and at the end of the week what they re going to have is not the health care bill and maybe a one week extension for the budget. what does that say about republican government? they had the house. they won the senate. they said give us a republican president and we will show you we can get things done. we have stop gap measures to keep the government open or at least start moving, advancing their signature promise of the last five, six, seven years, repeal and replace obamacare. there s a reason they didn t have something to go. health care is pligtcomplicated not everybody agrees. the republican party has many factions that i guess no one bothered to talk to before making this promise that this was going to happen right away. they are complicating the government shutdown vote. by adding the border fence funding into the mix again, that could, you know, push them even further apart. let s go through these
not going to say anything is easy, but the one thing you could do in the short term, and we need to do stop gap measures so there are no copy cats, the airlines do have discretion and we would have discretion on banning ammunition. alaska airlines allows 50 pounds of ammunition. if you remove that from the scene, then you would obviously take away the ability to use a gun other than as a blunt instrument. but in some court cases, ammunition have been has been defined as included in part of the right to carry. part of the right to have a firearm. so it s a complicated thing. but in the short term, this discussion needs to remove the ammo from the scene for now until we can sort this out. because i worry about copy cats. greg, even if the passengers on this plane, they were not allowed to carry ammunition or to carry weapons at some point in their checked baggage, anyone who s driving up to the arrivals
that is wrong. it is throw the baby out with the bong water. good point. his whole idea is do not put pot users in jail, but it is still not legalizing it. you are keeping the drug war going while then creating another government entity to take care of the rehab. absolutely. they work in such a way that if you don t show up for your drug test or if you fail your drug test you go to jail. it is not like a special you never go to jail cause. it is nuts. by the way, he was addicted to legal drugs. wasn t he? he was addicted to medically prescribed. washington and colorado both, they have stop gap measures in the new revenue generators that allow for money to go to public funds for addiction. and that is the problem here. it is not marijuana. it is not pot. an addiction to the public health programs. we are going to pay for this, we will. and can t you get don t you
unconstitutional to latino voters that didn t like the law. i think arizona was on the forefront of this anti-immigration law. now that the court struck it down, other states are hesitant to pat laws. it will change immigration policy more broadly as you look forward. alice, do you aagree that the reaction from mitt romney as he lands in arizona today for this fund-raiser, he needs to be swift and come out with something specific in response? he has spoken on this topic. i agree with governor brewer thshgs a victory for the rule of law. what we need as a result of this is we need the federal government to do its job in enforcing the current immigration law. as governor romney has said, we need a comprehensive immigration plan and long-term strategies to deal with in and not short-term stop gap measures as the president imposed recently. governor romney says we need to secure the borders first and foremost, which is critical. we need employment verification and look at the big pictu
temporary measure. as president, i will settle for stop gap measures. bret: to the point you made earlier, steve, is that selling on the broad scale? well, you know, i think he is basically saying there, no, i m not going to rescind it until we have something to put in its place. that is appropriate for him to clarify that. look, i mean, it would have been helpful i think had he done it earlier. i agree with what charles said and to an extent what kirsten said in terms of the timing and the push. the fact that this was all happening in an election year made it highly unlikely. having said all of that, in theory, even if you take this congress as currently constituted, i think there would have been, or in theory could have been enough consensus to moved something like this, had it been done earlier. had you taken it out of the political context that it is now. immigration, they are going to reach consensus on something like this. with both of those leaders pushing? bret: las