tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News February 16, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. another government shutdown was averted this week, while president trump signed a bipartisan bill and also signed an executive order. he announced he is moving $8 billion towards construction of the wall. house speaker nancy pelosi accusing the president of making around congress and warning republicans of the precedent he is setting. >> a democratic president can do that. democratic president can declare
emergency as weevil. well. the precedent the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the republicans. paul: let's bring in editorial board member kim straw straws m. >> you made campaign promises about building a wallnd don't wt have much to show for it right now. just using the own administration's data, illegal crossings are at the lowest level in decades, sinc since the 1970s. yes, there are problems on the border. we need a better asylum policy, we need no more judges adjudicag claims and so forth.
there are places where a wall could be an effective deterrent on the border. whether this rises to the level of a national emergency, i don't see the argument there. paul: do you think he'll be sued? >> he will definitely be sued. that was promised before the words left his mouth. paul: so kyle, but the president says look, other presidents have declared national emergencies for even lesser urgent matters. is that going to matter as this proceeds in the courts? >> i don't think it will. one of the -- if you look at the law, what he's going to do is he's going to move reportedly $3.5 billion worth of military construction funds. he can use those funds for, quote, use of the armed forces. unless they are coming over the border, raiding american towns -- paul: he has deployed the military to the border. >> it's hard to see how putting a wall up there is for use of the armed forces. it will be manned by border patrol. i think this will be slapped
down big-time. paul: the president says i'll probably lose in the lower courts and the ninth circuit but i'll win like i did on the travel ban in the supreme court. there are some conservative scholars, legal scholars, who say that the national emergencies act upon which this is based does have a pretty expansive reading of how a president can define a national emergency. could that be what ultimately lets him do this? >> it's possible. but if you have trust in judges who believe in reading the law the way the law's written, if this is a national emergency, then as nancy pelosi suggests, basically anything can be deemed a national emergency. so there has to be i hope some appetite to restrain that authority that the president has been granted. >> i think trump h sees this asa win-win. he gets sued and he goes all the way to the supreme court and he has the issue to run on, not
only the wall but th the liberal judges. paul: you mean his own supreme court nominees? how is that a winner. let me ask you about the politics of this in terms of capitol hill. the house will introduce a resolution that will override the president. the senate will take it up and it only needs to bass the majority vote. what happens if four, five, six republicans go over to the other side and have you the house and senate both saying this is disapproved? >> and there will be republicans who do that because we've already had a number come out who on the basis of the legal ll argument and the precedent argument have said we didn't want the president to do this, we disagree with this, folks like senator marco rubio and others. it will pass in the house. it will come up in the senate likely and pass there and then you have two phenomenon. you've got republicans split,
voting against the president and then the president is going to have to veto that resolution. and again, it's not likely that the house or the senate could override that veto, so his decision would stand. he'd knock down the resolution. but again, it's a divided republican party which is never a good look for a party out there to be having and that's one thing the president's forced on this now. paul: let's assume it's enjoined by the lower courts. how's that going to look, kim, if he's overridden by the senate and the house and then has to veto and then it's enjoined by the lower court. the president will not be able to take that money and use it for the wall. will he look weak for having taken this step rather than what he could have done, which is say i've got $1.4 billion for the wall, $23 billion for other things, and declare victory? >> well, right. that's one of the head-scratching things here. it's because in addition to the money that he just got as a spending bill, part of this $8 billion that they're talking about is coming from things that
he arguably does have easy authority to take, so some of this for instance they want to use some civil asset forfeiture money, money we take from bad guys, drug intradiction money and some money he may have authority over. that gives him another big chunk of dollars. why go down the h road of a national emergency which will cause a court battle. paul: i want to raise here, at least briefly, the left, the democratic left which is saying this is an unprecedented abuse of power. they were silent when president obama used his executive authority to push through legalizations, work permits for 4 million illegal immigrants. there's a double standard here. >> for sure. and tribalism is a heck of a thing.
it's interesting too on the reverse side. the republicans who decried president obama when he made moves to protect dreamers under prosecutorial discretion are doing the same thing, saying the national emergency is great and it bodes ill for the future. paul: if partisanship designs constitutional barriers as opposed to constitutional barriers. when we come back, mitch mcconnell said he will bring the green new deal to the senate floor for a vote. why democrats are crying foul, next. will it feel like the wheend of a journey?p working, or the beginning of something even better? when you prepare for retirement with pacific life, you can create a lifelong income... so you have the freedom to keep doing
whatever is most meaningful to you. a reliable income that lets you retire, without retiring from life. that's the power of pacific. ask your financial professional about pacific life today. reach her health goals! i'm in! but first... shelfie! the great-tasting nutrition of ensure. with up to 30 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals! ensure. for strength and energy. ensure. wit looks like george having are busy day.? ♪ the beat goes on george has entresto, a heart failure medicine that helps his heart... so he can keep on doing what he loves.
in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. it helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪ the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. that was great! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪ the beat goes on
paul: that was senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, saying he'll bring the green new deal to a vote on the senate floor, forcing democrats to go on record with their support for the controversial proposal that was introduced last week by congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez and senator ed markey. democrats are crying foul, calling mcconnell's move a political stunt. >> this is all they can muster, a political stunt. this cheap, cynical ploy evidently represents the sum total of senate republicans' leadership on the vital issue of climate change. paul: we're back with kim, jason and allysia. before we get to the vote, the senate issue, what do you make of the reception, political reception generally to the green new deal? >> it's being widely ridiculed among the public at least. because it's so far-fetched.
you have to refit every building in america, banish fossil fuels within 10 years. paul: ten years. >> there's a bit about somehow containing the carbon or methane emitted by cows. it's completely ridiculous. paul: but democrats seem -- a lot of democrats are supporting it. how many supporters are there in the house and senate? >> 67 in the house and a dozen in the senate. paul: several of them are prominent. >> they don't even know what's in it. i think they endorse it because of the quote, unquote, green new deal. paul: kamala harris is for it. it'sing from that sherrod brown backed away, saying i'm not going to endorse all the details. >> partially because it would kill manufacturing workers and a lot of union jobs. paul: in ohio. >> in ohio and the midwest. paul: okay.
senator mcconnell bringing it up for a vote, how is it -- explain to me, jason, your political sage, how is it a stunt to ask democrats to vote on something they have proposed? >> exactly. [ laughter ] >> watching that clip of mcconnell, he seems barely able to contain a smirk at the end. that's exactly what he's challenging them to do. put your money where your mouth is here, let's see if you're really for all of the stuff that allysia was just laying out there. i also wonder if many democrats realize that the new deal, the actual new deal, where they get the name for the green new deal from, wasn't very successful. i mean, it was designed to get us out of the great depression and tackle unemployment. it didn't. world war ii got us out of the great depression because it ended the new deal. paul: but you know that's an icon, a political historical icon with democrats because it
includes social security and all of those things. >> on its own terms, it was a failure. i don't think the green new deal will be any more successful, particularly when the public realizes what exactly is in there. things like ending the com comee engine, flights being rea placed with high speed trains, i don't think the public will go for that. paul: this reminds me of when democrats talk about climate change and the problem, they think they have the advantage. every time this novembers what do you do about -- this novembers what do you do about it, the public says you're trying to ask me to raise taxes or change my lifestyle or do something dramatic and they lose. i'm reminded of when bill clinton was president, it came up for a vote in the senate and lost 95-0. remember cap and trade which passed the house in 2009, didn't even get a vote in a senate with
59 democrats in 2009 or '10. how do you explain that disconnect? >> well, some people would argue that passing that cap and trade bill through the house was among the contributing factors why house democrats lost control of that chamber back in 2010 because it was so immensely unpopular among so many constituents. this is you just put your fin r gyre ogearfinger onit, it's whyo hold a vote and they want to discuss the practicalities and the cost. when you throw out there, what do you think about climate change, there's a lot of people that say we should be doing something about it. when you get to the knity gritty about what would have to be done and the fact that other major polluters and people in the world like china and india are doing nothing, so american contribution to this would really make no real deputy in carbon emissions whatsoever,
that's when people begin to back away and that's why republicans want this vote and that's where they want the debate to be. paul: allysia, do you think the democrats are going to walk away from this then, because it has been welcomed with something less than hosannas or are they going to keep plowing ahead in the presidential race? >> i think they're going to plow ahead. paul: why? >> this is going to be a goal. we can't achieve this necessarily in s 0 year 1 0e 10d to do something about climate change. here's supposedly a plan and also meets all their other entitlement plans in terms of the jobs guarantee, paid family leave, even paid vacation. it kind of encompasses everything that the progressive movement stands for. paul: thank you all. when we come back, freshman congresswoman ilhan omar forced to apologize this week for her anti-semetic comments.
what the controversy says about the democratic party's support for israel, next. sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. on average, we'll live move more in eleven homes. in the world. and every time we move, things change. apartments become houses, cars become mini vans. as we upgrade and downsize, an allstate agent will do the same for our protection. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? (ala♪m goes off) wake up sweetie. ♪ doctor dave. see ya.
show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. congressman omar is terrible, what she said, and i think she should either resign from congress or she should certainly resign from the house foreign affairs committee. paul: president trump this week calling on minnesota congresswoman ilhan omar to resign following a series of tweets that were widely seen as anti-semetic. omar claimed on twitter that congressional colleagues defend israel for the money and the pro-israel group apack was paying lawmakers for their support. the congresswoman apologized after democratic leaders condemned her statement, saying
in a statement, quote, we are and will always be strong supporters of israel in congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests, legitimate criticism of israel's policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the united states and israel share but congresswoman omar's use of anti-semetic tropes and prejudicial accusations about israel's supporters is deeply offensive. let's bring in fox news contributor, all aari fleischer. let me ask what you think of the omar episode and how democrats handled it. >> it's a per son fi per son phf what's been happening. the pugh organization has been
asking, who do you sympathize with more and in 2001, almost 20 years ago when they asked the question, 50% of republicans said they sympathize more with republicans 38% of democrats. that was a 12 point israel gap. today, that gap is 52 points. 79% of republicans told pugh they sympathize more with israel than the palestinian. democrat support is down to 27%. paul: what you're saying is -- >> 52 point drop. paul: you're suggesting that somehow ilhan omar reflects a major point of view within the democratic party, that movement. what explains that kind of change in public sentiment? because as you know -- harry truman is the president that recognized israel and israel has always had bipartisan support. >> frankly, i think the democrats have turned their back on israel. they have fo forgotten the histy
of israel. israel was given that land and the day israel was born arab nations attacked israel in the heart of the province. the arab nations, many of them haven't recognized israel's right to exist. that's something the democrats don't talk about or have forgotten about. paul: you're saying the democratic leadership, even though they condemned omar's remarks, is responsible for not leading on the issue itself enough and expressing their support he vocally enough for israel? >> the democrat leadership is squeezed. i think there are many democratic leaders, steny hoyer who is still a strong supporter of israel but you can't have the grass roots be so anti-israel without it eventually weakening the leaders, without it eventually electing congressmen and women who reflect the grass roots as in the case of ilhan omar. don't forget at barack obama
convention, that removed the statement that jerusalem was the capital of israel. when they discovered it was removed, they tried to putt it back on the floor and they were met with boos on the floor and sounds like the grass root democrats objected to put it back. they knew the majority of delegates. paul: i want to ask about this issue that omar and supporters would respond to you and say look, i'm not anti-semetic. what we're doing is putting opposition to israel's policies on the table and we ought to be able as americans to debate that and that doesn't mean that you can bring up any time anybody opposes israel on anything that they can be a accused of anti-semitism. isn't that a fair point? >> look, the new papering over is to say i'm not anti-semetic, i'm anti-israel and there's a difference when there's very
little difference. paul: why is there not a difference? we're talking about individuals versus a government policy. >> because what you see is a case of congresswoman omar, she says that the only reason people support israel is because of money. she doesn't think there could be merit. she doesn't think there could be actual legitimate values based, american defense s. western democracy, reasons to support israel. she goes to the oldest, worst stair hstereotype which is mone, that's anti-semitism, plain and simple, nothing to do with israel. paul: should she have lost her position at the house foreign affairs committee? they rebuked her and in public terms, but they didn't do what republicans did with steve king and removed his committee assignment. should she have lost hers? >> i was glad to see the democratic leadership rebuke her. it's the proper thing to do. if i were the democrats i would remove somebody from the
committee unless you want somebody who is anti-israel to be a symbol of who the democrats are today. i would remove her from the committee. you don't want somebody on that committee with those views. president trump called on her to resign. i don't think that's appropriate. i think decisions about who serves are left up to the people. but committee assignments, that's up to the leadership. paul: thank you, appreciate you being here. when we come back, as william barr is sworn in as attorney general, we look at the mess he is inheriting at the department of justice, including the new claims by former fbi director, andrew mccabe. i don't keep track of regrets.
and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts
paul: will yack barr was sworn in as attorney general on thursday, following a confirmation vote in the senate. barr who is taking the reining fothe for thesecond time. there are allegations that doj officials discussed removing president trump from office under the 25th amendment. kim, what do you make of the extraordinary admission by andrew mccabe that fbi officials, doj officials were thinking about removing a dually elected president months after the election. >> it's crazy to have to go here. but i'm going to go there.
essentially what they were doing is engaging or at least contemplating a coup because, look, this is not the fbi's job, right, paul? the fbi's job is to investigate. it's to recommend prosecution or if it really believed what it believed was happening here, that some0:thi somehow this pres unfit to serve in office, it was to inform members of congress or to inform other senior members of the cabinet who could look at the 25th amendment. the fbi has no role here. the idea they thought this was appropriate, just says everything about jim comey and andy mccabe and their sense of their own importance and no rules about what they needed to follow in order to -- in their job. paul: 25th amendment was passed in order to deal with presidents who are physically or mentally incapacitated, not to
say president, we don't happen to like. so this is -- i'm not sure this has ever happened before. >> i agree. i'm as shocked as kim is. these guys seem to have turned the fbi into an arm of the democratic national committee in essence. to do what they were doing. now, of course andrew mccabe is not the most reliable narrater. he's out there trying to sell a book right now. rod rosenstein has denied this account that he wore a wire, whatever, on the president. this is shocking stuff. this is not what we expect our fbi to be up to ou, our justice department to be up to. i'll know we'll talk about will barr soon. the agency, the department is in need of adult supervision. paul: bill barr confirmed with a 54 votes, three democrats, joe manchin, kristen cinema, doug jones ofal bay m of alabama whes
confirmed in the george h.w. administration. what do you think barr's main task is? >> he will have to impose some discipline on the justice department and the fbi and corral these guys who are basically becoming political agents. i think he needs to oversee, provide more oversight, the solicitor general which submitted some kind of strange a amamcus brief and there's such a diffuse organization that he needs to impose discipline on. paul: and get political order on and to run the department. sessions, because he was for a variety of reasons hadn't done that i guess is what you're saying. >> some obama era prosecutions and investigations have continued, that of quicken
loans, he should probably drop that one, among others. paul: okay, kim. what do you think -- you wrote your column about barr this week and you said he's got a big task in front of him. how should he handle the mueller probe? >> well, look, he's already said that he's not going to necessarily interfere in the mueller probe in that whatever findings mueller gives to him, that he will send them along to congress to the stheant the laww allows him to. we may not hear about him necessarily setting deadlines on when this gets finished. we heard reports that mueller is close to being done. let's hope that's the case. he could impose more of a time line. more broadly, paul, i think he's got to stand up and address the country about this question of the credibility of the department of justice and fbi. when you have half of the country that no longer trusts
federal law enforcement because of the actions it's taken, debilitating. they'll have to restore credibility, get straight with congress and reasserting lines of authorities and rules. paul: jason? >> i agree. he is the person for the job. the fact that so few democrats voted for him, someone who had the job before, someone who is well respected in legal circles, tells you how partisan we've gotten here with the advise and consent rule. it's ridiculous they would argue that someone like bill barr is not qualified. paul: paul manafort was accused by a judge of having lied to prosecutors about some meetings he had. does this relate at all to the russia probe? do we learn anything more about the collusion? >> nothing more, i don't think. we know he's been involved in sleysy dealings. he's lied before. a direct connection again to the president, whether he knew anything about this or directed manafort, i don't see that.
i think this is very low-hanging fruit for mueller. if he's hanging everything on manafort, i think there's nothing there. paul: all right. thank you all. still ahead, new york's high tax woes, as governor andrew cuomo lobbies president trump to repeal a key component of his 2017 tax overhaul when amazon scrapped plans for a new york city headquarters, the latest on both, next. to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best to make you everybody else... ♪ ♪ means to fight the hardest battle, which any human being can fight and never stop. does this sound dismal? it isn't. ♪ ♪ it's the most wonderful life on earth. ♪ ♪
need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites - even our competitors - so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done. alright, i'm getting in the car nosounds like a plan.n. woah! sorry, i dropped you. it's really dark down here. don't let this happen to you. the weathertech cupfone fits virtually any size cup holder. that's better. order you're cupfone today at weathertech.com. this is not an academic discussion, my friends. this is real life. people are mobile. and they will go to a better tax environment. people are making locational decisions based on finances and from our point of view, that is
highly problematic. paul: that was new york governor andrew cuomo this week, blaming a $2.3 billion budget shortfall on a key component of the 2017 tax overhaul, pointing to the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions as the reason the top earns are fleeing the empire state. cuomo paid a visit to the white house to lobby president trump to repeal the salt deductions, days before amazon announced it is scrapping plans to build a second headquarters in new york city, drawing new attention to new york's unfriendly business climate. scott hodge is president of the tax foundation. good to see you again. i want to ask about the amazon decision first, all right. the state and city were offering amazon $3 billion in subsidies and yet amazon walked away. what do you make of that decision? why do you think they did it? >> i think there seems to be a
populist objection, a revolt, these sort of give-aways especially for large firms like amazon. i was in new york and i heard a lot of anti-subsidy sentiment and i think that contributed to a lot of that. and that's not unusual. we're seeing that more and more across the country as states try to reach these kind of subsidy deals with big companies and it creates a lot of real objection among people who are there in the state, especially businesses who are paying full freight and see someone with more political clout come in and get big subsidies. it really creates a lot of hostility and it's quite understand. paul: well, but you and i both know, we watched this for a lock time, states have been using subsidies to lure businesses from other states or lure a new plant or from overseas for decades. i guess one change is the magnitude and $3 billion is a lot of money. another change i guess is amazon is just so wealthy and so -- it
has so much money so is that how you explain it? they've been doing this for a long time. >> it's interesting to compare the subsidies given by virginia, which is getting the other headquarters, with that of new york. new york's subsidies were twice as much per job created, about $40,000 per job, compared to virginia whose subsidies amounted to $20,000 per job. it tells you about the differences between the tax climates in virginia versus new york. as you know and as we reported on this for years, new york has one of the worst business climates in the united states. usually vying between new jersey and new york for having the absolute worst business climate. the income taxes in new york, 8% for personal income, but in new york city it's around 12%. paul: it's higher, my friend. i think it's 12.6 or something like that. believe me, i pay it every year.
it's painful. so it's, what, 48, 49th, 50th in overall tax planning. >> that's right. paul: that makes the salt deduction issue ever more damaging to new york state. andrew cuomo's gone to donald trump and said can you help me with this. is that likely to happen? >> no, it's not likely to happen. i get pretty good assurances from folks in the white house that they may be accommodating the governor but i don't think they're going to give anywhere. you're certainly not going to see any give in the senate which would also have to approve this. this is law now and the great thing about the salt cap is it puts everyone on equal footing. no matter where you live in america, you're going to live with the same tax law. and we've essentially gotten rid of the open ended checkbook where states like new york and california could pass a along their tax burden to washington, really being subsidized by
everyonone else in america. now we're on the same footing, we know what the rules are and that's forcing states like new york to endure tax competition. paul: we heard cuomo ring the alarm bell, no question about that and candidly so. are we seeing states like new york change their behavior, change their policies to become more competitive in terms of the business climate? so far at least, i don't see that happening here. is it going to have to happen? >> i think it will over time as states begin to realize they can no longer shift this bu burden o washington. you know, the governor tries to blame this on a blue state, red state issue. it's really not. the salt deduction or the salt cap affects only a small number of very wealthy individuals who live in pockets or counties or communities that have very high property taxes along with their
high state tax as well. and if you look at new york, for instance, people in upstate new york, let's say st. lawrence county, have an average itemized deduction of $2,000. in westchester countying countye average itemize itemized deducts $16,000. paul: in terms of the state revenues, i think the 1% of income earners pay well above 40%, i think, i haven't checked the latest data but it's up there, of all state tax revenue. if they drive those people out to florida, texas or tennessee which don't have an income tax, that really hurts. >> it does. we're seeing the effects of a progressive income tax system and the attempts to try to deal with inequality through the tax code. you knock lots of people off the bottom. you put the burden on the top and the consequence is people
find friendlier tax climates. new york is the best thing that's ever happened to texas and florida and as you say tennessee, states with much better tax climates. paul: thank you, scott. appreciate it. as the 2020 democratic deal continues to grow, a closer look at the latest entrants and what amy blo klobuchar brings to a re already crowded with fellow democrats. snap some pics and you could get back on the road fast! well, not that fast. this editor made this commercial fit in 15 seconds. when insurance is simple, it's surprisingly painless.
the two-term senator positioning herself as the pragmatic alternative to some of the more liberal contenders and a midwesterner that can win back wisconsin, michigan and ohio. cacan klobuchar emerge? kyle, you're a fellow midwesterner. what is her selling point to democrats? >> she can be a goldilocks candidate. she is young, she's 58. she acts presidential. she's not instagraming den instl cleanings. she's liberal but she's not too liberal. she supports green jobs but she says i'm a capitalist. she supports universal health care but is not in favor of the medicare for all bill offered by bernie sanders. she can pull a little from everywhere. she could run down the center lane of the democratic party. paul: do you buy the i'm a
pragmatic progressive pitch, jason? >> kyle made a good pitch for it. strategically it's smart, the progressive lane of the party is getting more crowded by the day. i think it's wise to think that maybe not all democrats are looking for a sort of left wing donald trump. so i think staking out the middle ground is a wise thing to do. paul: is she as moderate as she says? >> well, she's from minnesota. she's not one of these coastal elite types. she has that going for her. she does check off some of the progressive boxes there. she is a woman, the identity politics officer ven fervent iny are looking for that sort of thing. paul: what do you make of the stories that came out this week, anonymously sourced, about the fact that klobuchar is a tough
boss, that she erupted over small errors and that she even threw some things at people? does that hurt her reputation for being minnesota nice, as they say? >> well, it certainly undermines it. look, we would like to have seen these stories with some real names, not anonymously sourced. although it is true that she has some of the highest staff turnover in washington and these rumors have certainly swirled around washington for a long time, that she's not the easiest person to work for. does it really hurt her in the end? no. but it's interesting, what it does say is there's a lot of people that would rather on the progressive left not want to see amy clop cha klobuchar run. they don't like her brand of politics. by the way, she is liberal. she couldn't bring herself to vote for attorney general bill blarbarr this week.
for many, she is not nearly progressive enough. so it says more about how they would like to kill her candidacy than it does about her and her style. paul: what about the question of elec electability. she's saying i could win against donald trump. >> there's something to it. you had the same sort of thing happen in 2016 with hillary clinton and bernie sanders, bernie sanders saying he was the more progressive candidate, hillary clinton saying i'm the one that could win, but she didn't win in the end. paul: i think a lot of democrats this year, jason, are saying to themselves you know what, donald trump is going to lose, as they look at poll numbers, why don't we go with the real thing, let's go with the real progressive because it doesn't matter who we nominate as long as it's not a crazy person. >> i think your read on that is
correct, paul. i think democrats are feeling heady right now. they picked up 40 seats in the midterm. they won a shutdown fight with the president. why not go for it here, this guy is toast in 2020 and why leave anything in the locker room. we're going to grab everything off the shelf, a green new deal, medicaid for all, and we'll ram it down the throats of the republican party and we think we can win. paul: is she more electable than some of the others in the race? >> no. she's got an issue -- no one knows her outside of minnesota. she's got a question of where she's going to get money. it's a crowded field. i think it's tough for her to get anywhere. paul: very interesting. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ when cravings hit, hit back. choose glucerna, with slow release carbs to help manage blood sugar, and start making everyday progress.
glucerna. you'll earn unlimited double camiles on every purchase,. every day... not just "airline purchases." (loud) holy moley that's a lot of miles!!! shhhhh! what's in your wallet? - shhhhh! - it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during the ultimate sleep number event. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. during our presidents day weekend special, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 36-month financing. ends monday. sleep number... proven quality sleep
farewell to the mars opportunity rover or i like to call it the little rover that could. when we said this 400-pound robot up to mars, it was supposed to last for 90 mission days. instead, it survived the incredibly harsh mars climate and computer malfunctions to work for 15 years. it is not just the science it sent back to us but as americans checked in on it, it was a reminder of american gentlemen new aingentlemeningenuity.>> thr eliminating the gassy creatures. they said the planet can't sustain billions of people eating meat. i can't wait for him to show up with tofurkey leg.
>> ned lamont ran last year and said he would not raise taxes. he's talking about a sales tax expansion, basically extending the sales tax to services, including netflix and dvd subscriptions over the web. this is a tax increase by any other name. paul: jason? >> this is a miss for senator kamala harris of california, running for president on the democratic party. she claimed she smoked dope in college to gangster rappers. the only problem is the rapper she named hadn't launched the career when she was in college. what struck me is the changing sensibilities among politicians. they used to lie about smoking drugs, now they brag about it. paul: that's it for this week's show. thanks to my panel and thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul gigot. we hope to see you right here
next week. eric: we start with a fox news alert, president trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, that's quickly sparking a fierce legal battle but the number of lawsuits already filed against him. l california's governor and attorney general saying they plan on taking the administration to court as well. as even more opponents are lining up. hello, i'm eric shawn and this is a brand-new hour of america's news headquarters. i'm laura ingal. the president facing a legal showdown and a political one as well with democrats vowing an aggressive response and hoping to pressure some republicans to join them but the president