the first technology of its kind... mom and dad, i have great news. is now providing answers families need. siemens. answers. this morning a $2 billion blunder. the nation's biggest bank, jp morgan chase, lost big on a trading bet. raising new questions and fears about whether wall street has changed at all since the financial collapse. how did this happen, and will it give new ammunition to washington regulators who want to change the way big banks work? this morning my exclusive interview with the man at the center of the storm, the bank's ceo jamie dimon, who also talks about the economy and the 2012 campaign. plus reaction from perspective from andrew ross sorkin of "the new york times" and cnbc as well as senator carl levin, who is spearheading financial reform on

capitol hill. then the gay marriage debate. it all started here last sunday with vice president biden. >> i am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying are entitled to the same exact rights. >> as you know, within days, the president changed his own view, making history and headlines. the big questions now, has anything changed? how will the president's support for gay marriage impact the presidential race? with us, chairman of the republican party reince priebus, and analysis from our roundtable. msnbc's chris matthews. from "the washington post" jonathan capehart, and columnist kathleen parker. democratic lieutenant governor of california, gavin newsom. from the american conservative union, al cardenas.

and good morning. what a week it has been. one thing that is clear is that, before the vice president made his remarks on "meet the press" last sunday, same-sex marriage was not front and center in the presidential campaign. that's changed. governor romney talking about it yesterday at a commencement speech, the president talking about it a great deal. and certainly the vice president's remarks kickstarted that conversation, and there's been a lot of palace intrigue about whether the president was upset about what his vice president did. "saturday night live" gave it some pretty funny treatment in its skit last night. we'll talk about the laugh lines and do that with our roundtable a little later on in the hour. here's what i think people are going to be talking about in the week ahead, and that is the coming clash between washington and wall street. why? you've seen the headlines this week that came from jp morgan chase, the nation's biggest bank. it lost $2 billion in trading losses because of risky bets. the man at the very top, bank

chairman and ceo jamie dimon, very powerful figure on wall street and beyond, often outspoken, no stranger to washington. he made the announcement about that loss on thursday afternoon, and after the markets closed on friday, he sat down with me in new york. >> a few weeks ago, you dismissed all of this as a, quote, tempest in a teapot. you've changed your view about this. how much worse will this get? >> first of all, i was dead wrong when i said that. i obviously didn't know or i never would have said that. and one of the reasons it became public is we wanted to say, you know what, we told you something completely wrong a mere four weeks ago. we took a $2 billion loss, and we made it clear it could get worse before it gets better. i do want to put in perspective the company is going to earn a lot of money this quarter. it's a very strong company. we made a terrible, egregious mistake, and there's almost no excuse for it. >> how did this happen?

there were reports about questions that were being raised about the kind of hedging jpmorgan is doing. did you ignore warning signs about this? were you in denial about it? did you just miss it? >> i think it's those warning signals you look back at today, and those red flags, that particular red flag, we made a mistake. we got very defensive, and people started justifying everything we did. the benefit in life is to say maybe we made a mistake. let's dig deep. the mistake had been brewing for a while. it wasn't just any one thing. >> the immediate question, the s.e.c. is looking into this, did the bank break any laws? did it violate any accounting rules or s.e.c. rules? >> we've had audits, legal, risk, compliance, some of our best people looking over that. we know we were sloppy. we know we were stupid. we know it was bad judgment. we don't know if any of that is true yet. regulators should look at something like this. that's their job. we welcome the regulators, and they will come to their own

conclusions. we intend to fix it, learn from it, and be a better company when it's done. >> in the simplest way you can, what was what you call the screw-up? what was the screw-up? >> banks either make loans or invest the money in securities. we have a huge securities portfolio. we're a big bank. the securities portfolio had an unrealized gain of $8 billion. in how we manage that portfolio, we did lose $2 billion trading. in hindsight, we took far too much risk. the strategy we had was barely vetted. it was barely monitored. it should never have happened. >> so here you are, jamie dimon. you've got a sterling reputation. why? because say, he knows how to manage risk better than anybody. you're known as the guy who ably led jpmorgan chase through the worst financial collapse since the great depression. how does a guy like you make this mistake? >> anyone in business knows you always make mistakes. you just said that about me. i never said that. if you read all my chairman's letters, we always talk about what we did wrong. always what we did wrong, how we can get better. nobody in business doesn't make

a mistake. this is a terrible mistake. i'm not making an excuse for that. we know we're going to make mistakes. in this job, you hope they're small and few and far between. this one is far too big. >> but if this happened at jpmorgan chase, which really understood how to manage risk, what about all the other banks out there? if somebody else had made a mistake like this, would we again be talking about too big to fail and taxpayer bailout? >> it's an important point. we support getting rid of too big to fail. it's very important -- this is not going to even -- we make money and have tons of capital. we support too big to fail. we want the government to take down a big bank like jpmorgan, and it can be done. we think dodd-frank gave the s.e.c. authority to take down a big bank. what it happens, the board should be fired, equity should be wiped out, and the bank should be dismantled, and the name should be buried in disgrace. that's what i believe. we need to put that back in the

system, and we're working with regulators to get that back into the system. >> but you're the most outspoken advocate, saying there's too much regulation. washington doesn't understand it. you oppose the volcker rule which says just this, that a bank should not be betting its own money to perhaps enrich itself. it should only be trying to manage or minimize losses. >> that's all completely untrue. if anyone would like to check the documents that i actually write every year in my chairman's letter, which i write myself, i get help. we have supported 70% or so of dodd-frank. we supported resolution authority. we support higher capital and liquidity. jpmorgan always had higher capital liquidity, that's partially to make up for mistakes and problems. obviously, it's a tough economy. we support an oversight committee. we support new compensation rules. we've already followed most of them. we support a lot of it. >> why wouldn't the new regulation that's being talked about changing the way banks do business, changing the way banks can, quote, unquote, hedge their bets, why wouldn't that have stopped something like this? >> specifically, hedging should

make your bank less risky. in this particular case, we made a terrible mistake. but our biggest exposure, you know what they are? loans. you're not going to make banks risk free, but we agree with the standards that make it safer. a lot of things in dodd-frank will accomplish that purpose. >> have you given regulators new ammunition against the banks? >> absolutely. this is a very unfortunate and inopportune time to have this kind of mistake. >> if the best of the best can't manage a risk like this, does it not tell you the banking system is still, several years out from the financial collapse, too risky? >> i don't think so. the question aside, this is not a risk which is life-threatening to jpmorgan. this is a stupid thing we should never have done, but we're still going to earn a lot of money this quarter. it's not like this company is jeopardized. we hurt ourselves and our credibility, yes, and we've got to fully expect that and pay for the price for that. >> let me explain, that was the first part of our interview with mr. dimon that i did friday afternoon after the big headlines came out, after the

markets closed on friday. i had previously scheduled an interview with mr. dimon that i did with him earlier in the week before all this news came out, where we talked about some other things. once that happened and the news broke, i said to mr. dimon, i'd like to do a second interview. that's what we did, and you just saw that. this is a portion of the previous interview, during which we talk about the broader economy, the 2012 campaign, and america's lingering frustration with the big banks. a lot of americans are galled by the fact that the american worker is still struggling, and yet banks like yours are making a lot of money. your compensation north of $20 million has been published in reports. do you understand that frustration? >> sure. people have asked me about occupy wall street, and i said that, surprisingly, if the average american has the right to say that the institutions of

america let me down -- and that's true. i think, if the average american says that predominantly washington and wall street broadly defined, i think that's true too. washington and wall street epicenter, i blame both of them, a lot of policies and procedures. i think, when you go beyond that and start to blame every single banker and every single politician, and every single person, that's not true. a lot of banks were a port in the storm. a lot needed to be bailed out. bear stearns, wamu. wells fargo bought wachovia and did everything to help, financing cities, states, hospitals. that should be recognized too. i understand that frustration. i understand that frustration in equity. we've become a little more inequitable. i don't think it's a good long-term thing for society. i'm in favor of progressive taxation. >> the buffett rule, for instance. >> i don't understand the buffett rule exactly. >> more taxes on capital gains. >> i think most people on wall street would be happy to have the bush tax cut go away and pay higher capital gains if they thought it was a part of a plan to fix everything. i do believe that. that's why, in effect, attacking is not the right thing.

they're willing to do their part. they should appeal to people's better nature. you're well paid. you benefitted from this great country. you need to give a little bit more for now to help lift the country up. anyway, i do understand the anger. but we need solutions. you know, finger pointing, scapegoating, yelling and screaming, never seems to help. >> how about accountability? stories about the bank fees, atm fees being passed on to consumers. more regulation? it's going to be passed on to the consumer. you hear it over and over again from critics that say, you know what, wall street brought down the economy. nobody's gone to jail. is that a misplaced criticism? >> no. there is a sense that there's no -- old testament justice here, that no one was punished. look, i think there's -- you can say these bad actors should be punished. don't punish the actors. not everyone on wall street was bad. not all media is bad. i like you.

i trust you actually. not all politicians are bad. there's some fabulously smart, bright people in washington. i don't like this attitude to just blame everybody. if you think somebody did something wrong, go get those people that did something wrong and blame them. in the meantime, those of us should get together, hold hands, collaborate, business and government together to fix the problem. it's very hard for the government to do this on its own, and business can't do it without the collaboration of the government. >> let's talk about the economy, and probably the biggest political economic question of this campaign, is america better off now than it was four years ago? >> that's a really good question. i'll give you a little historical context. america has the best economy in the world. best military, best universities, our businesses are the envy of the rest of the world. i'm talking about small, medium, and large. largest and deepest markets. hardest working entrepreneurial force, from steve jobs to the factory floor. we're dealt a good hand. when the economy is stronger, it's very hard to measure the economy versus four years ago. >> you made the point, even

though the economy is getting stronger, we could be doing a lot better. how? >> let me go back a little bit. we had a crisis. we should acknowledge that. president bush and president obama took extraordinary measures the old fashioned american way. they did a lot of things that wouldn't be done normally, but they stopped the system from getting dramatically worse, and that's true. i think in the last two years, and i can never prove this, the debt ceiling crisis, the failure to do anything in simpson-bowles. if you travel around and you see for yourself, this huge regulatory push -- i'm not talking about financial, just in general. the lack of fiscal certainty, tax certainty, i think those things have hurt the ability to grow. we've been growing, but i think it would have been faster had we gotten those basic things right. >> you supported president obama. you're a democrat. still? >> i would call myself a barely democrat at this point. i didn't support anyone last time around. i'm on the new york fed board. i'm not allowed to. but i am a democrat, yes. >> so what happened? why barely a democrat now? >> i've gotten disturbed at some

of the democrats' behavior, anti-business behavior, the sentiment, the attacks on work ethic and successful people. i think it's very counterproductive. it doesn't mean i don't have their values. i want jobs. i want a more equitable society. i don't mind paying higher taxes. i don't mind lifting up our -- i do think we're our brother's keeper, but i think attacking that which creates all things is not the right way to go about it. >> do you think this has been an anti-business administration? we haven't seen that photo-op in the rose garden of the president surrounded by you and others from the financial system and big industrialists and other ceos saying, we're in common cause here and common effort to attack this recession. >> i think it's true to say we haven't had a true common collaboration, and i really believe in collaboration. to me, it's not democrat or republican. what is it that works to get america growing again so that people can grow and get educated and have the opportunity in jobs? that is not democrat or republican. if any democrat or republican

tells me they own that, they don't. that's a practical thing. i don't blame that on the president, but i do think the democrats were so tough on the republicans, you're seeing a little bit of that give-back at this point. you don't learn that at harvard business school, you learn that in the school yard. you beat up my buddy, i'm going to beat up yours. i understand why it's partisan, but i wish they'd all put their knives down and get back to work for the american public. >> to you, that's simple. you said that in the past couple of weeks, there's a simple solution that would help the economy. the debt reduction deal. simpson-bowles commission. the president's debt reduction commission that he didn't push, republicans opposed. it's gone nowhere. >> i don't know the inside story. i have read the stories. it's hard to tell. i personally don't care. i wish they'd split the difference in half at one point. if you read, i hope the american public reads simpson-bowles. i think it's a fantastic road map to fix social security, to

have fair taxation, which is progressive, but gets rid of a lot of tax entitlements. i think those things, if we do something like simpson-bowles, america can come back. it can make decisions. it will show we're doing the right thing, and certainty around taxes and a more efficient taxism will help growth. i think you'll fix the future problem. you won't create a fiscal cliff now. you'll fix a lot of other issues, and it will show the americans we're back. it will have to do something like that. >> you can see the full interview with jamie dimon, including additional thoughts on mitt romney, the campaign, as well as the crisis in europe on our press pass on meetthepress.msnbc.com. joining me now is carl levin, the democrats' top watchdog on these matters, chairman of the investigation subcommittee, and financial times columnist andrew ross sorkin, who wrote the book "too big to fail." welcome to both of you. senator, i want to start with you. as you react to what you heard from jamie dimon, where does this go next?

>> going to the regulators. they're going to decide by july whether or not we're going to have strong regulations as the law requires or whether or not those regulations are going to be unrung by a massive lobbying effort from wall street to weaken the regulations, to put in a huge loophole into the regulations which would allow the kind of risky bets to be made, which the law says should not be made. we wrote a law. the volcker rule at times, senator murphy and i wrote the language in the bill that ended up in the bill, and we prohibit the kind of bets that were made here. there's two exceptions. one is hedging. we define hedging, and that's reducing risk, not increasing risk, and we also allow market making. as you just heard from mr. dimon himself, this was not a risk reducing activity that they engaged in. this increased their risk. we've got to be very, very careful that the regulators here are not undermined by this huge

effort to weaken the rule by putting in a huge loophole which is called portfolio edging. >> i'll get into that in just a second. do you accept jamie dimon's accountability for this? elizabeth warren, who was the chairwoman of the congressional oversight panel on t.a.r.p., has called for him to resign his post on the new york fed, while a lot of the regulatory regime has worked out. what do you say about that? >> i think the issue here is the power of the banks and whether or not we're going to regulate those banks and put a cop back on wall street. i think this is an issue which is not involving personalities and should not involve personalities, and so i don't get into that. the issue is whether we are going to stick with the law as written, which will prevent us from bailing out banks again. the only way to do that is to

make sure they don't take the kind of risks we're taking here. >> what price should be paid? jamie dimon said at the end of that interview we should pay a price for that. what's the price? >> the price will be that they will lose their battle in washington to weaken the rule. that is the real price. in terms of past activities, that's in the hands of people who are assessing whether or not there's any criminal wrongdoing. that's still in the hands, as far as i know, of the justice daentd the -- of the department and the new york regulators. >> but you agree with him that he's created ammunition to regulators? >> yeah, and the real problem here is the battle is not just between washington and wall street, which is what your opening statement said. the battle is inside of washington. some of the regulators, we believe, including the ones who are regulating the trades, want to actually carry out the law as written, but some of the folks that regulate the banks, such as the treasury, are willing to weaken the law. the draft rule has the loophole in it.

we're trying to reverse that draft rule and to make sure it carries out the intent of the law as written. >> let me bring in andrew ross sorkin. why is it americans should be taking note of this as the rest of wall street and washington is? >> the issue as to why we should really care, if jamie dimon, who's been exalted as one of the great -- as you said in your interview with him -- one of the great risk managers can make a mistake, we've got a problem because it means that other banks could also make a mistake, and they could make a mistake on a much grander scale. who gets left holding the bag if that happens? the taxpayers. the question is are these institutions still too big to fail? in many cases, i would actually say this scenario suggests they may still be too big to manage. that's what we're working against to figure out how can we deal with all this complexity? the complexity is still in the system. this was about credit default

swaps. that's what these trades were. this is about betting with the company money. this was a bit of the casino element that we've been trying to pull back on since the crisis. >> and the risk in all of that, jamie dimon says, look, we're still making a lot of money this quarter. we manage a huge portfolio that has made a lot of money. jpmorgan chase is not in danger of collapse, it is just that we made a big mistake here. >> it's a big mistake, and by the way, i give him enormous credit for coming out and saying mea culpa. i know a number of ceos that you wouldn't have heard about it until the end of the quarter. he came out not the phone and said, we have a problem. that's the good news. the bad news is would other ceos say that? would the system know that? by the way, this was a $2 billion loss, which seems like a lot, but this actually underscores the point. it was a $100 billion bet. the firm had made a $100 billion

bet that went down 2%. the stock market can go up and down 2% in a week unfortunately these days, but it becomes magnified because the bank is making such a big bet. and the question is should the firms be able to make such a big bet? in this case, they thought they were hedging their risk. they thought they were reducing their risk, and they made a mistake, and they were wrong. if they were wrong, others can be wrong too. >> final point, senator levin. what assurance can you give the american people that, if regulators get everything they want, if there is the volcker rule that changes the way these kinds of bets that can be made, that this could have been prevented? >> it would be prevented because these are the kinds of bets that put us into the soup to begin with. if we can prevent these kinds of bets being made, we can avoid ever again bailing out banks. we bailed out this bank. tens of billions of dollars went to this bank before, and we don't want it to happen again. that's why we want regulators to be strong. we can't allow wall street to undermine this regulation that

must be written to carry out the specific language in the volcker rule. >> they pointed out they didn't need that bailout money. they took it over their opposition to it. but your point is, if another bailout has to occur, the stakes are enormous for the economy. >> for the economy and the taxpayers, by the way. who paid the price of this recession? it's the taxpayers because these banks and their deposits are backed up by the fdic, but it's also the economy as a whole because we had to bailout some of these banks. they can say they didn't want the money. some of them maybe can say that. some of them desperately did need the money, but we can't allow it to happen again. >> quick point, andrew. >> we said that we created all these new laws to avoid the too big to fail problem. jamie dimon has said, i support winding down a failing bank. the question is the size and scale. if a bank the size of jpmorgan -- and they are not in trouble, but if they were to get in trouble, would the laws really work? that's the big question mark. we will not know until we get

there. that's where the anxiety lies. >> we'll leave it there. andrew ross sorkin, thank you very much. senator carl levin, thank you as well. coming up here, we'll have more reaction to jamie dimon's comments as we go through the hour. and an overview of the fall campaign. joining me for that, the chairman of the republican party, reince priebus. coming up a little bit later on, a special roundtable on the politics of same-sex marriage after president obama's personal support on the issue this week, has anything really changed? all coming up. >> announcer: "meet the press" is sponsored by ge, imagination at work. this is an rc robotic claw. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller.

over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪ and then treats day after day... who gets heartburn and that's pretty cool. well, shoot, that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

wow. this is new. yep. i'm sending the dancing chicken to every store in the franchise to get the word out. that could work. or you could use every door direct mail from the postal service. it'll help you and all your franchisees find the customers that matter most: the ones in the neighborhood. you print it or find a local partner. great. keep it moving honey. honey? that's my wife. wow. there you go. there you go. [ male announcer ] go online to reach every home, every address, every time with every door direct mail.

coming up, after president obama voices support for same sex marriage, will it have any effect on the race for the white house? i will ask the chairman of the republican party, reince priebus. he's here and up next.

and i thought "i can't do this, it's just too hard." then there was a moment. when i decided to find a way to keep going. go for olympic gold and go to college too. [ male announcer ] every day we help students earn their bachelor's or master's degree for tomorrow's careers. this is your moment. let nothing stand in your way. devry university, proud to support the education of our u.s. olympic team. is this where we're at now? we just eat whatever tastes good? like these sweet honey clusters... actually there's a half a day's worth of fiber in every ... why stop at cereal? bring on the pork chops and the hot fudge. fantastic. are you done sweetie? yea [ male announcer ] fiber one. are you done sweetie? yea

if you made a list of countries from around the world... ...with the best math scores. ...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this.

marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. >> that, of course, mitt romney speaking yesterday at commencement at liberty university, founded by jerry falwell in virginia talking about the gay marriage debate. joining me now, the chair of the republican party reince priebus. good to have you back on the program. >> thank you.

>> a lot has changed in the marriage debate over the past week because of the president sitting right where you're sitting now. will this be a defining issue for your party in the fall? >> i'm not sure it's going to be a defining issue, but clearly for people in america where gay marriage is the number one issue, we clearly have two candidates. on the one hand, you have barack obama, who is now going to promote and perhaps crusade for this issue. we have mitt romney who's been consistent, and i think in line with most americans, which is that marriage ought to be defined between one man and one woman. for those people that this is their issue, they have a clear choice. but i happen to believe that, at the end of the day, however, this election is still going to be about the economy and whether or not this president fulfilled the promises that he made to the american people, which he clearly didn't. >> do republicans tread carefully on this issue because there's been -- i've just been

looking at the polling going back eight years. there's a 20-point swing in approval. a larger number of americans in favor of gay marriage than they were four years earlier. >> i don't doubt your polling. and i don't doubt calling 400 and 600 people and releasing these ruts. if you look at the 32 states across america where people are actually asked this question, do you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, in every single case, including north carolina, the answer was yes. >> so you believe there's no question anymore that mitt romney can get social conservatives on board because of this issue? >> i don't know if it's because of this issue, but certainly social conservatives and people around the country that agree that marriage is a unique definition, an explanation of historical and religious union between a man and a woman, for those people and if that's their issue, this is a clear choice. mitt romney is the person who believes marriage is between a man and a woman. >> let's talk about how

different people are talking about this, including some republicans. senator rand paul is getting a lot of attention and criticism for a comment he made on friday. let me show you this. >> the president recently weighed in on marriage, and he said his views were evolving on marriage. call me cynical, but i wasn't sure that his views on marriage could get any gayer. >> as chairman of the party, do you think that's appropriate? an appropriate way to talk about this issue? >> i don't know what rand, what he meant by that. i'm here to defend the republican party, and i can defend our nominee mitt romney. but here's what i do think. >> but you look at that particular comment, would you be pleased if republicans talk about it in that way? >> here's what i know. mitt romney is a gracious, caring person who believes that every individual in this country, including people who are gay, deserve the dignity and respect that every american deserves, but that doesn't

change the fact that we believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. >> do you think the fight for gay marriage is a civil rights struggle? >> i don't think it's a matter of civil rights. i think it's a matter of whether or not we're going to adhere to something that's been historical and religious and legal in this country for many, many years. marriage has to have a definition. we just happen to believe it's between a man and a woman. >> for those people who do think it's a civil right, all those things you just said could have been said about jim crow's laws, except the religious difference. >> i think there's a big difference between people that have been murdered and everything else that have come with jim crow than marriage between a man and a man, a woman and a woman. here's what we agree on is that people in this country, no matter straight or gay, deserve dignity and respect. however, this doesn't mean it carries on to marriage. and i think that most americans agree that in this country, as a legal and historical and

religious union, marriage has to have the definition of one man and one woman. >> do you believe that gays and lesbians in america deserve equal rights? >> i think they deserve equal rights in regard to say, discrimination in the workplace, issues such as mitt romney has pointed out numerous times, hospital visitations. i think that for the sake of dignity and respect, sure. but if you're defining marriage as a civil right, then no. i don't believe that people who are same sex should be able to be married under our laws. >> i want to ask you one more on this. this past week -- and i'll just read it here. you said as you said here, you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. we, the republicans, ultimately believe you can't federalize that kind of mandate. and yet the standard bearer of the party, governor romney, wants to do just that. he does want to federalize it. he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. >> first of all, i agree with the governor.

>> how can you -- >> because i know exactly -- >> did you misspeak? >> perhaps it was inartful, but here's the point. at the time we were debating president obama's incredible evolution of mind on this issue, as if the american people are sitting around as if the hourglass is being turned, and we can wait for president obama to evolve over his opinions on this particular issue. my point is, as we sit here today, under today's law -- we don't have a marriage amendment. but under today's law, president obama's decision in front of robin roberts isn't going to change anything. the fact of the matter is we don't have an amendment, and states across america are making this decision. >> but you said don't federalize it. the nominee of the party says federalize it, a constitutional ban. is that what the party believes? >> of course. and for the record -- >> it should be part of the platform? >> it is part of the platform. for the record, we do agree with the marriage amendment, but as we sit here today, we don't have a federal mandate -- excuse me a constitutional amendment --

>> you'd like to see one is the point? >> sure, i would. but here's the point. we're talking about this issue now for an entire eight minutes on an incredible show on sunday morning across america while millions of people are out of work, our debt is going in the wrong direction, this president hasn't fulfilled his promises that will put our economy back on track. those are the issues that people care about. when i go across this country, people are filling their gas half full -- their tanks half full of gas. they can't afford the groceries. this president hasn't fulfilled his promises. and here we go again. down this path. we concede. we have a different view on marriage. that's an issue that, if people want to vote on it, they'll have a clear choice. but what really is going on in this country is we have a president who made a lot of promises. he's in love with the sound of his own voice, but he can't follow through on a promise. that's what we want to see for america. >> let me ask you another important economic question. you saw jamie dimon on the program earlier talk about regulation, talk about the mistake that was made earlier by

this trading bet and huge loss. governor romney and the republican party's position is to repeal dodd-frank, which is financial reform. in light of the losses on wall street this week, you think we need less financial regulation rather than more? >> i think we need less. the fact of the matter is dodd-frank didn't work. the reality is we've got about five to ten banks in this country that on our gdp, those five to ten banks' assets make up a huge majority of this country's gdp. that's an issue. i do agree with too big to fail mentality is a problem, but i don't think dodd-frank fixed anything. i think they made things worse. >> so you're satisfied with the way wall street operates, with the kinds of bets that were taken by jpmorgan chase that led to this loss. you don't think regulation can remedy it? >> dodd-frank didn't remedy it. the record of the president is he wasn't able to remedy -- >> carl levin says the volcker

rule, which would govern how they use their money to make these kinds of trades to hedge their bets, it would address that. >> i'm not a financial expert or an expert on s.e.c., but i can tell you that this president talks a lot about regulation on wall street. he takes millions and millions of dollars from wall street. what he's done over the last 3 1/2 years with a republican senate -- levin had control of the senate on this issue. and they had had a democratic control of the house. so they had the democrats in control of the house, the democrats in control of the senate, they had the president in the white house, and they didn't control any of these things. so they've made things worse. >> chairman priebus, a lot to talk to you about as this campaign goes on. we certainly hope to have you back. >> and happy mother's day to my wife. >> well done. all right. coming up here, the vice president certainly put the gay marriage debate on the map. on this program and for the week, the president came out with his support. the big question, as we've been talking about here, what has actually changed? what will the impact be on the fall campaign?

our roundtable will take on the question. the former mayor of san francisco, now lieutenant governor of california, gavin newsom will be here, as well as msnbc's chris matthews as well as "the washington post's" jonathan capehart and kathleen parker. the roundtable coming up after the break. ards card you get a 50% annual bonus. and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. no! but, i'm about to change that. ♪ every little baby wants 50% more cash... ♪ phhht! fine, you try. [ strings breaking, wood splintering ] ha ha. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? ♪ what's in your...your...

in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪

after just one use? think again. [ female announcer ] with olay regenerist wrinkle revolution, it's possible to reduce the look of wrinkles in just 10 minutes. now you've seen it. experience it for yourself. [ female announcer ] olay regenerist.

joe, you've been locked inside your room all day. what's wrong? >> what's wrong? are you serious?

do you really not get it? >> does this have something to do with the whole gay marriage thing? >> uh, doy. it's not fair, okay? i was the first one who said it should be legal, but now you're the one getting all the credit. >> that's not true. >> oh, yeah? oh, really? then why are you all dressed up? >> i'm going to a gala with lady gaga and elton john. >> oh, see? that should be me. vice presidents never get to go anywhere. >> joe, come on. you should be proud of what you did on "meet the press." you're a great vice president, joe. >> that, of course, "saturday night live's" treatment of the dynamics, shall we say, after the vice president assumes the dynamic of the white house. the political roundtable is here with me. president of the american conservative union, al cardenas. lieutenant governor of california, democrat gavin newsom.

the host of msnbc's "hardball" and the chris matthews show, as well as author of the book, "jack kennedy, elusive hero," chris matthews. and columnist for "the washington post," jonathan capehart and kathleen parker. welcome to you all. chris matthews, we could certainly say there's been palace intrigue. look at the cover of "the new yorker" coming out with the pillars in a rainbow. i think this captures it, which is the disarray the president got out ahead of himself and forced the president to do something that they say he was going to do. >> the stunning thing, david, is they want us to know about the friction. all the staffers all leaking out how angry they are, people identified as top campaign aides, people in the vice president's office, people in the president's office, all this intrigue publicly being dished out to us. why do they want us to know

they're angry at the vice president? >> that the vice president apologized to the president. >> if they're angry at him for being impulsive, why are they being impulsive? why are they acting out on their anger? just be professional and say, well, we'll move on. i don't get why they want this spat to be public. >> here's the president talking to robin roberts of abc about this issue. >> i have already made a decision that we were going to take this position before the election and before the election and before the convention. he probably got out a little bit over his skis, but out of generosity of spirit. >> so, gavin newsom, lieutenant governor, you're a political leader. >> as lieutenant governor, i'm sensitive on that issue. but do you believe the president was really going to change his mind? >> i don't know. i honestly don't know. i agree with chris. i don't understand the process here. i don't understand the thinking except i'm proud of the president. i'm proud he stood up on principle. i'm proud he's on the right side of history. and i'm proud he did it during an election because it took an extraordinary amount of courage. now the question is whether or

not this was a good political decision or a perilous political decision. regardless, on principle, i'm honored and proud. >> let's get into it. >> i'm frankly surprised that the country's surprised that this issue's come up in a way that's taken us this way. the press for gay marriage when he ran for the state senate in illinois in '96. he kind of retreated from that position when he ran for president in 2008. senator mccain chose not to deal with it. it wasn't something he was comfortable with. but the campaign knew there was a change of position. and after the election when he dealt with doma the way he did. >> defense of marriage act. >> there wasn't any surprise he felt this way. frankly, he owed it to the american people to say it sooner rather than later. i think this whole spat is a lot to do about nothing. >> there's the symbolic importance, jonathan, about the president being the first in u.s. history to say, i support

gay marriage. yes, he did it after the vice president, and we'll get into that, but the reality of this is the president is not making this a federal case. he's saying, i'm for it, but i'm going to let the states handle this. >> because the states have always been in the business of setting the qualifications for marriage. it wasn't until congress got into the mix bypassing the so-called defense of marriage act, that you had the federalization of marriage. look, this idea that the president is punting to the states, i think, is wrong. the states, as i said, they set the qualifications, but they also say who can marry. ultimately, it's the federal constitution that judges whether states have gone too far, whether they have denied equal protection under the law, and it is clear that the president believes that constitutionally everyone should have the right to marry whether they're heterosexual or same sex. i would have to say, to disagree with the governor here, gavin newsom, i do think the president was going to change his mind. i think he was going to do it

sooner rather than later because he was in an untenable position. the untenable position being that his words were not matching his deeds. if you look at the president's record, as you said, he had a very pro-gay record, in particular when it came to same-sex marriage, it looked like he supported, but he would never say the words. ultimately, because of what happened here on this set a week ago, those words and deeds match, and you have people now who are going to benefit from that. >> let me get kathleen in here about what's actually changed. >> i do feel like i'm on "the dating game," by the way, and i've eliminated several of you already. what was your question? >> what's changed? >> i don't know that -- obviously, it's symbolically significant for the president to say he's in favor of same-sex marriage. we knew that he did. we knew once upon a time that mitt romney did for that matter. the great irony, of course, as

you point out, he did punt back to the states, and that doesn't really help the movement to codify same-sex marriage in a national way because already we have 30 states that have amended their constitutions to prohibit it. so i think it was actually fairly easy to say, look, i've evolved and then let -- >> you don't buy that? >> no. it's comfortable. >> let me amend my comment. >> answer the question. >> i just want to amend what i said to include -- i think everybody's made fun, or the republicans have made fun of the word evolving. i think that's the perfect word to describe this conversation because the american people are evolving on this issue, and increasingly they're coming on the side of same-sex marriage as being the right side of history. >> i don't necessarily agree, kathleen, with that conclusion. >> this is the young people.

by the way, in another generation, this is not going to be an issue. >> is at the same time, young people have remarkably changed their points of view in life from the time they're in their 20s to the time they get to be 32 and have two kids at home. >> that's for sure. >> so maybe. you might be right. we'll see how this stands the test of time. >> if you're a gay person, i don't see how you can't feel something strongly about this. for the first time ever the leader of your country at an idealistic level -- he isn't saying he can make this law. he's saying what he believes -- is with you. he's saying you're a human being with the rights of all human beings. i think it's up there with the first african-american president being president. it's a statement of who we are. >> it's more than symbolic in that respect. millions of people's lives were affirmed, not just gays and lesbians, but their loved ones, their brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and the like. there's real substance. their lives were validated. these were people who were afraid to tell folks who they are, and now they have a

president behind them. >> you're for marriage equality. you're the mayor of san francisco. we have the video. you were giving licenses to marry before it was lawful. >> 2004. >> before it was lawful. you believe in equality, actual marriage equality, not viewpoints. equality has not been advanced by him. >> you're absolutely right. he's gone from the 90-yard dash, did a lot of things on don't ask, don't tell, marriage equality. was not there on civil unions. now he's there. he's gone 95% of the year. but the issue of federal rights is important. interracial marriage became federalized when the u.s. supreme court unanimously in '67 adjudicated throughout the 14 states that denied it, ultimately that's where equality needs to go. >> more on this, including the political impact. i've got to take a break here. we're back with more from [ male announcer ] the inspiring story of how a shipping giant can befriend a forest may seem like the stuff of fairy tales. but if you take away the faces on the trees... take away the pixie dust.

take away the singing animals, and the storybook narrator... [ man ] you're left with more electric trucks. more recycled shipping materials... and a growing number of lower emissions planes... which still makes for a pretty enchanted tale. ♪ la la la [ man ] whoops, forgot one... [ male announcer ] sustainable solutions. fedex. solutions that matter. all at 150 calories or less, there's definitely a temptations for you. unless you're one of those people who doesn't like delicious stuff. temptations. it's the first jell-o that's just for adults. [ female announcer ] gross -- i'll tell you what's really gross: used dishcloths. they can have a history that they drag around with them. for a cleaner way to clean try bounty extra soft. in this lab demo, one sheet of bounty extra soft leaves this surface 3 times cleaner than a dishcloth. it's super durable too. it's the cleaner way to clean. bring it with bounty extra soft. in the pink pack.

and try bounty napkins. a living breathing intelligence bringing people together to bring new ideas to life. look. it's so simple. [ male announcer ] in here, the right minds from inside and outside the company come together to work on an idea. adding to it from the road, improving it in the cloud all in real time. good idea. ♪ it's the at&t network -- providing new ways to work together, so business works better. ♪ hey, it's sandra -- from accounting. peter. i can see that you're busy... but you were gonna help us crunch the numbers for accounts receivable today. i mean i know that this is important. well, both are important. let's be clear. they are but this is important too. [ man ] the receivables. [ male announcer ] michelin knows it's better for xerox to help manage their finance processing. so they can focus on keeping the world moving. with xerox, you're ready for real business.

so they can focus on keeping the world moving. recently, students from 31 countries took part in a science test. the top academic performers surprised some people. so did the country that came in 17th place. let's raise the bar and elevate our academic standards. let's do what's best for our students-by investing in our teachers. let's solve this. we're back with more from the round table. everybody has been talking even from the commercial break. here's the headline from omaha, an omaha newspaper, the president how faces, "risk

versus reward for obama." i guess, al, if you are mitt romney you've got social conservatives on board now because of the president's decision? >> social conservatives were going to revolve to his side anyway, the question was to what degree of passion. clearly, it's a passion issue right now in a major way. social conservatives believe that marriage is a traditional event between a man and a woman. some do it for moral issues. some do it because of deeply held religious beliefs. and some purely because they think a family should constitute -- it should be constituted by a man and woman raising their children. we never viewed it through a political lens before. it was more viewed as a deeply held religious belief. this puts it in a political context, and this is like the religious arguments from the '80s. you're going to have a revival of social conservatives like you haven't seen in 20 years in this race. and i think republicans would prefer to talk about the economy

and to talk about jobs. i believe social conservatives are going to consider this a need. >> does the polling story for romney tie into this in any way? >> i think the idea of a young kid leading a brigade of kids to look for the kid they thought was gay, putting him down on the ground, humiliating the kid. >> romney says that was in no way demotivation. >> but he's not denying the incident. >> you can't extrapolate from an incident that happened that long ago. going back to high school. what did he do in kindergarten? did he hog the red crayon? it's a bad instance. i'm not going to dismiss this as unimportant, it was important. but to take something from high school and extrapolate that to something that can be applied to the presidential election. >> is there anyone here who doesn't remember high school? >> one thing about gay marriage. >> that's something i did remember, and that's for sure. that's more substantive. >> the political impact of the gay marriage debate in the fall. this is not 2004 when the white house used it.

>> it's a very different time. we've moved -- i don't know there's another issue generally that's moved this fast in such a short period of time in the last 24 months. this has moved 10%. it's a much safer time than in 2004. >> except for the ballot box. >> but that's always the case when you subject the rights of a minority to the whims of a majority every single time the minority loses. i mentioned loving versus state of virginia. 70% of americans opposed interracial marriage in 1967. you can imagine submitting interracial marriage to the ballot back then. from my perspective, it's political courage. he's on the right side of history. we now have someone taking us back to even oppose civil unions. >> is this about getting back to hope and change in 2008 for those supporters of obama who might have been disappointed? >> i think a lot of supporters of the president are buoyed by what he did. let's remember leadership is

about doing the hard thing when it's neither easy or convenient. this is not a slam dunk for the president. siding with gay and lesbian americans who are raising children across the country, who are doing so at a disadvantage because of the tax code, because of local laws, because of federal laws, their president, president of the united states, came out and said that he supports their right to wed. he supports their right to be fully engaged and involved in the american dream. that's an important thing that we shouldn't forget. >> i've got to make that the last word. we're out of time. this debate will certainly continue. thank you all very, very much. that is all for today. we will be back next week. happy mother's day to yours, to mine, and of course especially to my dad. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."