at some point you have to say, you've done these attacks one too many times. as much as i knew him. i got to say it, it's not just wrong but it's racist, and we can't abide by it. there you go, pat. that's the reality. "viewpoint" with eliot spitzer is next. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." for the second time this week, mitt romney is looking to reset his campaign amidst cries of anguish from fellow republicans who think he should win. the poll that shows president obama with the lead from slim to substantial. in the same margin of likely voters in the associated press poll.

but he also a five lead over romney and eight-point lead in the latest pew poll. all of those polls were taken before mother jones released the tape that may prove to be the turning point in this race. with mitt romney telling fundraisers that nearly half the country, by his count were a bunch of losers and moochers. >> eliot: public reaction to the tape is interesting. according to a grand new gallup poll say those remarks make them 20% more likely to vote for romney. while 36% say he they're less likely to vote for him and his

running mate, paul ryan, tried to clean up the mess that romney made. >> he was inarticulate in making this point. the point we're trying to make here under the obama economy economics stagnation is up. >> eliot: thanks for the good word paul. president obama told david letterman while quote all of us say the wrong thing once in a while. >> one thing i never tried to do, and i think none of us can do in public office is suggest that because somebody doesn't agree with me, that they're victims or they're unpatriotic. >> eliot: but wall street generalwall streetjournal columnist said he should peer deep into the abyss he should look straight in the heart of darkness where lies a republican defeat in a year, when a republican candidate almost doesn't loss. then he needs to snap out of it and move. after starting the week saying

he would focus on specifics romney tried to open a new front in an atlanta speech today. >> romney: there are some people who believe if you simply take from some and give to others, we're better off. it's known as redistribution. a tape came out a couple of days ago where the president said yes, he believes in redistribution. i don't. >> eliot: does that mean scary socialism? the republican national committee wants us to think so in this ad. >> you're really talking about income equality that suggests redistribution of wealth. >> i actually believe in redistribution. >> eliot: of course, those comments come from the president when he made from an university talk in 1998 sound a little different in context. >> i actually believe in redistribution. at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. >> eliot: and apparently so does mitt romney as the "washington

post" points out romney's campaign i quote believes in a progressive tax code, medicare, medicaid food stamps, social security and other programs that redistribute income. let's be clear. redistribution is as american as apple pie. let's go to molly ball and josh, let me start with you. clearly this has been horrendous horrendous. terrible stretch for mitt romney once again one of many unfortunately for him. how would you begin to make lemon made out of these lemons? >> i don't know that you can. the reason why this is damaging to mitt romney, he's the most opaque candidate since richard nixon. people don't know what he thinks or what he believes. he seems to be vulnerable to leaks like this and what this window says he doesn't care about a substantial portion of the country. i think he has to walk this

back. he has to do what george bush senior did. it's the message i care thing. he has to really show that he really does care about the entirety of the country and he wants to implement policies that will make everybody office, and he doesn't believe that everybody is shiftless losers. the problem is that's opposite of what he said. >> eliot: he came out and he has doubled down, and not walked this back. did he not say this was taken out of context or i misquote. he has doubled down making the debate about redistribution the centerpiece of the campaign right now. i think you're right it makes him look less empathetic, if possible, than he did before, and that's his achilles' heel. >> eliot: he said, no, we stand by this, and then paul ryan said something completely different than what romney said. you can have a discussion about the social safety net is too large and it's couraging people from working but that's separate were what mitt romney said when he said that these

people see themselves as victims and he can't convince them to take responsibility over their own lives. >> eliot: molly, he was personalizing the attack on the individuals, and moving away from the three theoretical argument about the enormity of government and are we promising too much. do you think that debate, if you made it that way would have put him in good stead whereas personalizing it will come back to haunt him. >> it's amazing how he has been turning this around, as you heard paul ryan do in the space of maybe ten words into a less personal debate in one where he doesn't seem to be attacking people. romney has this inability to ever backdown. he wrote a book called "no apologies" so maybe he thinks it would be hypocritical to admit that he made an error. he can't say oops, that's a terrible thing to say. here's what i meant.

he's insisting that he never said anything wrong at all and that magnifies it for a lot of people when they hear it, and how could anyone believe those things. >> eliot: i also want to read to both of you and to the audience as well, a piece of the wall street journal editorial and i rarely agree with wall street journal but they crafted language that goes to the heart of his inept capacity and there is a participate they scripted. i want americans to be less dependent on government, not because it costs too much. we will always will help americans who need our help. i want americans to be independent so they can realize the pride of accomplishment and the dignity of work and contribute their god given talents to build a better country. there is affirmative message that can be found but he's harping on the negative, these are bad people aspect of if and that's not going to persuade people to vote for him. >> no, it's not and it's telling

that he thought this was the message to the high-dollar donors that he was speaking to who are much inclined to write off the population. the problem is it it's not clear what the up shot is. he focused his remark on 47% of americans paying no income tax. the reason people don't pay incomes is because they don't have a lot of income. the up shot, we need to raise taxes on the poorest half of america who is not paying taxes now. >> if you continue to read editorial, they go off in la la land but that paragraph was an affirmative of what he was trying to say. molly, mitt romney had to reboot his campaign. after the crisis of libya where he made himself look inept in foreign policy issues. now this. he was supposed to give specifics. when will we get specifics and when there will there be an

affirmative message that we can construct the campaign. >> it's areel hard to remember the last time the romney campaign had a good day. you know, something where he wasn't tripped up or thrown off message. i suppose you could say every time a jobs report comes out and it's not good news, that's a good day for the romney campaign. but a day where he did something that made things good for him is hard to remember. the thing you have to keep in mind is that things keep getting worse for romney. they don't keep getting better for obama but by default. the president has been invisible because romney has hogged the spotlight with his mishaps. that's always been the winning formula for the romney campaign. when all the attention is on romney they win. you have to imagine obama gets dragged back into the frame and he has to have something to do with the selection as well.

>> eliot: the focus on bain mitt romney somebody completely lacking in empathy and he has embraced everything to make it happen. you talk about the one area where you thought mitt romney could win economy and jobs. when the jobs report came out it was very negative, it does not seem to have had an impact on the president. josh, the president almost even with mitt romney when the public is asked who will handle the economy better. this used to be the one sweet spot for mitt romney. >> it's remarkable. but the romney campaign does not have a clear message about what they'll do better on the economy than the president has. the president has no clear message on what he's going to do to fix the economy since he has four years and has not done nearly as much as been need. but the prescription that romney puts out is the same republican prescription we've had for the last 20 years. if those policies did not work in 2007 when the economy fell apart, i don't know he can sell that that will fix the economy

now. >> eliot: let's switch back, molly, you said that the president in the spotlight because this tape because of president obama a few years back embraced the notion of redistribution. i believe redistribution is as american as apple pie. but the republican party trying to turn that into a boogeyman issue. will they succeed and will the public view that in that negative way. >> i don't think it's a popular concept with the public, but this is not a shocking revelation about president obama. it's the same thing he said in in 2008 to joe the plumber when he said he believed in spreading the wealth around. this is not a real gotcha. this is something that a lot of liberals and most republicans agree with on some theoretical level. is it a dirty word and socialism word where it turns people off on some irrational level but i don't think that attack getting

much traction. if it was so incredibly bad for obama he would have lost in 2008 thanks to what he said then. >> eliot: i think that's a fair assessment. it's important with so many other things that we saw with the way that paul ryan dealt with the issues, how you phrase things. if you make redistribution part of our sense of sharing and helping those who need a hand up, then i think it could be an affirmative spin. josh, will mitt romney continue to hammer away on the president on this? >> he'll try. it works better as a talking point than a serious discussion. the discussion of redistribution is inherent. what they're fighting over is who are they going to redistrict from and to. the republicans want to cut $800 billion out of medicaid and spend extra $700 billion on medicare. the republicans want redistribution for old people and democrats want it for poor people. >> eliot: molly, you've shown your wisdom so many times. going into the debates and

compared to where we are after the debates, will the debates at the bottom of the ninth inning for mitt romney, will they shift this campaign in a meaningful way. >> the debates are important. i'm not going to make a prediction for you. >> eliot: oh, come on. >> i have a policy against that, but one thing we've seen about romney in the primaries is that people have forgotten because it's been awhile, he is a very good debater. this is something that the obama campaign is talking about a lot because they want to raise expectations for him. it's true, and it's true that the president has not debated in four years. he may an little rusty. we know both of them are prepping and preparing and for romney especially, he has got to know now that his back is up against the wall, and this is sort of his last chance for real game changer. i think you'll see him come very very prepared. what i think both of these guys have in common that is going to be interesting dynamic during the debates is this tendency to get a little bit irritated to let someone get under their skin. so you may see both of them

trying to bait each other and brang out those flashes of very unattractive irritability that they're both prone to. >> eliot: i thought you were going to say too many harvard degrees, and it would be a boring debate. molly, josh, thank thank you for being on the program tonight. >> thanks. >> eliot: when bain capital did not pay it's bills coming up ahead. welcome to the possibilities of membership. welcome in. american express.

i look at her, and i just want to give her everything. yeah you -- you know, everything can cost upwards of...[ whistles ] i did not want to think about that. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me. three words, dad -- e-trade financial consultants. so i can just go talk to 'em? just walk right in and talk to 'em. dude those guys are pros. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. they'll -- wa-- wa-- wait a minute. bobby? bobby! what are you doing, man? i'm speed dating! [ male announcer ] get investing advice for your family at e-trade. >> eliot: this election has been notable for the sheer involve dishonesty emanating from republican supporters. and the number of the day is still one more example. 20. that's how many he is as essays "the wall street journal" ran on its op-ed page without mentioning that the

authors were advisers to the mitt romney presidential campaign. general editors did not point out the vested professional interests these authors have in the election outcome. which is to say newspaper customers were never told they were basically reading advertisements. journal editor are among its most experienced in the news business so they know better. this kind of omission is simply inexcusable. one other shocking fact from the story, it's hard to believe that mitt romney actually has nine campaign visors the way things have been going the last couple of weeks you sure wouldn't know it. >> eliot: the tale of mitt romney as a job creator while

bain capital is under siege. a counter narrative now asserts that bain's focus down sizing and bankrupting main of its investments more than outweighed the jobs created by other investments. now a new claim, bain did failed to pay finders fees to companies that it had hired in a recent pro public article jesse details four straight occasions when mitt romney and bain simply refused to pay the finders fees to the companies that had recommended the investments. joining me now jesse and william cohan. tell us about this story. a new dimension a new critique

of how bain did business. >> in the early days bain was small and there were finders firms and brokers who would go out and find companies cold call companies and bring them to private equity firms, and bain did that a lot. one narrative was bain was scouring the world for great companies. that's not really true. they didn't discover them. then in these four instances, at least four, they reniged on the deal. that's what the allegations were there were suits and counter suits and they settled most of the time they settled in ways that were satisfactory to the finders firms is. >> eliot: we don't know the amount. neither side wants the public to know and usually part of it is we'll continue to use you and throw you business down the road. one guy said i was pissed off at the time, but then we did deals later, and it was water under

the binge. >> in business the best way to make friends is down the road we'll make money together. why fight over the the scraps. bill, you were on the dark side and now you've come over to the journalistic world, these finders fees are legitimate. >> jesse makes a very good point. this is exactly--not only is this something that business brokers do or small people like you wrote about small finders like you wrote about but the places i worked at whether it was merrill lynch or jpmorgan. >> you worked for all of them. >> not at the same time. i found the same thing would happen to us. now it was a little different because at the big firms the private equity firms will reward you with financing. but i was in merger acquisition

guys. i would show these great inside and the idea for me was to get compensated with an m & a assignment. but i found not just bain but other private equity firms would do the same thing that you wrote about bain. >> eliot: stiffing people on finders fees is as old as the world of business. it may not be that atypical but it's a window into the way mitt romney did business. >> absolutely. these guys played hard ball. they told these finders what kind of companies they wanted. they didn't say they wanted start-ups. they wanted mature profitable counties that can support the kind of leverage, the enormous amount of debt that bain and all private equity firms would put on this type of company. >> eliot: this is the heart and soul. the narrative of mitt romney the great ceo who could manage and grow companies in the

business model of bain. which is leverage, and a company with enough cash throw to pay for the leverage, and then you make a ton of money, not because you're a great businessman but because you took great risk are leverage. >> it's the genius of private equity. it's the alchemy of private equity. my friends at private equity might kill me, but it doesn't really go to their genius as they would have you believe. it's the mathematics. it's the fact that you can deduct the interest payments from your taxes. it's the tax-- >> eliot: say that again. >> it's the tax deductibility on the interest of the debt that makes the whole thing fly. that's the gift from the government. >> eliot: which is--two things, martin wolf, one the great writers, not to slight you guys if. >> yes you're right. >> eliot: he said interest patesser paymentpayments like that

should not be deductible. >> if you eliminate that kind of interest from payments you would would-- >> eliot: it would not work. >> not with the leverage, the prices, the fortunes that were made would not be nearly as much. >> eliot: does this mean that mitt romney and the bain are the moochers. >> there's no question that these guys are deeply subsidizing, and they're subsidizing their personal income because there is a second tax scam because they don't have to pay ordinary tax on carried interest on their gains. they get tax breaks on their money coming in and going out every which way. >> eliot: explain something to me. i wonder if we can all share in it. why is it that mitt romney and the conservative world says debt is bad for individuals. it is bad for the government. and yet mitt romney when he was at bain, 40-to-1 leverage.

how do you square that intellectually. >> you cannot square it intellectually. what the government should be doing if you follow the private equity model is borrow a lot now because the interest rates are so sheep. there is no way that the government could not find meaningful investments in ten years in education or infrastructure at these borrowing rates. that's what a private equity firm would do. that's what a responsible board member would tell a company if he were a private equity firm. >> eliot: and they would tell the government right now, paul krugman who has been rid writing ad nauseam, borrow, borrow, borrow. they could not borrow if the interest rates weren't low. >> they do do business if interest rates are high or if they're although. >> eliot: the numbers won't work. they won't work. >> not at a high price. they could still work, but they

have to say i can't pay you this high. >> eliot: the premium, that's separate. >> in you know, the idea is to pay down the leverage that you get with the cash flow of the company. not use as much equity to buy it in the first place and then that equity value goes over time. it's brilliant, and it has nothing to do mitt romney and everything to do with being in the right place at the right time and having access to that platform to do it. >> they're not turning companies around. the first company is experian. they closed and sold it in seven weeks. so bain was not turning anything around. they were not value-adding anything. they made $500 million. >> eliot: it sounds like to me the public is being sold a logic that is false. he made a lot of money so therefore he must be a great businessman and therefore he could create jobs. each one of those logical steps is wrong. >> there is no question it's wrong.

there is no argument that says it's sustainable. the fact is there is intellectual fraud being sold to us about private equity that is not true. >> eliot: you don't go into the private equity business to create jobs. no matter what mitt romney says. you go into the private equity business to get rich. did he a very good job with that and so did his limited partners. and for that they should thank him, but beyond that. >> thank you for you're time tonight. romney's speech about the 47% hits the late-night circuit. view finding coming up next.

[ male announcer ] the inventors of twix had a falling out, so the production of twix was divided between two separate factories. left twix factory cascades caramel and chocolate onto cookie, while right twix factory flows caramel and chocolate onto cookie. today they share nothing but a wrapper and a driveway. try both and pick a side. you disgust me. prove it. enough is enough. d-con baits are specially formulated to kill in one feeding. guaranteed. d-con. get out. >> eliot: still to come, the battle for control of the senate. but first, clint goes on the attack. obama goes on letterman and some late night shows turn up romney videos of their own. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder.

>> we believe they're victims. wewho believe they're government is responsible to care for them. >> how do you enjoy your dinner. >> what's up, gangtstas. i have no proof but i think canada is planning something. >> who are these 47 percenters. of the 47% who may no income takes, two-thirds of those do today payroll taxes. they're working, but they're not working hard enough. you know, like a family of five making $50,000 a year. aka, the amount of money it takes to see mitt romney. [ bleep ] in person. >> we job creators know there is no such thing as a free lunch. lunch is $50,000 a plate. >> listen, i put my foot in my mouth sometimes. what can i say? i'm human.

i breathe the same air you breathe. i eat the same things you eat. i enjoy the same things that your species seem to enjoy. >> i keep making funny faces up here because i keep looking in the front row and i keep seeing people-- >> someone dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something they're going to have to take what they get. >> who asked you did mitt ask you personally. >> um, yeah. >> i love and appreciate people. >> i wanted to know before we get started if you would like to say something to the empty chair. >> i move by all of you who voluntarily not only gave your time today but also wrote a check. >> eliot: having said in a while mitt romney is the most awkward politician in history. one con test remains close. the battle of senate. coming up next. there are ten angry ones taking action.

trickle down does not work. in romney's world, cars get the elevator and the workers get the shaft. that is a whole bunch of bunk. the powerful may steal an election, but they can't steal democracy.

the chill of peppermint. the rich dark chocolate. york peppermint pattie get the sensation. 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 evidence is now conclusive. the climb is getting steeper every day for mitt romney. which is why much of the attention and money are shifting to a handful of senate races. it's these few races that will likely take us late into the night on november 6s and will

determine whether harry reid keeps his majority leader spot or if mitch mcconnell will turtle his way into the position. joining me now to continue the conversations were last night the dc correspondence todd zwillich. thank you for coming back. >> good to be with you governor, as always. >> eliot: let's continue down the roster of the senate races. they're far from alone. let's start with nebraska, which was going to be the big return of bob kerry. is he faring well or not. >> he's not. the republicans need four pick-offs, democratic pick-offs to get that to magical 51 number to get control of the senate. they had a long list that they were confident they were going to pick up. a lot of those are turning blue, nebraska is not one of them. bob kerry was the best they could get in nebraska to try to replace the retiring ben nelson. but he's double digits behind. that's a deep red state. i think that one still

republican in washington and throughout the country they're still confident they have that one. >> eliot: perhaps one of the few island of genuine comfort. that's too bad. bob kerry at one point intensely popular nebraska kid veteran of vietnam who lost a leg in the war, a navy seal am i correct he was a seal? >> um, i don't remember. >> eliot: heroism. then came to new york and was saint bid it that new york stuff and nebraska does not embrace him the same way that they used to. that's sad on a personal level because he was a hero and a great senator at one point. >> that will do it. >> eliot: let's leave nebraska behind. wisconsin, tommy thompson, the republican former governor, how is he faring. >> another democratic pick-off republicans thought he they were going to have.

tommy thompson has great name recognition going up against tammy baldwin, who is a liberal. you would think in an environment like this in wisconsin that would be a tough one. that race is in a dead heat. there is polling today that showed tammy baldwin with a ten-point lead--huge. now i want to look a little bit askew at that poll. when you dig down at how they did the polishing the fact that--look, they had tommy thompson by nine points and now they have flipped it and they have tammy baldwin at nine. they asked more democrats than republicans in this poll, so you got to knock a few points off if you want to get realistic about what the real result it. it's safe to say she has opened up a lead, but it's not nine points. it's enough that republicans are no longer confident that governor tommy thompson will pull that one out for sure, and they're going to start to maybe move it out of their pick-off

list to get at 51. >> eliot: tommy thompson three-term 12-years governor in the state. everybody knows him. very popular with a bush george h.w. bush republican, more centrist than george w. bush, and people liked him. and tammy as you say is extraordinarily liberal, and she doesn't hide it. she's proud of it. this is a real philosophical choice for the voters in that state. i don't trust a pole that shows a 20-point swing. >> and tommy thompson who is a life-long moderate. he was a moderate when pitching medicaid reform part d here in washington. it's less about tommy thompson in a way the republican party has shifted out from under people like tommy thompson. he's a real moderate. they don't have a lot of treks

with moderate. >> eliot: let's go to montana where the democrats are hoping to hold on with senator tester. how does that look now. >> true battleground. the republicans have trenched back to the barricades. a lot of places they thought they were going to pick up, ohio, virginia wisconsin are looking more difficult. montana is the true toss up. while claire mccatskill may have been ahead in missouri, but now it may be jon tester. the washington money is pouring in. the campaigns are pouring $3 million into montana governor, and in a medium market, that's pretty cheap and $3 million about a long way. it's getting tighter and tighter and jon tester is a true toss up. >> eliot: $3 million in a state like that you can buy every second on tv. that's saturation on steroids. one thing that i've noticed on

that race is that tester is running away from president obama and so much so he creates in his voter sense that if think guy is so embarrassed by his party. he is so hesitant to embrace anything of the democratic party. >> president obama was never going to win in montana anyway, but it shows how short his coattails are in a lot of places. jon tester running far away from him. north dakota running far away from him. claire mccatskill has not gone out of her way. that's the way this race is. that's the way of the west sometimes. >> eliot: but tester did vote for the healthcare bill. >> he did. >> eliot: and that i imagine would become one of those votes that will be divisive and will be used for and against him depending on which side you're on come november 6th.

that one is a dead toss up. a pure coin toss. dc correspondent, todd zwillich, thank you for your wisdom on this. this could be the battleground, who controls the senate comes next january if the presidential race begins to slip away from mitt romney as it appears to be doing. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> the arab string still developing, that's ahead.

>> eliot: give mitt romney credit. at least he came clean that he doesn't like 47% of the country and admitted that they probably don't like him. that's coming up. but first, let's check in with jennifer granholm in "the war room"," good evening governor, what have you got for us tonight? >> well, eliot all of these signs pointing to the election tilting towards the president but as you know, it would be totally foolish to call this race in mid-september. so tonight i'm going to grill one of the smartest political reporters, wayne slater of

dallas evening news. the author of "bush's brain." we'll dive into the whole topic of whether romney can pull this out october, as well as the fiscal cliff. mark zandi, it will be a great show. that starts at 10:00 eastern and 7:00 pacific. >> eliot: amazing show. mark zandi has better numbers on the economy than anybody else out there and who knows what october brings. you're right this race is not over. we'll be watching. >> thanks. >> eliot: more "viewpoint" coming up next. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> eliot: give mitt romney credit, i suppose, for doubling down. perhaps he had no choice.

even the master of etch-a-sketch couldn't erase the content of his dismissive tone towards the 47%. so embracing it became the strategy. put aside the factual errors about who pays and who doesn't. we dress those last night. even the question whether the 47% might still support romney, there's much interest about that question in the media today. i want to thank romney for defining what this race is all about. in his clarifying statement yesterday and today romney has squarely said he oppose government that redistributes and he has repeated to the point of boredom that he opposes the forms of government economic intervention, the auto bailout and the stimulus, that have defined the government's fiscal policies for almost 70 years. so what is the intellectual framework, assuming there is one, for romney? it really is the word of robert nozick and ayn rand, the world of such a diminished government

that only the efforts of the individual are to be valued, and the collective are derivedded and denigrated. in option to romney's world-view is that of john rawls and john maynard keynes. they provide the intellectual guide posts for what has worked and it has worked pretty well. people who have should and help those who have not. and in a way that promotes growth and overall prosperity. this has been and should be a core piece of our national ethic. those who receive the handup are not to be denigrated arrest derided. they're ever much a part of our community as anybody else, and will some day return the favor to others who are in a moment of need. we should articulate this world-view loudly and clearly. we should not be shy about declaring it, and we should not whisper it in a cowardly way. it is right morally and

philosophically and has built a stronger nation. one last thought. romney now has made payic taxes the litmus test of good moral standing in our community. he has done this by dismissing the 47% as dependents and slackers. so while i had grown tired and lost interest in mitt's tax returns, i have sudden new found interest in examining them. if payment is the ticket to moral up rightness, i want to know if mitt has punched his own ticket. i'm once again curious how hard he tried to become part of the 4747% with offshore shelters and other gains that are suspect. mitt, before you deride the hard working folks who perhaps are not fortunate enough to file an incomes tax return i want to see how hard you minimize your own contribution. game on, where do you stand with your own taxes. that's my view.

>>who the heck does mitt romney think he is? (vo) this is joy on current tv. >>if mitt romney treats his magic underwear the same way as his tax returns, then he's been going commando for the past 10 years.

>> eliot: any historian will tell you evolutions are unpredictable. they never move in a straight line. moments of democratic euphoria are often followed guy despotism despotism, and mop rule. the arab spring has been followed by a hot summer and now an uncertain future. it may not impossible to predict the region or evaluate our role thus far but here to do just that is james traub who is every wise and ever thoughtful. james, thank you for joining us again. after this past week, mobs

surround our embassyies, the horrific event of our ambassador being killed. are we better off now. >> is this good for the united states? is this good for the arab people. >> eliot: just to stop you, that is a fundamental question that we don't often stop to ask that question. who is we? >> we tend to think if it's bad for us it must be bad for them. we don't stop and think that something bad for us might be good for them. in the long run the middle east is to have legitimate stable government. stable democratic government. that's good for them. in the short one it's quite possible while it's still good for the arab world, it will be bad for us. why? because when you replace bought and paid for dictators like we had before who could be counted on to share america's sense--

>> eliot: mu barrack. >> when her you replace that with a democratic government, which is responsive to its people and you have a population which is fairly heavily anti-american, it's going to look pretty anti-america. is that bad for arab peoples in egypt libya yemen and elsewhere? >> eliot: syria. >> we don't know, and the answer is no. but is it bad for us in the short run? probably yes. >> eliot: but is this short-term pain was it and is it inevitable in the sense that at some point there was going to be a transition from the the ma mubaraks and gadhafis of the world. did we hold on longer than we legitimately should have done so? had we eased away from him sooner there wouldn't be this

virtual lent anti- anti-{^l"^^}american sentiment. >> it's hard to think that the united states had a role in these things. it's hard for us to recognize that things happen in the world over which we have little control. we did not cause the arab spring to not happen. we didn't cause the arab spring to happen. once it happened there were generally positive things in the hopes that it would produce a better outcome. but the primal energies that caused that, that wasn't the united states. so i'm not that inclined to say that american policy is either at fault or is a causative factor for much that we've seen in recent months. >> eliot: fascinating and i think correct in your critique. what explains what appears to be a deep-seeded venom towards the united states right now. >> well, i think a couple of things. obviously the administration would like to say it's this movie. this 14-minute movie. yes, that is the immediate

provocation and clearly the sense that the prophet cannot be insulted that's very important. remember, one, the history is bad. united states supported dictators in that part of the world forever. that's a well-known fact and legend of folklore in the middle east. two, palestine, and even if you put those things aside the deep sense of frustration resentment bitterness that people have towards their own lives, dictators had ruled their lives had been directed towards the united states. mubarak domestically they were very happy to stoke the fires of anti-americanism. they played this double game as we know in places like pakistan. even if the united states does the right thing right now, it's not going to bring about a pro-american view.

that will happen very slowly. >> eliot: perhaps this is a bad metaphor, but having been to vietnam and the deep affection that the vietnamese citizens now feel for the united states, even though we were bombing them because they admire our system of freedom capitalism which may not translate as well in egypt and who knows about libya one will have to see. is this disengaging from history, and turn and corner and from time hope to aspire to a normal relationship. >> yes, but so much of it has to do with people's relationship with their own country that i suspect until you have a greater sense that people have a legitimate government, their aspirations will be met, they have economic opportunities that wish to blame somebody, including the west, including the united states, is still going to be very strong. so it's going to be awhile. it's going to be slow, and it's going to be hard for americans to watch because they'll think

what did we do? we helped you. we helped libya. we helped egypt. why are you so mad at us? maybe there was the kind of deep neat for people to keep the united states as and he my. it should not be so, but it is so. >> eliot: we don't have much time but the analog here would be we direct our venom economically against china blaming they will, not a perfect metaphor, but we need an external source to explain our problems, and therefore-- >> we're we not quite as angry because our situation is better. >> eliot: not quite. >> so we're nicer. i think we need to distinguish when we say "we," let's not despair over what's happening in the middle east because it's not good for us. it's really not good for us right now, but it doesn't mean that it's bad for them, and i'm hopeful about the direction of events in middle east. >> eliot: moving towards justice. you're saying patience