tle out of touch. >> with reality. elbow of the day nate silver? there you go. that's numbers, that's real. i love it. see you tomorrow. >> eliot: good evening. i'm eliot spitzer. this is "viewpoint." the pressure is on for president obama and congress to get together on a deal to keep the country from plunging off the so-called fiscal cliff and back into an economic recession. and the president is now scheduled to deliver a statement on those issues and comments from the east room of the white house tomorrow. without a deal on the fiscal cliff on the first day of the new year, the bush era tax cuts will expire, payroll tax cuts will expire. the alternative minimum tax will return for many taxpayers. $109 billion in spending cuts will take effect in the coming

year and as a result of this according to a new study from the congressional budget office, unemployment could rise to more than 9% by the end of 2013. however, if all of the tax cuts were extended, gross domestic product would prize 3% while the economy added 3.4 million new jobs, all of which sounds great but a federal deficit would rise by $503 billion in 2013 and another $67682 billion. is the emerging choice jobs versus larger, short-term deficits. given the acrimony between the white house and the house of representatives is a deal likely? erskine bowles wrote today in "the washington post" and i quote... but throughout the campaign,

president obama insisted that any deal must include tax hikes on the well-to-do. something this campaign senior as viser david axelrod emphasized today. >> he talked about it in debates and speeches. on the need for balanced deficit reduction that included some new revenues and he was re-elected by you know, in a significant way. but if the attitude is that, you know nothing happened on tuesday, that would be unfortunate. >> eliot: that seems to be house speaker john boehner's attitude toward any tax hike at all. take a listen. >> raising tax rates is unacceptable and frankly it couldn't even pass the house. i'm not sure it could pass the senate. so the votes aren't there. what i did yesterday was lay out a reasonable, responsible way forward to avoid the fiscal cliff and that's through putting increased revenues on the table but through reforming our tax

code. >> eliot: for more on the perils of the fiscal cliff and the choices before us, i'm joined by robert reich professor at u.c. berkeley's goldman school of public policy and author of "beyond outrage what has gone wrong with our economy and democracy and how to fix it." professor, thank you for joining us. >> good evening. >> eliot: seems to me the choice is one of jobs versus short-term deficits. which is the right choice and explain to us why this is such a critical juncture. >> well, jobs has to be the choice we make right now. it is a very critical juncture because if we fall for the idea that the deficit is the biggest problem we face and we start in earnest, cutting spending, raising tax on the middle class we are going to find ourselves very promptly back in a recession. the big problem of the fiscal cliff is a problem that -- that is created because the fiscal cliff is an automatic set of tax increases and spending cuts put there because congress couldn't agree to anything else, you remember, but it is too much

deficit reduction too quickly. if you've got a lot of underutilized capacity in your economy, high unemployment relative to what it should be, that's the last point at which you want to actually embark upon serious deficit reduction. you want to wait until the economy's back on track. >> eliot: you said something critical that people should remember. the reason these elements of the fiscal cliff were created was too create maximum political pressure to force congress to make a decision that it didn't end up making so now we're stuck with a series of proposals that were not properly crafted to help get the economy out of the crisis we're facing. and so that's why what you have laid out you laid it out today and in a very wise article in "the huffington post." explain to us what we should do short term and then what we can do in the medium term to long-term on the deficit. >> i think there ought to be a trigger. that is we do have to deal with the deficit at some point. obviously. but we ought to deal with the deficit when the economy's back on track when unemployment is down to my suggestion is two

consecutive quarters of 6% unemployment, down at least down to 6% and two consecutive quarters where you have economic growth above 3 hearst on an annualized basis then at least with the 6% unemployment, 3% growth, you know you have a reasonable grounds for believing the economy is relatively healthy and so you can embark upon real deficit reduction. if you do it too early you risk what europe has created and in europe, you know, that's an austerity problem -- they tried to deal with their deficit. they did it much too early. as a result, their entire economy is shrinking. >> eliot: in fact, not only is their economy shrinking but their debt as a percent of gdp is increasing. it has the contrary effect which those who want to of reduce the deficit want to have. that's why you're saying thread the needle, invest now to generate growth which will then take us out of the crisis we're facing. does the president get this? will he stand up tomorrow and say jobs, jobs, jobs or will he fall for this -- false desire to craft grand bargain right now?

>> well, i think that he does feel that some sort of ground bargain is important to achieve and i think that's right. as long as we understand the pacing, the sequencing. as long as we understand we don't want to do it now. if those triggers are in the legislation, any legislation that comes up, so we don't find ourselves in the austerity trap so that we wait until the economy's back on track i think it is perfectly fine. the president ought to say tomorrow that jobs are the number one priority. getting the economy back on track, getting growth back is the number one priority. we don't accomplish that by attacking the budget deficit too early. we accomplish that by being very very clear that our goal has got to be enough aggregate demand. that is consumers businesses, government, all contributing to aggregate demand until the economy's healthy. >> eliot: one of the terms in -- things in terms of sequencing the president maximizes his leverage almost by letting the bush tax cuts expire. wait until january 1.

then the middle class and the wealthy tax cuts have expired. and then he can send up a bill to the congress that says cut middle class tax cuts. i'm going to send. >> tax cut and it is up to the republicans to vote against that. is that not a better visual and optic dynamic to have than trying to argue to increase taxes on the rich? >> i think that's probably true, eliot. particularly if the bill he finally sends up, he and he makes it clear, he will finally send up a bill. there will finally be agreement retroactive to january 1 2013, everybody knows there won't be a fiscal cliff. at most, it will be a gentle hill and that is going to take account of what the economy needs. >> eliot: right. the thing that we heard from speaker boehner today it seemed to me to be an extension of what we had been hearing over the course of the campaign. increased revenue but no increased marginal rates. that seems to buy into what mitt romney had been trying to persuade us. there is a way you can rejiggle the tax code to give you the revenue but nobody's rates would go up which would be nice but

does it make sense to you since they adamantly refuse to close the loopholes that are the only route to doing that? >> no. and even if they were to come up, somewhere down the road with some loophole closers some deduction limits, that is still mathematically not going to do it. there's no way you can actually, again, get the deficit under control when we want to get the deficit under control. there's no way you can do that with limits on deductions and loopholes. there does have to be an increase in the marginal rate on the very rich. that's something republicans don't want to admit. what they are counting on is this whole supply-side mythology that if you simply keep taxes low on the rich, the economy grows faster and that growth almost by magic in fact, it is magic creates enough revenues to get you out of any kind of budget deficit problem. that's not going to work. what the president needs to do is stick to his vision. tax cuts do have to be limited to the middle class.

the wealthy they don't need the tax cuts. if they don't get the tax cuts, the cbo said today that's okay. we're still going to have as much economic growth, almost as much, as much job creation, even if the wealthy are excluded from the bush tax cuts. that's the package that has to be -- the president's package and again, he's got to make it very clear that jobs and economic growth are the first priority. >> eliot: look, you have said it before and said it frequently and it is so important the growth will be driven by middle class spending, not spending at the very top of the economic spectrum. percentage of income, those at the very top don't buy that much in terms of consumption. you can increase their tax rate without hindering growth, not so for the middle class. >> the critical understanding here is that the rich are not job creators. the middle class creates jobs through their spending, through their consumption. that's the way an economy works. this notion of job craig creators being the very, very wealthy is absurd. it doesn't work -- a trickle

down economics has been shown to be completely false. >> eliot: fascinating just last week, a couple of days ago the congressional research service, a nonideological straight down the middle analytical outfit did a report that concluded that. the republicans insisted they pull the report because they said it must be flawed. of course, it wasn't. it was the data proving exactly what you've just said, professor. >> they don't want to look at the data. it is like their theory of evolution and global warming. they refuse to look at the data. the economics are very, very clear. trickle down economics is bunk. the rich do not create jobs. you have to have a large buoyant middle class with money in their pockets to turn around and buy. that creates jobs. >> eliot: all right. one question, has the white house called you yet and said we want you back to be the chairman of the economic advisors because we want you there to persuade the president and everybody around him that what you have just articulated is what we need to hear tomorrow. >> no but i'm sure the president is watching this program. >> eliot: we will send him a tape. he may not be watching this

program but i know he reads your stuff. we appreciate that. anything else you would like to hear the president say tomorrow. any other sector of the economy in particular he should focus on? >> the president should make some political hay by doing something that is very good policy. it has to do with one of your favorite topics, eliot. that's wall street. i think if the president -- maybe not tomorrow but very soon called for a cap on the size of the biggest banks and a resurrection of glass -- a lot of support would come from democrats and republicans. they don't like the fact that the biggest banks are bigger than they were when the economy almost melted down because of the financial crisis. there is a lot of support for that. >> eliot: worse now than before the crisis. you're exactly right. i, for one am hoping the president asks you to come back. robert reich, professor at goldman school of public policy, as always, thank you for joining us. >> thank you investment. >> eliot: another crushing defeat. what's next form the republican party?

more "viewpoint" coming up. thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will let me say anything.

>> eliot: after four years of obstructionism and millions trying to unseat president obama, republicans are now at a crossroads. stay extreme and lose relevance or go moderate and risk splitting the party. errol louis and tina depue join me next. 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.

>> eliot:. the more we understand about the outcome of this election, the more the republican party looks like the party of angry old white men and the republican party no longer reflects the change in demographics of the country. the grand ole party on a road to on obsolescence. here to join us is the host of of -- errol louis and tina dupuy. tina, let me start with you -- you look at the cross tabs in who voted for the republican party and more importantly, who didn't and then you look at a demographics of this country. they're like going over a cliff unless they fundamentally change themselves do. they know that? do they have the capacity to change? >> that's a really good question. fantastic. they've been talking about how the republican party needs to

have a come to jesus moment. i think they need a come to jesus moment. >> eliot: good answer. >> they need to figure out who they're going forward because the country they wanted back no longer exists. >> eliot: right. >> that's what you see at the -- when people -- fox news, especially, that kind of denial where they're like no, no, no, this isn't really happening. yes, it is. what do they do going forward? >> eliot: they were pretending the numbers coming in weren't real. karl rove should go back to school and study arithmetic again. put that aside. it is one thing for leaders within the republican party to understand they have a problem. it is hard to understand it. do they have the capacity to change? >> not necessarily. because look look at where all of the incentives are for any one individual. karl rove, maybe it was in his interest to be more attuned to what's happening in the country as far as demographic changes. some people gave him $300

million. maybe next time we'll give him $500 million. depending on what he or his backers want there's no particular moment where you have to say hey the elders of the party, well who are they? there's no such body. these are all individuals who are in business for themselves and when you see something like $30 million thrown at pennsylvania, the first thing that went through my shed a bunch of consultants wanted to get one last 10% commission on a bunch of ad buys even though it's not going to necessarily do anything for the candidate. it goes on the microdecisions, over and over and over again. >> eliot: two things. there are some people who still do deny the intellectual argument. if we had only been more conservative. if we had been consistent on our conservatism, we would have won. i think they're dead wrong about that but there is that more theological argument within the republican party. i don't know if there will be a consensus they need to change. take the two issues with respect to gender and the latino block driving apart genter issues.

that's a theological issue. they may not be able to push against the issues of choice. >> but there's also other issues -- i think the most interesting thing that happened tuesday night was that montana just as an example, this is a romney stronghold. he won the state by 13 points. 55% of montanans voted for romney. 75% voted against citizens united saying that in fact, corporations are not people, my friend. so there were -- those -- so there are people who went to -- in montana, who went to the polls and voted for romney but against what he stood for and if they're going to do an autopsy if they're going to like figure out where they go forward they need to look at that stuff too because they don't know who their base is. >> they also need to look at what was listening in. we characterize some of the anti-immigration stances taken by a lot of people. self-deportation and so forth as anti-latino. it will cost the latino voters but there are others listening

in. if you look at where the asian vote -- >> eliot: numbers were shocking. >> so they're going to -- they're going to be in a state of total collapse. >> eliot: every one of the demographic groups that is increasing in size is one they're alienating. white men is the dem graphic that voted for the republican party. that's it. nobody else out of that box did they actually win. you talk about the latino vote growing by leaps and bounds every four years. very significant numbers. can the republican party change its argument about immigration or is it stuck and wetted to these outrageously right wing voices who have rabid views that are in my view, heinous but are driving the policies. >> nothing succeeds like success. somewhere along the line, somebody like a marco rubio before that, we thought it would be martinez, before that we thought it would be somebody else. somebody is going to make the case and demonstrate in the currency that they understand which is winning elections you know, turning voters, getting constituencies that are --

they're on the outs with right now, somebody will have to demonstrate to them this is the way forward. >> eliot: marco rubio could be the most important person in the republican party. if he can't bring them back to a different position and jeb bush and maybe george w. bush, they are the voices that need to say to the republican party on this issue of immigration we've gotten it wrong. we'll have to wait and see if it matters. tina, we're talking billions of dollars spent did. it change votes? >> i don't think so. i covered the whitman and brown campaign and whitman outspent jerry brown by six times and she lost really bad. by 6 points at least. and that -- in california, it never matters if there are billionaires money doesn't matter in california elections but in national elections it always has. the traditional wisdom has now been bucked by this particular election. >> eliot: right. i think of the national spending patterns as well. you saw the sheldon adelsons.

it is not clear to me all of his money, he backed a sequence of losers. somebody ed he was 0-9, all of the money simply bounced off of voter's consciousness. what will those funders say next time? >> you would have to ask sheldon adelson what he thought? i did meet some of these characters at some of the conventions. had a nice long talk with foster friess but what i think they're getting is somebody to listen to them, a place to put their money where their mouth is and where their values are. they may value that more than winning any particular race. >> eliot: even a consultant whom i rarely -- business models, go instead of giving it directly to a political campaign, build a grassroots organization. do something that will mobilize voters. >> koch brothers essentially tried that. >> eliot: let's switch to the other side of the aisle. thankfully the president won. we have an agenda. will climate change be on the agenda as we go forward?

>> said that in his speech. he also mentioned voter reform which i think is a big idea that needs to happen. i think that the wind is really at his back for doing immigration reform. the republican party kind of is at a place right now where they should be -- >> there's an implied deal, arrangement or understanding behind him and mayor bloomberg who he endorsed at the last minute. who knew of knows whether it helped him. it was around climate change. for the president to mention it in the important speech, it is one of the most important speeches other than state of the union or you know, acceptance speech at a convention. your victory night speech? that's not something you can walk back. that climate change, we have to it's sume he means it. >> eliot: it will be interesting to see if the republican party latches on to this so say immigration, climate change, we have to project a different image. who knows. we're reading tea leaves. late play a fun game. susan rice or john kerry who do you think? >> i would say kerry. >> eliot: why because of susan

rice and the benghazi? >> no. because with you know people who know their way around the hill. there is a domestic component to driving foreign policy that can't be overlooked. >> eliot: tina? >> his speech at the convention was an audition piece. >> eliot: not every audition works. >> yes. that was a kerry no one saw before. i was -- in the stadium. people were kind of -- sighed when he got up there. he knocked it out of park. >> eliot: people remembered that. >> he was the surprise sleeper speaker. >> eliot: treasury, tim geithner leaving. does he take somebody from wall street? >> undoubtedly. >> eliot: you think he does? >> absolutely. >> eliot: come on! so many people understand banking finance better than those guys. >> yes. ralph nader. >> eliot: robert rice. i would put him in any cabinet position. host of new york 1 errol louis

and editor tina but dupuy. our special election night of the view finder is ahead. more "viewpoint" coming up. [ forsythe ] we don't just come up here for the view up in alaska. it's the cleanest, clearest water. we find the best sweetest crab for red lobster that we can find. [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's crabfest! the only time of year you can savor 5 succulent crab entrees all under 20 dollars. like a half-pound of tender snow crab paired with savory grilled shrimp, just 12.99. or our hearty crab and roasted garlic seafood bake. [ forsythe ] if i wouldn't put it

on my table at home, i wouldn't bring it in. my name's jon forsythe and i sea food differently.

from silver screens... to flat screens... twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can't resist. [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean. [ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪

>> eliot: i've said it many times. five is the most powerful number in america. five justices on the nine-member supreme court can tell us what our rights are and what they are not. that's why the supreme court was an issue lurking below the surface of the election even though they almost never heard it mentioned outloud. joining me is the author of america's unwritten constitution, yale professor of law and political science, one of the most renowned constitutional scholars of our era, akhil reed amar. professor, thank you for joining us. >> nice to be here. thanks. >> eliot: there has been a dramatic shift in civil rights in particular as it pertains to same-sex marriage. there are a couple of cases before the supreme court this year on that issue. what will the supreme court do? will they find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or find a more limited constitutional prohibition on discrimination against same-sex

couples? >> well, they haven't yet agreed to take a case from california and they could just let things lie in which case a lower court ruling would stand that generates same-sex marriage for california on a very narrow theory that because california at one point has same-sex marriage, you can't take it back. that's unfair to take it back once you've done it. and if they just leave things be then they've got california basically on the same side as now nine other states. the six that we had before basically from new england and iowa. that's connecticut and new york and massachusetts and vermont new hampshire and iowa. then just this week we added washington state and then just -- they would do nothing at all. eventually, have a bunch moreú states jumping on and then the

supreme court can say we have a national consensus trend and the rest of you states, you gotta get on board too. >> eliot: do you think most people would appreciate -- it makes it easier for supreme court and at some point makes it imperative for the supreme court to embrace rights that have bubbled up more organically. that's what we saw on election day with state referenda expanding the marriage. >> the ninth amendment talks about rights of the people. the 14th amendment talks about privileges and immunitieses of citizens. from the citizenry from the people at a certain point. new rights. at a certain point the supreme court says yes this has now become part of the national fabric and you other states have to get on board. think about, for example women's rights. there was a time when it was okay for government to

discriminate against women and then in the 1970s a whole bunch of state constitutions added state eras as in ways that made it very similar to what we saw three days ago. the u.s. supreme court -- a whole bunch of states -- >> eliot: a separate conversation, i want to look at another area where the supreme court -- very quickly might have to pass judgment. that permit -- is there a sense the supreme court and the lower court have gone this way want to say to the government you're going too far on this? >> there are two issues there. one, can anyone actually sue because you don't know if you've been wiretapped and if you can't prove you've been wiretapped, you have standing -- you don't

even know if you've been searched or seized. and then even if you are allowed to come to court you can't prove, national security allows for an exception to other rules that otherwise apply. the fourth amendment in so many words doesn't say you always to have a warrant. when you go to an airport you get searched through the metal-detector and there's no warrant. you can get stopped and frisked on the street. there's no warrant. even if certain people are allowed to bring a suit, the supreme court could say national security foreign surveillance is another exception to the rules. >> eliot: reasonable, that word the courts love to use. reasonable has no definition. you know it when you see it. but that -- you do get a sense of the supreme court. some element of a check the standing issue you alluded to earlier is one of -- they're

beginning to clamp downen the expansiveness with which the executive branch has been able to invade civil rights in any context nearly citing national security. something you care about deeply is the abuse of the filibuster power to stop people from being confirmed once they've been nominated. do you think we may see some reevaluation of that in particular as it relates to judicial nominations? >> yeah, we're talking about the supreme court and the supreme court is going to -- historically has been filled by people who first got on to lower federal courts -- eight of the nine justices today or in alaina kagan's case got confirmed as solicitor general. all of these people who eventually make it to the supreme court have to first make it through some other confirmation process and it really matters whether the rules go through. whether the rules -- if we don't have filibuster reform or -- the

senate, barack obama -- it means a lot to fill the lower federal courts the farm team for the supreme court. >> eliot: there is an argument that the filibuster itself is unconstitutional because it is fundamentally anti-democratic. you have the upper body by the minority. do you think that argument would ever hold water or would the shorts show deference to the rules that the senate can create for itself? >> i'm sympathetic to that. the idea a basic constitutional principle is majority rule. i don't think a court can impose that on the senate. i think that's something that the senate needs to do itself. it needs to clean its own house so to speak and when it does so, it actually would have to pay attention to the constitution even if no court gets involved and the constitutional principle is a principle of majority rule. it is part of the unwritten constitution. it goes out saying and i hope

that the senators begin to see that. >> eliot: hope springs eternal akhil reed amar, thank you for joining us and author of "america's unwritten constitution." thank you. more "viewpoint" coming right up.

world. >> many americans don't realize that the problem exists right here in our own country. >> it's an issue that ultimately effects each and every one of us. >> thats why current is stepping up. >> ... by feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >>... feeding the needy. >> for an entire week we'll explore hunger, malnutrition even obesity. >> ... and offer solutions. >> so join us here at current tv where together, we'll feed the needy. >> brought to you by basf the chemical company.

>> eliot: it wasn't discussed much in the last few weeks of the presidential campaign but it is an ugly world throughout and dealing with it is going to take up an awful lot of the president's time. from the continuing civil war in syria to iran's nuclear threat, crises continue to erupt. joining me now in his second term, marc ginsberg, former u.s. ambassador to morocco who served for middle east policy to jimmy carter. ambassador, as always, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> eliot: the multiple headaches, which one is the migraine that will grab the president? >> the real migraine is iran. no doubt eliot as the president goes back to the white house and he looks at that situation room and he says hey i just won re-election and these problems haven't gone away. the question really is the president going to do what his administration officials have been hinting to the press? and try to strike a grand bargain with iran before the times run out on their nuclear

program. >> eliot: first, what is the time at which time does run out if we know and two, what would that bargain be? >> first of all we better damn well know when that time -- is or else we'll be in real trouble. number two, the time runs out on the grand bargain when the scientists and all of the intelligence operatives basically confirm that the iranians have taken all of that enriched uranium and they're actually moving it and have been able to move it into something that constitutes a nuclear weapon. that's the red line that the president has. not necessarily the red line netanyahu and the israelis have. >> eliot: do you think the white house is ready to launch a military strike if it thinks that red shrine about to be crossed? >> yeah. i think the president's credibility on this has been -- i accept it totally. that when that line is crossed that the united states will act. however, with that said, the fact of the matter is that the president does not and justifiably does not want to go to war if -- if there is a way

of stopping iran from -- through negotiations from reaching that point. >> eliot: explain what that bargain would be that gives iran something so that they permit us to confirm through genuine inspection that they have stopped the enrichment prior to reaching the red line? >> well, the following elements. one that they can continue a nuclear program that does not enrich uranium above 20% for peaceful purposes. number two, that sanctions would be lifted if they agree to transfer any enriched uranium to a third country. that they renounce any intention to build a nuclear weapon and if they open up all of their facilities to nuclear inspection including the secret facilities and that the united states probably from iran's perspective, agrees that we're not going to pursue regime change. >> eliot: okay, do you think there is more than a 10% likelihood that bargain can be struck? >> i would say that right now that the chances are no more

than 20%. >> eliot: which means that close to 80% there is some form of military strike against iran within the next year because that seems to be the timeframe everybody's talking about for the red line. >> the fact of the matter is unless the ayatollah says to the president i'm interested in a secret negotiation with you i want to reach an agreement these are the conditions, the problem is, eliot these elements of this type of agreement have been sitting out there for over a year and a half and the president has been very clear in his offer to the iranians that we can do a deal if you're prepared. >> eliot: iran has yet to say yes. >> they've done everything possible to avoid saying yes. >> eliot: okay. i agree with you. this is a big migraine. this is a multiple excedrin migraine. i presume syria. >> syria is a problem for the president for three reasons. one, the civil war at this point in time is now affecting the entire -- infecting the entire region. refugees, attacks on turkey, turkey not wanting to create

no-fly zones. >> eliot: turkey wanting to put up patriot missiles. >> exactly. secretary clinton, in one of her last acts as secretary of state is trying to forge an agreement whereby there would an more cohesive, syrian opposition that would have the credibility internationally to take over -- when and if assad falls. >> eliot: why does it take our intervention to do that? it would seem to me it is in the interest of the opposition forces. why have they been unable on their own to form some more cohesive element? >> well, one principal reason, there is no one leader that has the stature and credibility among all of the groups of syrians fighting the regime to rise up and say i'm your george washington. i can't name him. you can't name him. that's been run of the great challenges. you have exile groups, others, vying for control. >> eliot: so much more to talk about. who will our next secretary of state be? who should it be and does it matter and by does it matter, i

mean does the -- do the parameters of the foreign policy change to any great extent based upon who the secretary of state is these days? >> i think the president has to make a very important decision. his first administration was largely a foreign policy based on tactical advances and a doctrine in which he was trying to create, conditions whereby the united states would be able to in effect, solve our problems with the muslim world. that has not succeeded. he wants to have this time -- secretary of state will fulfill the aspirations he laid down in his first term. that will take someone who is fully engaged from top to bottom drills down and works -- in my judgment, all of the names that have been mentioned are terrific people. i'll tell you who my choice is. take one clinton who's going to resign and put the other clinton in as secretary of state. now, the president -- and former president clinton have forged this unique relationship. >> eliot: right. >> i personally think that if bill clinton were able to step in, you would have an israeli/palestinian negotiation underway. he would be able to deal with

the ayatollah. you would have him dealing with the chinese. the president would have a lot of the aggravation factor taken off the table. the question is in the end -- >> eliot: bill clinton would say so, mr. president, thank you. i got you re-elected. now you're giving me the most impossible job in the world. what kind of thanks is that? >> his wife took it. just think of the stationery saves. >> eliot: marc ginsberg, thanks for your time tonight. the longer the president waits the more leverage he has in the fiscal cliff negotiations. next in my view. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

larry. i was surprised to hear there was no life insurance. funerals are so expensive. i hope larry can afford it. i know. that's why i'm glad i got a policy through the colonial penn program. do you think they have coverage for me... you can get permanent coverage for less than 35 cents a day. you won't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. plus, your costs will never go up and your coverage will never go down. if you're between 50 and 85, for less than 35 cents a day. there are no health questions or medical exam. you cannot be turned down because of your health. so call about the colonial penn program, and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs.

rr >> eliot: the sink not yet dry on the election returns yet the conventional wisdom, those folks in media outlets whose very policies created the fiscal mess we now face is the dreaded fiscal cliff must be confronted now. no delay. do not pass go. go directly to grand bargain. my instinct is to pause and reflect whenever conventional wisdom is so uniform. and now is one such instance. look the fiscal cliff is a real threat. sequestration of $109 billion on spending and automatic tax hikes of $500 billion could seriously dent our nation's economic recovery. doing nothing in the long-term would be horrendous but doing nothing in the next seven weeks might have an advantage.

the president has said that the bush tax cuts on the wealthy cannot be renewed as part of a grand bargain. he is right. for both economic and ethical reasons. tax rates for the wealthy should revert to clinton era levels both because it is necessary for long-term deficit reduction and because fairness dictates it. moreover, there is no proof that higher marginal rights dissuade any investment, all the rhetoric from the right not withstanding. if we wait until january 1 to act, the bush tax cuts expire meaning rates for the middle class and wealthy revert to clinton era levels and the president can send the new congress a tax bill that cuts middle class tax rates and incorporates other elements of an answer to the fiscal cliff. but simply ignores tax rates on wealthy and hence leaves them at clinton era levels. doing nothing after january 1 gives the president what he wants and what he has pledged to do. the president gave all of the leverage -- before january 1 the deal the president wants requires that he and democrats

appear to support a tax increase on some. after january 1 the package the president wants requires the republicans to oppose a tax cut for the middle class. and the president merely to oppose a tax cut for the wealthy. this is more than optics. it is a fundamental change in how the game will play out. who has leverage. usually, waiting and delay are the enemy of progress. in this instance, they may be the friend. that's my view.

>> eliot: republicans probably don't ever want to relive election night 2012. here is "viewpoint." we can't resist taking just one more look. in this, our special election day wrap-up edition of the viewfinder.

>> a nation votes. >> ohio decides! >> the represidenting of america. >> my prediction this election will be like my house boy here, all tied up until tomorrow. [ laughter ] >> we remind everyone how many people around the world die literally die for the right to do what we have all done today and we are being watched around the globe tonight as we said earlier, countries from mexico to britain from india to brazil. >> basically in america, there are only two kinds of voters. probably two in other countries as well. male voters and female voters. >> if he wins tonight hurricane sandy is one of the reasons. >> i'm so glad we had that storm last week because i think the storm was one of those things --

no politically, i should say. not in terms of hurting people. >> fox news can now project mitt romney will carry kentucky. a socially conservative rich. >> in the state of alabama, we project mitt romney is the winner in alabama with its nine electoral votes. >> mitt romney will win tennessee. >> we project kansas will be won by mitt romney, the republican presidential nominee. continuing other states. louisiana in the south. eight electoral votes. mitt romney will carry louisiana. >> good news for mitt romney. he has won tonight. we can announce this. most of the confederacy. >> i'm still confident that virginia and north carolina are going to swing to mitt romney before the evening is over. i think what we saw august 1st with all of those people going out to get a chicken sandwich, chick-fil-a day was dress rehearsal for today. >> it is not a traditional america. there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff.

they want things. and who is going to give them things. president obama. >> another major major projection cnn now projects pennsylvania will be won by the president of the united states. >> now that pennsylvania has gone blue, if ohio goes blue, what's mitt romney's path to the white house? >> my silent majority that i hoped would be there not only silent but invisible. it is looking very tough right now. for mitt romney. >> you, you know, having managed the michael dukakis campaign are familiar with it. your thoughts on what's going on right now at the headquarters of each campaign. >> giving. >> little bit of what you see here. that's wycliff jean giving an interview. he's one of the many surrogates, you could say -- well, i am,

good grief. i'm tired. it is will i am. i'm mixing up my artists here. >> what happened here if what indeed appears to be happening turns out to be so. >> you can hear the tone among some of our republican guests that they're feeling pessimistic. are you feeling pessimistic? >> if you keep this up -- 58.3% of the vote. the republican -- what romney was down 3.25%. they got to 58.5. he's now down by 3%. >> is this just math that you do as a republican to make yourself feel better or is this real and you genuinely think -- >> absolutely. >> governor, do you watch the races come in, your thoughts. >> well, i'm disappointed in some of them, of course. cross my fingers waiting to hear about ohio. >> fox news can now project that president obama will win the crucial battleground state of ohio.

long considered to be the harbinger of -- for the nation with its 18 electoral votes. ohio, this was the entire ball game. major setback obviously for governor romney whose path to 270 electoral votes needed just got considerably narrower. >> cnn projected barack obama will be re-elected president of the united states. >> the colbert report is ready to project that cnn has projected that animal planet has predicted that the winner of the 2012 presidential election is barack obama. >> what does that mean? does that mean -- >> that's it. >> essentially, barack obama is -- >> house of representatives republicans, senate democrats presidency, barack obama. two years. $3 billion. and we're clearly in the same [ bleep ] we were. when it started.

>> i'm going to ask you a straightup question. you went through this in 2000. you almost went through it in 2004. do you believe that ohio has been settled? >> no, i don't. >> right now karl rove is challenging fox news's own polling unit and telling them they're wrong. >> we'll do a little interrogation and see if they stand by their call, not withstanding the doubt that karl rove is attempting to place. >> now here are the guys. this is the decision desk. now, we're at the decision desk room. you tell me do you stand by your call on ohio given the doubts karl rove raised? >> we're quite comfortable with the call in ohio. >> as a psychiatrist, i will offer to write prescriptions for anyone who needs them right now. write me at fox news. >> eliot: i think it may be the folks at fox news who need the prescriptions. first they have