Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
NOW WE'VE GOT A BIG BULLY, HARRY
REID SAYS HE'S JUST GOING TO
MAKE NEW RULES.
>> SENATOR DAN COATES JOINS ME
NOW.
SENATOR, YOU THINK THIS IS ALL A
DISTRACTION, THAT THE DEMOCRATS
ARE JUST -- THEY JUST WANT TO
CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
>> IF I WERE A DEMOCRAT KNOWING
TWO WEEKS OF GOING BACK HOME IN
FRONT OF THE PEOPLE, I'M NOT
SURE THEY ARE GOING TO THINK
THAT THE CONSTITUENTS ARE GOING
TO BE ASKING ABOUT JUDGE
NOMINATIONS.
THEY'LL BE ASKING A LOT ABOUT
OBAMA CARE.
>> I DON'T THINK THIS CHANGES
THAT.
PEOPLE WILL STILL BE --
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES EITHER.
I THINK THEY ARE DESPERATE FOR
SOMETHING, THEY CALL IT NUCLEAR
WAR.
THEY WANT US TO SEND MISSILES
BACK THE OTHER WAY.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
WHAT'S ON THE MINDS OF THE
PEOPLE IS THE ROLLOUT OF THIS
OBAMA CARE AND THE FEAR PEOPLE
HAVE OF LOSING THEIR DOCTOR, OF
PAYING DOUBLE PREMIUMS, NOT --
HAVING THEIR POLICIES CANCELED.
THAT'S WHAT'S ON PEOPLE'S MINDS.
THIS IS PURELY A DISTRACTION.
NOW, IT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISTRACTION FROM THE STANDPOINT
THAT IT BREAKS 225 YEARS OF
HISTORY.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING
FATHERS ENVISIONED.
THEY WANTED THE SENATE TO BE A
PLACE WHERE THINGS COOL DOWN AND
YOU COULD GET TO CONSENSUS.
IT'S ADVISE AND CONSENT.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID WE DON'T
WANT YOUR ADVICE OR CONSENT.
THERE'S NO COMPROMISE HERE AND
IT'S OUTRAGEOUS BUT WE'RE NOT
GOING TO FALL THROUGH THE TRAP
OF GETTING INTO WAR WITH THEM ON
THIS RIGHT NOW, WHEN THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON
OBAMA CARE AND THESE GUYS AND
GALS HERE NEED TO GO HOME AND
EXPLAIN IS THIS LAW REALLY THE
BEST THING FOR US.
>> SO I HAD A CHART FOR YOUR
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
UDALL.
AND I GOT -- I SHOULD GIVE
CREDIT, THE IDEAS FOR THESE
CHARTS CAME FROM CHRIS SILIZZA
OF THE "WASHINGTON POST."
THESE ARE FILIBUSTERS OF
EXECUTIVE NOMINEES.
LOOK AT THIS.
BUSH, WHEN YOU WERE IN THE
SENATE IN THE '80s, BUSH, ZERO,
CLINTON NINE, BUSH SEVEN.
OBAMA, 27.
PROJECTED FOR HIS SECOND TERM,
45.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THEY'RE NOT
FILIBUSTERS.
PEOPLE THINK OF SOMEBODY
STANDING ON THE FLOOR STOPPING
EVERYTHING FOR 20 YEARS WHILE
THEY TALK.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
BUT REQUIRING 60 VOTES --
REQUIRING 60 VOTES TO PROCEED TO
VOTE ON THE PERSON.
WE'RE JUST USING THE JARGON SO
PEOPLE AT HOME UNDERSTAND.
>> IT'S DESIGNED FOR THE RIGHTS
OF THE MINORITY.
MOST OF THE SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY
OF DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THIS HAVE
NEVER BEEN IN THE MINORITY.
>> I GET THAT.
BUT THIS IS A LOT OF
OBSTRUCTIONISM.
A LOT OF BLOCKING OF NOMINEES.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN 215 JUDICIAL
APPOINTMENTS BROUGHT BEFORE THE
SENATE.
ONLY TWO HAVE BEEN DENIED BY
REPUBLICANS.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT NOTHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE DOING
THIS EXCEPT TO SHOVE IT DOWN OUR
THROAT JUST LIKE THEY DID OBAMA
CARE IN 2009-2010.
STICK IT DOWN YOUR THROAT, WE
GOT THE POWER, YOU HAVE NOTHING
TO SAY ABOUT IT.
TAKE IT, LIVE WITH IT.
>> YOU WERE AMBASSADOR TO
GERMANY IN 2005 SO I DIDN'T HAVE
ONE OF THESE NIFTY CLIPS OF YOU
SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
WILL YOU COMMIT RIGHT NOW THAT
IF YOU GUYS, IF THE REPUBLICANS
TAKE BACK THE SEAT, YOU WILL
RETURN THINGS TO THE WAY THEY
WERE A DAY AGO?
>> IF I WAS MAJORITY LEADER OR
MINORITY LEADER, I COULD MAKE
THAT STATEMENT BUT I WILL BE ONE
OF MANY WHO THINK THAT THIS IS A
SACRED POWER GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE SO THE MINORITY HAS A
SAY IN SOMETHING.
THE MINORITY DIDN'T HAVE A SAY
IN OBAMA CARE IN 2009-2010.
LOOK WHAT'S ROLLED OUT HERE.
NOW THE MINORITY'S NOT GOING TO
HAVE A SAY --
>> REPUBLICANS HELPED DRAFT THAT
LEGISLATION.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A WHOLE
THING.
REPUBLICANS DID HELP DRAFT THAT
LEGISLATION EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T
VOTE FOR IT.
BE THAT AS IT MAY -- IN THE
SENATE THEY DID.
>> TRIED TO PUT A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS IN THAT WERE TURNED
DOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS.
NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR
THAT LAW.
>> FAIR ENOUGH.
THERE'S SOME TALK BY REPUBLICANS
THAT WELL, IF WE GET THE
MAJORITY NEXT YEAR, IN 2014, IN
THE MIDTERMS, WE WON'T EVEN --
WE WON'T KEEP IT JUST 51 VOTES
FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES AND FOR
EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS.
MAYBE WE'LL DO IT FOR
LEGISLATION, TOO.
THAT WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD AS
WELL, RIGHT?
THAT WOULD BE BAD.
>> WELL, IT WOULD.
I DON'T THINK THAT DECISION CAN
BE MADE NOW.
FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T HAVE THE
MAJORITY, IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THE 2014
ELECTIONS BRING.
BUT SECONDLY, I THINK LOOKING AT
THE TRADITION OF THE SENATE AND
THE ROLE OF THE SENATE, WE NEED
TO DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING.
>> BEFORE I LET YOU GO, I WANT
TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON A COUPLE
FOREIGN POLICY QUESTIONS GOING
ON.
LET'S JUST DO IRAN BECAUSE I
ONLY HAVE A MINUTE.
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE POTENTIAL
DEAL WITH IRAN, LESSENING SOME
OF THE SANCTIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR
CONCESSIONS FROM IRAN ON THEIR
NUCLEAR PROGRAM.
>> THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IT
BACKWARDS.
IRAN HAS BEEN IN PURSUIT OF
NUCLEAR WEAPONS FOR NEARLY A
DECADE.
THEY OUGHT TO BE THE ONES TO
CEASE FIRST AND THEN WE GIVE
THEM SOME RELIEF ON THAT.
RATHER THAN WE GIVE YOU THE
MONEY FIRST, WE GIVE YOU -- WE
DROP THE SANCTIONS OR LESSEN THE
SANCTIONS FIRST, THEN WE'LL
TRUST YOU TO GO FORWARD.
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT BEFORE
WITH NORTH KOREA.
>> NORTH KOREA.
RIGHT.
>> IN 1994.
THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
VERIFIED.
THE NORTH KOREANS CHEATED.
I DON'T TRUST THE IRANIANS TO
DO -- HONOR THAT RESULT BUT FOR
SURE, THEY NEED TO TAKE THE
FIRST STEP, NOT US.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE
PURSUING THE WEAPONS.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING
AGAINST ALL THE U.N. RESOLUTIONS
AND THE WORLD --
>> YOU OPPOSE IT.
>> I ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE IT.
I THINK IT'S VERY BAD