All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
February 17, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and views expressed by the host of this program, documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
That's me, El Rushbo, behind the golden EIB microphone, telephone number, if you want to join us.
800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
This is really unbelievable.
The situation in the Middle East is literally falling apart.
We are in the midst of an ever-expanding war.
We are the targets.
Our allies are the targets.
Peace-loving people, non-Muslims are the targets.
And ISIS is going to take this war as far as they can.
Now, two things about ISIS.
There is no question that they are attempting to establish a caliphate.
But they need something for this to happen.
They need territory.
They need a state.
One of the things that I learned on my troop visit to Afghanistan in 2005 because Iran had all kinds of people who, before I left, you're going to say, what are we over there for?
It's Afghanistan.
What the hell are we doing there?
The Russians went there and died.
What's going to keep us from having the same fate befall us?
So I went over there.
I found out something very key.
The reason we were there, and remember now, this is the Bush administration.
The reason we were there, that is where Al-Qaeda's base of operations was, along with the Taliban.
What fact then, and it's true now, is that the terrorist organizations need a state as a base of operations.
They don't want to have to flee like nomads from territory to territory.
And Afghanistan was an attempt by, and they still are attempting to establish Afghanistan as the state.
In this case, it was al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
And we were trying to prevent that.
Now, ISIS, well on the way to establishing their caliphate.
And if you look at a map that shows real estate that they have conquered, it's surprisingly big, but it's patchwork all through Iraq, just parts of the Middle East.
What they need is a state.
And they're well on the way to getting it.
They're well on the way to getting Iraq.
In the meantime, while all of this is happening, and it's very real, Iran is advancing toward the acquisition of a nuclear weapon, or the, in their case, the creation of one, production of their own nuclear weapon, not just the acquisition of one.
If that happens, don't need to tell you what that means.
Now, while ISIS is just on a rampage, beheading 21 Coptic Christians in Egypt, and this administration can't even call them Christians.
This administration refuses to even call them Christians.
This administration refuses to identify ISIS as Islamist.
This administration refuses to call any of this terrorism.
Breathtaking.
It's absurd.
But there's reasons for this.
And the reasons go beyond the obvious.
Some people think it's because, it's like Bob Beckel said, Obama was raised by people who were very friendly with Muslims, that he doesn't find Muslims threatening at all.
He likes them.
He grew up around them, in part raised by them.
And he just can't believe, this is Beckel's words, he just doesn't believe that mainstream Muslims do this kind of stuff.
He's not going to call these people Muslims.
And he's not going to call them Islamists.
Okay, there's that.
Then there are those who think that Obama is much more sympathetic to Muslims than just that.
So you have that group.
But there are other reasons for this, folks.
There are other reasons why this administration will not call what's happening.
What everybody can see, what everybody knows is terrorism, why they won't use the word.
In fact, get this.
To show you how absurd this is becoming, back in January, this is from townhall.com, KB Pablo, back in January, shortly after the Islamic terrorism massacre at Charle Ebdu in Paris, the White House announced the development of a summit to combat extremism.
And it's almost here.
It's tomorrow.
On February 18th, provided the government opens because of the snow.
The White House will host a summit on countering violent extremism to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring others or groups in the U.S. and abroad to commit acts of violence.
So this big summit is taking place tomorrow on extremism, not Islamic extremism.
There's no mention of Islamic extremism in any of the descriptions or published accounts of the purpose of this summit.
And the purpose of the summit, you know what it is?
It's to find out what we are doing wrong that allows them to keep on recruiting.
Like, why do so many Americans, more than the FBI can keep track of, why do so many Americans want to join ISIS?
Why do so many Americans want to join these terrorists?
We are going to conduct, just like the State Department did after 9-11.
They had a little summit.
They had a seminar.
What have we done to make them hate us?
And 9-11, then, therefore, our fault.
What did we do to make them so mad?
So ISIS is on the march on the way to their caliphate.
They are committing acts of barbarism that this administration will not even identify, will not even refer to it as terrorism.
And now they send their spokesman out in the State Department to say, whoa, we cannot kill our way out of this war with ISIS.
We're going to have to get to the root cause.
We're going to have to find them jobs.
We're going to have to find a way to economically empower them.
And every left-wing, syrupy, embarrassingly sickening cliché that you can conjure that you've ever heard is being articulated by this administration.
Situation in the Middle East continuing to worsen.
The State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said yesterday, we can't kill our way out of war against ISIS.
How do we win?
How do we stop this?
Well, if I were ISIS, I wouldn't be afraid right now.
Nothing we do right now seems to be directed at stopping this.
As Chris Matthews telling Marie Harf, if I were ISIS, I wouldn't be bothered.
We're not even trying to stop them.
So Harf replied by saying, well, we are killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them.
And so are the Egyptians and so are the Jordanians.
But we can't win this war by killing them.
We can't kill our way out of this war.
Can somebody name for me a war?
Our country is won without killing our way to victory.
You know what happens in war?
And the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.
That's it.
But here you have, this is a classic.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm referring to when I talk about the corruption that's occurred in our universities and colleges.
This woman is simply a product of the deranged, delusional beliefs of the professors and the graduate assistants and the teaching assistants.
And I'm going to tell you where I think this is rooted.
Obviously, it's rooted in the natural pacifism of people on the left.
But there's something else.
And I think this is also an additional reason why this administration will not call terrorism terrorism.
And it's not just that Obama has vanquished it.
It's not just that Obama said that with bin Laden's death, we got rid of al-Qaeda.
He did say that.
And so Obama has to stick with the idea that al-Qaeda's been vanquished.
They can't have come back to life.
He took care of them.
Okay, that's an explanation for it, too.
But Obama also said that he had these people on the run.
Terrorism's on the run, and this really isn't terrorism, and it's just random this and random that.
It's like street crime.
So Obama's invested in calling this thing other than what it is.
But in addition to all these reasons, what is another?
And it always comes down, whether you accept this or not, particularly at a period of time where Obama's not seeking election again, it still comes down to his base.
The lunatic base, the people in this country that vote Democrat who have been driven insane with rage and hatred by all the lies they were told during the Iraq War.
And one of the biggest lies that they were told during the Iraq war was that Bush lied us into war.
That lie has, I think now, as I look back, I think that propaganda has done more damage to this nation's ability to take on legitimate terrorism with confidence and assurity and defeat it.
For however many years the Iraq war went on, every night on Comedy Central, practically every night, the audience there heard about it was all a lie.
That Bush lied, people died, Bush Hitler.
Now, at the time this was going on, I will admit that I miscalculated again, like I have done way too many times over the course of my 25-year career, 27-year career now.
When the left goes that excrement crazy, I always make the mistake of assuming nobody's going to believe this.
Like, all sex is rape, even the sex.
I had no idea people are going to believe.
You look at what's coming out of feminist studies at universities.
It's worse than that.
All sex is rape now on college.
It really has come to pass.
All these insane lunatic things that the left has articulated over the last quarter century, so many of them I thought, this is hilarious.
Who's going to believe this?
Now we've got Marie Harth out there saying, well, we can't kill our way out of this.
We have to solve this by finding them jobs.
Economic circumstances are the last thing on the list of why these people become terrorists.
And most of the leaders are so well endowed with money, they're wealthy, they are not.
They don't fit this profile of destitute economically and poor and have nothing else to do.
They're wealthy.
They show up to the mosques in Saudi Arabia.
They get radicalized.
It has nothing to do with economics.
Finding them jobs, The whole notion of projecting on these people Western values, they're trying to destroy them.
ISIS hates Western civilization.
They're trying to wipe it out.
Here comes Marie Harris.
Yes, you know what?
We need to find them jobs.
Jobs, jobs, jobs, but not hamburger flippers.
Oh, no, no, no.
We've got to get real jobs.
Raise the minimum wage for ISIS.
That should be the new battle cry from the regime.
You want to stop ISIS?
Raise the minimum wage for them.
Find jobs.
Yeah, but what about the 92 and a half million Americans not working here?
Well, that's a different situation.
No, it's not.
This regime can't find work for the people this country wanted.
Now, all of a sudden, the State Department's out saying the solution to ISIS is finding them jobs, and we are supposed to sit here and take this seriously.
In the meantime, every night for whatever number of years, seven years, six years, Comedy Central, Stewart, Colbert, you name it, Bush lied.
The mainstream media, every day, every week, Bush lied.
What did that do in the minds of young skulls full of mush?
It turned the Iraq War into a joke, number one.
It turned Bush into a joke.
It turned the country into a joke.
And it told everybody that everything we were doing over there was illegitimate because we had no business being there, that there was no terrorism.
Bush lied about it.
He sent Colin Powell to the UN to lie about it.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Bush lied.
And if you sit there and say that enough times, year after year after year, to an audience that thinks they're tuning into a comedy show, they're going to end up believing this.
And many of these people make up the deranged, literally insane, filled with hatred Democrat Party base.
And Obama can't call it terrorism because his comedian buddies have spent seven years saying it didn't exist.
Bush lied about it.
We can't stop ISIS from taking over Iraq because we had no business being there in the first place.
There is no ISIS taking over Iraq.
Bush lied about it.
There is no terrorism.
That's why it's random acts of street crime.
Random beheadings here, random 21 beheadings on the beach over there.
But it's just, it's like street crime.
It's just the folks angry now and then and committing crimes, sometimes beheading people.
But it's not terrorism.
And it certainly isn't Islamic.
Bush lied.
The fact that Bush didn't lie.
Every intelligence agency in the Western world was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
By the way, let me find this here.
If I put it in this next State Department yesterday had somewhat of a shocking story.
The New York Times yesterday had this story.
In the aftermath of the Iraq war, the CIA purchased from an unidentified intermediary no fewer than 400 boric warheads filled with sarin gas, a deadly nerve gas.
And they were from Iraq.
They found the weapons of mass destruction is the point.
The New York Times reported it yesterday.
What have you heard about it?
Nothing.
To the extent people are commenting.
Russia, those are old warheads.
Those are old rockets.
1990.
That's not the point.
Saddam always lied and said that he'd gotten rid of that stuff.
That the weapons of mass destruction that we thought he had was new stuff.
He'd gotten rid of the old stuff.
Yeah, it's old stuff they found.
He lied about it.
Saddam lied.
The United Nations lied.
Bush did not lie.
And even if there hadn't been weapons of mass destruction, and like most of the skulls full of mush in this country believe, doesn't mean Bush lied.
How many times has Obama blamed faulty intelligence?
Quite a bit.
How often did Jon Stewart or Colbert or anybody in the media say, Obama lied, people died?
Obama lied.
They don't say it, do they?
George Bush is a lying piker compared to Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Harry Reid and the whole of the Democrat Party establishment.
Bush can't even hold a candle to him.
But I'm telling you, this is one of the reasons why Obama is not calling us what it is.
I don't know how big a reason, but it's in the mix.
But worse than that is that everybody in the left-wing media has gone to town on this whole notion that Bush lied.
And it's been established.
He didn't lie.
He didn't lie us into war in Iraq.
He did not tell falsehoods.
The Democrats saw the same evidence Bush did in 1998 and demanded we go in there when Clinton was president.
All of this was known.
They didn't lie.
The Clinton administration, CIA intelligence, found the same stuff the Bush administration.
I've got to take a break here.
I'm getting worked up about this because it ticks me off.
And Democrats saw the exact same intel that George W. Bush saw, and they wanted a second vote on the use of force resolution because they got it wrong opposing it the first time.
They saw the same stuff.
They just politically turned it around after a few months.
Bush lied, Bush lied.
They picked it up all over the media, and that's all she wrote.
And of course, the Bush administration never counted it, never dealt with it, never responded to it because they thought it was unseemly to introduce politics into the Oval Office.
So it was allowed to stand up.
Bush lied.
Yeah, Bush lied, people died.
So now we've got Obama can't call it terrorism because the people of this country are told there wasn't any, and Obama defeated it.
And there is no ISIS.
We can't, it's ISIL, but it's not serious.
It's just not, you know, because there wasn't any of this stuff.
They would have to acknowledge that they lied, not Bush, if Obama and his gang were to man up and deal with this head on.
In order to do that, they would have to acknowledge that they were lying all these years about what was going on in the Middle East.
Anyway, Julie in Riverside, California, I'm glad you called your up.
First, welcome to the program today.
Hello.
Hello.
How are you?
Very well.
Worked up, ticked off, but I'm here.
I'm fine.
Just like the rest of America.
Yeah.
The reason I called was because I had the opportunity this morning to read the opinion in the case on the amnesty, Judge Hannon's opinion.
I'm an attorney, and I've been practicing law for more than 30 years, representing governmental agencies.
And I wanted to say, first of all, that the opinion is extraordinarily well written.
Judge Hannon does not get into the politics of any of this.
He sticks strictly to the law.
He uses Obama's own words on him, I think.
He does, indeed.
And what a joy that was to see.
But the bigger thing is that with the actual politics of it and Congress, I'm very concerned that if Congress actually funds these activities that the president has enacted.
Hang on a minute.
Hang on.
Don't hang up here, Julie.
Misread the clock.
Don't hang up.
Be right back.
Okay, back to Julie in Riverside, California.
I'm sorry to have to interrupt you like that.
I knew you were getting into a groove, but we just simply ran into heartbreak and I couldn't stop.
Oh, that's just fine.
Sorry, pick up where you left off.
You liked the judge's ruling.
You thought it was very substantive.
It wasn't political.
It actually used some of Obama's own language and turned it back against him.
And so what do you think is going to happen?
Well, one of the things I'm concerned about is the idea of Congress funding the very activities that the court has put on hold.
Because what the court said is basically in order to prove that this is not, that this is basically an amendment of the law, you have to show that the Congress opposes it, that there is opposition there.
And if there is instead endorsement by funding, it seems to me that undermines the whole purpose of the preliminary injunction.
Well, that may be true.
I don't think that Congress is not even in session right now.
They don't get back until the 23rd from the ski vacation weekend break, otherwise known as President's weekend.
And so therefore, they can't do anything until they get back on Monday.
Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit may rule on this this afternoon, or if not today, then prior to the 23rd on Monday when Congress gets back.
But I still get your point.
If Congress, look, by the way, the pressure, I don't know if you heard me say the pressure in Washington is on.
The media is now saying to the Republicans, hey, look, the judge has done your work for you.
You can throw away that House bill, write a whole new Department of Homeland Security bill that totally funds it because the judge is taking care of it.
You don't have to play around like this.
And the pressure is now on the Republicans to do just that.
Well, and that's, as I said, that was the motivation for my call: is that that kind of pressure, in fact, is a means of getting endorsement and therefore affecting the judicial outcome.
But, of course, if they're not there to do it and they can't do it until after there's a ruling, maybe that's something else.
But I fully would expect this to go not only on preliminary injunction, but ultimately, of course, it's going to be ruled on by this judge on the merits and then go to appeal and probably to the Supreme Court.
And again, if you have congressional funding of the very activities that are in question during that time, it seems to me that that's congressional endorsement of the action.
You're saying that would undercut the judge.
Yes.
And his ruling.
The judge is going to defer to Congress, as we sort of hoped the president might, but a regular president would have.
But ultimately, you know, these are legislative decisions.
And if the legislature starts taking steps that support the action that's been taken, it seems to me that that's consent to it.
Well, according to that analysis, you would be right.
I'll tell you something else that's going to happen here before this is all adjudicated.
The higher courts have often disqualified what's gone on in lower courts by claiming that the people that brought the action didn't have standing in the first place.
This is one of the most favored ways a lazy court or a politically oriented court can defeat a case.
You don't have standing.
You're not qualified to even bring this suit.
I don't know how you got this far, but we're not taking a case because you don't have any standing and they throw it out.
Which has happened, I think, in a couple of Obamacare cases.
But I know that's not your point.
That's just the next phase of this that's possible.
Once the Fifth Circuit comes to it, the Supreme Court comes to the Fifth Circuit and decides what all's gone on.
Because, I mean, there's egos in all these courts, and the people on the higher court want to be the final authority on these things.
They don't want to have to sit there and affirm what happened at a lower court.
It's not always the case, but in many cases, it is.
My gut feeling on this is kind of tough because the blaring reality here is that inside the Washington Beltway, the Washington establishment wants amnesty.
And they're going to get it one way or the other.
That's just, they're not going to stop till they get it.
And by the way, let's say that every court rules against Obama.
Well, as far as he's concerned, so what?
He's already behaved in numerous ways the Constitution does not permit or allow.
He's already engaged in behavior outside the Constitution.
So if he gets a ruling here, ultimately he doesn't like, so what?
Or as John F. Kerry would say, so effing what?
Well, he said it's a big effing deal, but same thing here.
But it's clear.
You know it, and I know it.
The inside the Beltway establishment wants this.
They want amnesty.
And the question is, is the Supreme Court part of that Inside the Beltway establishment?
And do they want Obamacare?
I mean, experience guided by intelligence.
What did the Supreme Court do the first opportunity they had with Obamacare?
They rewrote it to make it constitutional.
What do you, what do you, what do you, see, okay, so Snurdly, I love your optimism.
I really do.
Sometimes I share it.
Snerdley said, but isn't that part of the thinking why the Supreme Court took this next Obamacare case on the subsidies to make up for the mistake they made the first time around?
I don't know that that is how.
Let me ask you this.
Let's go to the National Football League.
Do you think that the referees in the Super Bowl did or did not make calls against the Seattle Seahawks to make up for mistakes a previous officiating crew made in a prior game?
Well, why do you think the court does?
Why do you what has politics at?
Is a court would correct something?
Okay, we're going to take this next case because we know here we blew it the first time.
They didn't blow it.
The chief did.
The chief blew it.
So you say the chief wants this second case on subsidies to make up for his glaring mistake the first time around.
Now, is that your hope, or is that what you've heard the intelligentsiata inside the beltway talking?
Both.
Okay.
I'm not saying that the court isn't going to rule the right way.
I'm just, I'm not sure that courts take cases on that basis.
Yeah, well, you know what?
We goofed up the first time.
We better take this case so we can fix it.
I don't think these people's egos ever, ever allow them to think they goofed something up.
Speaking of which, have you seen the story coming out of Hollywood that maids and household staff ultimately are voting?
There's 6,000 voting members of the Motion Picture Academy Arts and Science.
And there's a critic out there, Barry Norman, who just wrote a piece claiming that many of these Academy voters are elderly and they don't care.
They don't want to watch these movies.
They let their maids or the butlers or whoever, they trust them, they make them watch them and then tell them what they thought of it.
And that's how they vote.
Now, admittedly, this is a critic writing about what goes on with the voters in the Academy.
But it has cast a little bit of a pall over the whole thing because now when you have, I mean, the Academy Awards are thought of as more important than any Supreme Court ruling in many people's world.
And to find out the voting might be corrupt.
And then, of course, the jokes are going around.
Well, do they send these movies over to the staff subtitled in Spanish?
So that joke is going around.
The staff is going to vote.
Can they even understand the dialogue?
So they send subtitles in Spanish over for them on these screeners.
So anyway, the only reason I thought of that is because the operative theory here that the court took the Obamacare case on subsidies as an opportunity to make up for their mistake the first time around.
We shall see.
We shall see.
I guarantee if that's the reason they took it, we'll never know.
Nobody's going to ever say that.
They'll never, never going to admit that they got it wrong the first time around.
I mean, not publicly.
It'll never become part of the record.
You might be able to get a John Riggins take a justice out and get her drunk and have her admit the truth.
But I don't think, other than that, you're going to find out anything super earth-shattering.
Anyway, Brian in St. Augustine, Florida.
You know, Brian, yeah, let's go ahead.
Take your call.
How are you, sir?
I'm doing great, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you very much.
I'm calling.
You mentioned the meeting about why the jihadists hate us.
And having the meeting assumes that there's some logic behind it at all, just like the reason why the left hates the right.
There is no logic.
It's just because we exist.
We aren't them.
So naturally, we hate you.
That's true.
But remember who we're talking about here.
We're talking about the left asking the question.
And the left thinks that everybody should love them.
They love themselves.
And they think they can make everybody love them.
They think with doctors, nurses, clean water, and good speeches that they can turn the most vicious hate monger into somebody that loves them.
And that's what the seminar is about.
What can we do to show these ISIS people that we are good people and they have no reason to fear us?
And you've nailed it.
Because there's no logic to this hatred.
It's pure ideology.
They hate us because we are not the proper religion.
The left hates us because we're not them.
They can't tell you specifically why they hate us.
They have to make it up.
Racist, sexist, big, and homophobe.
But here you have the regime and its seminar specialists.
They're a bunch of leftists.
And they think everybody loves them, or that they can make everybody love them with doctors, nurses, clean water speeches, words, you name it, and that's the purpose of the seminar.
Remember, the left thinks, despite a worldwide, despite from the beginning of time, failure of socialism and communism, the left always thinks the current generation of leftists can finally make it all work.
The triumph of emotion over common sense.
It's epitomized in the Obama campaign as we are the ones we've been waiting for.
Yeah, the Soviets, they got close, but they just ran out of money.
They had to deal with Reagan.
And the Chinese communists, they're getting close and Castro, best healthcare system in the world, but they think, despite never, socialism has never worked.
Communism has never worked.
It's never brought about the utopia that they claim to believe in.
It's never brought about the human perfection they claim to believe in.
Yet they believe every generation of leftists is the generation to make it happen.
And so there is no rationality to any of this.
So their seminar tomorrow is really how can they take steps to let ISIS know what good people they really are and why there's no reason for ISIS to hate them.
And part and parcel, that's why we're not calling you terrorists.
And that's why we're not calling you ISIS.
And we're not provoking you and we're not insulting you.
This is how they think.
And if we just show you that we respect you, that you'll respect us and you'll stop killing us.
That's what they believe.
That's how you get a Marie Harf.
That's how you end up.
This woman, at best, ought to be working in a soup kitchen.
Instead, she's the number two spokeswoman at the State Department, and she's out there saying that to solve this problem, we need to get them jobs.
The hell is that?
I just can't believe we got here.
Back to the phones, sticking with it out there.
Roger in Folbert, California.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB Network alive.
Hey, Rush.
Listen, why is not this Homeland Security bill, since it's a funding bill, subject to the reconciliation project, which would preclude any filibuster?
Wait, why is it not?
Yeah, why is it not being done that way?
Is it just that the Republicans just won't do it?
Yeah, that would simply be a strategy that they could employ and they choose not to.
Yeah, but isn't that the whole purpose of reconciliation, this four budget bills?
Well, it's the only place it can be used.
Yeah, but it's not automatic.
It's an option that they can use.
And if they choose not to, that they choose not to.
It's not something that happens automatically.
Okay.
But they just don't want to do it, huh?
No, in fact, that's how Obamacare got passed.
I believe that.
They remember that.
And it was considered an end run.
Right.
Well, okay.
I guess we just have to sit back and accept that.
Look, look, I'm not wanting to say this.
I'm trying to hold back here.
Your question and a couple other calls today, what they point out is, I mean, you've got a tool.
I mentioned one.
They could employ the filibuster or take the filibuster away like Harry Reid did.
They're not doing any of that.
What's the conclusion?
They just don't want to do it.
They don't want to fight it.
Right.
Okay, if that opens it, okay, why not?
Well, we think we have the answer to that, too.
I think they're afraid of the media still.
And I think there may be a serious number of open borders people in the Senate, in the Republican Party, that want this.
We know that's the case.
We know that their donors want it.
We know the Chamber of Commerce, everybody giving money to Republicans or the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates wants amnesty.
They want this bunch of people amnestied, and they want them available for work legally.
Yeah.
Well, then you're saying that even they couldn't even get 51 votes.
Well, they could if the purpose of withdrawing the filibuster would be to eliminate the importance of the Democrat votes.
The Democrats are able to stop this by requiring 60 votes, and the Republicans don't have 60.
Yeah, but if they invoke the reconciliation project, they would only need 51.
True.
And you're saying they probably won't even get that.
Well, that's up for grabs.
I don't really know.
Mitch McConnell would know, and his whip would know if there are 51 votes for it.
You see, right now, when they know it's not going to pass, there are a whole bunch of Republicans who can vote for it for appearance's sake if they know it isn't going to pass.
But if reconciliation is used and you only need 51 votes, why that puts pressure on people to maybe vote honestly, and that might turn them into no votes.
We just don't know.
What we do know is that the options available don't seem to be interesting to them.
Draw your own conclusion.
Look, budget reconciliation, pretty much a moot point anyway.
Once the Democrat, I'm sorry, the Republicans decided to go ahead and fund a government all the way through next September when they did that with the Democrats last December.
Made it harder to do reconciliation.
▲
Export Selection