be back. 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.

she's every 5-year-old who ever jumped in a pool and didn't want to get out. ♪ ♪ every coach, every rival who ever pushed her. she's the tip of a spear that goes all the way back to the beginning. it's amazing how far you can go with a little help along the way. td ameritrade. proud sponsor of the 2012 u.s. olympic team. start you morning with a daily dose of politics from a fresh perspective. >>i'm a slutty bob hope. the troops love me.

>>only on current tv. >> maybe the justice department can't do anything about goldman sachs, but the rest of us can. my view, next. and at the top of the hour in the war room, jennifer granholm will welcome former economic advisor to crunch the numbers on >> so howo do we make sense of this? goldman sachs e-mails call their own investment junk and crap and their salespeople refer to clients as muppets and elephants. yet the justice department says there is not enough evidence to help investors who lost vast sums of money. a caveat, as former prosecutor and attorney general i filet constrained not to judge cases in which we've not been able to

view all the evidence. in this case, the weight of the prosecution and prosecutorial powers should only be brought on individual or enties only when a very high burp can be met. now that's out of the way, i can see what we're all thinking. really? are you kidding me? wall street continues to get away scot-free. the justice department prosecute roger clemens for perjury spends countless resources time and energy worrying about steroids and baseball, yet seems incapable of making cases against the big wall street firms that engineered the greatest lies, frauds and scams in our economic history. okay. i'm outraged, disappointed as furious as you. have they no backbone, shame or sense of what justice is about? it does nothing for for my waning faith in the justice department. back to basics. wall street failed us because of

greed run amack conflict of interest, lack of dedication to integrity and total absence to loyalty to fiduciary duties, failed regulatory systems and horrendous management. we can and should demand of congress to enact bill already proposed to break up the big banks. if the justice department won't prosecute them, we at least can let wall street know we don't trust them. the self-important titans of wall street fundamentally violated their side of the contract with the public. they were given the keys to the kingdom, in return for which we expected some serious leadership and thoughtfulness in their guiding our economic system. they utterly failed us and they still deserve our disdain and scorn. that's my view. >>it's the place where democracy

is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's. we must save the country. it starts with you. fruit just got cooler. fruit on one side, cool on the other. new ice breakers duo. a fruity, cool way to break the ice.

>> with less than 90 days to go till election day the campaigns still search for new ways to attract voters and both candidates this week tried out new catch phrases. >> he'd ask the middle class to pay more taxes so he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. [ booing ] >> it's like robin hood in reverse! it's romneyhood! >> if i were to coin a term, it

would be obama-loney. he's serving up a dish simply in contradiction of the truth. >> but nothing quite as entertaining as this superpak ad. >> i'm a romney girl in a romney world. life is fantastic. it's fantastic. >> i met romney, let's go party. >> joining me to try to make sense of this is political satirist john fugelsang. >> she looks like st. pauly girl. but we know mitt doesn't go that way. it was a great week for attacks by politicians. it is robin hood in reverse but don't say romneyhood.

that means the steal from the rich to give to the poor. and mitt didn't coin obama-loney. >> so mitt once again claiming credit for something he didn't do. >> a great week for unclever attacks by politicians. >> and avoiding anything that matters substantive at all. >> mitt sure is. he's gotten suckered into a debate with not the president but the heads of the democrat and senate. >> you want to go to harry reid right away. you want to just dive into this. >> you and i agreed on this last week but i've evolved. >> tell me where you are now and then we'll see see where we come out. >> a lot of people in my generation are confused by harry reid -- >> you're saying we're in different generations? >> no. under 70 are really shock because we've never seen a democrat go on offense before. i like a good mormon's fight as

much as the next guy but i was appalled as harry reid making a baseless accusation. now it seems mitt is in a fight with the wrong guy. harry reid is not running again so he has nothing to lose, doesn't want to see mitt get the election. so if harry reid governor had come out and accused mitt of being a kenyan, socialist muslim -- >> your notion was it's a baseless accusation. do you think it's baseless or what? >> i think mitt romney gave john mccain 23 years of tax returns, the american people one year. so he's more interested in being vice president than the president. >> i like that logic but you didn't answer the question. >> no, i'm running for office. >> i don't know if it's baseless or not. >> i don't know either. i presume he has hearsay and it's not provable.

>> i have got to believe the more lawyers and accountants that go over mitt romney's tax returns, i think he abide bid the law. at a tactical level, harry reid clearly pulled mitt romney into an ugly, dirty fight. i'm not sure if our side wins or loses in the long run but that's the result of this. we've also debased our politics, in my opinion. the majority leader of the senate, i don't think, on the floor, should make those allegations without a firm public foundation. >> what if he's telling the truth? what if there is a source that has known romney for decades that told this to harry reid? >> that might be the case, somebody told me that somebody might be wrong but it's anonymous. you know what, we're winning on the substance. >> i agree. >> i think that's better for the senate. >> but this addresses the substance. this little sideshow gets people talking about governor romney's tax returns and the average conservative should be furious

not so much he paid 13.9% on income all generated by interest, but furious he's not playing ball like his dad did. >> i don't like the notion we're becoming "them." >> let me finish with one point. three years of the republican party claiming this president wasn't born here, the lies we've heard about this guy from day one. i'd like to see barack obama grab mitt romney by the lapels and say listen, pal i never apologize for america we are not attacking wall street and joseph smith's story doesn't check out. he won't do it. marry reed is. and this way mitt romney is actually energizing obama's base than any catchy campaign. >> i'd like to think we take the high road. we look at them with disdain when they play those games and say we win on substance and that's what differentiates us from them. >> i hear your point. >> the democrats are trying to win. >> we are going to win and i think the polls over the past

week show that because on economics, on taxes not the tax return issue but mitt romney's proposals versus the president's on healthcare, the public is paying attention, the swing voters are coming to their senses and saying the president is right on every one of the signature issues. >> 9-point lead in the fox poll? goodness! >> there must be some scheme we're not seeing. they're too clever to give it away early. we have to play the game. vice presidential candidate sweepstakes, who is it? >> we've heard david petraeus, martinez from mexico. i think the smartest choice for mitt romney would be mike huckabee. i think the weakest ticket for the g.o.p. is romney-romney. i'm almost hoping it is paul ryan. i would love to see a national referendum on this medicare scheme paul ryan is pushing. number two, if paul ryan is the vice presidential nominee you

will see eddie munster on twitter every day till election day. >> paul ryan would be good for democrats because it will frame the intellectual debate where it needs to be. we need a healthy debate. we would win and it would put to light the bad idiocy they are spewing into our political world. >> i agree. >> mike huckabee -- >> he's never going to do it. they despise each other. >> why? >> the 2008 campaign. they did not like each other. >> i didn't think mike huckabee disliked anybody. >> i think he dislikes quite a few people. but he's a likable guy. you get mike huckabee, you get chuck norris, man. it's a package deal! >> all right. >> but i'm hoping it's pa