ction, 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.

smiles make more smiles. when the chocolate is hershey's. life is delicious.

[ 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 more 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.

[ 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.

what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone is ready with the know-how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪ ♪ when we think of hunger we often picture people in the third 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. now to my point. (vo) jennifer granholm ... >>for every discouraged voter, 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. ññrrrrenttv