Rand Paul Is ‘Worked up’ About Tax Cuts, Lack of Conservatism in the GOP

October 19, 2017

WRITER

“I want a big, big, very bold tax cut,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) declared earlier this week. “I’m for ‘the bigger, the better.’”

Republicans used to care about limited government. What happened? If you’re also frustrated about the size of government and out-of-control spending, don’t miss Paul’s epic rant from today’s show. He had some special words for Republicans who say sticking to a budget isn’t important – even though limiting government spending is supposed to be a party principle.

“Why don’t we put that we’re for single-payer in our platform because it ‘doesn’t matter’ what it’s in our platform?” Paul asked. “We’re turning out to be a bunch of hypocrites who say we care about the debt, yet the debt gets bigger and bigger under us.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Here is Rand Paul on Tuesday, talking about the G.O.P.

RAND: I think the biggest holdup is not people like me. I want a big, big variable tax cut. I'm for the bigger the better. And I will settle for less than I want. But I do want the biggest. And I will agitate to make sure that everybody across-the-board gets a tax cut. I think the problem really is on the other side. There are three or four people that don't want this to be a tax cut at all. They want it to be exactly revenue neutral, meaning that we will cut taxes on half the people and we will raise taxes on the other half to make it neutral.

I've always been a believer that you make it deficit neutral, by not raising other people's taxes, but by cutting spending.

So I have many entitlement reform bills that are out there. I can't get a Republican to sign on, because they give lip service to smaller government, but they're afraid of their shadow. And not a damn one of them really are for cutting spending.

GLENN: Rand Paul joins us now. Hello, Rand, how are you, sir?

RAND: Good morning, Glenn. Yeah, they got me kind of worked up on this. I'm kind of annoyed that Republicans forgot what it's like to be conservative. And they put things through that they have no intention of doing. So, yeah, I'm riled up.

I mean, it used to be there were some conservatives who believed that we should try to restrain spending. We capped it. We put these self-imposed restraints. And we exceed them all the time.

So we got Lindsey Graham and John McCain have now spent nearly $2 trillion off budget, and they're insisting on more. They will not put it on budget. It exceeds the spending caps. It's a game. It's a charade. And Lindsey Graham and John McCain are bankrupting our country. We have a $20 trillion debt. It's the biggest threat to our national security. And thank John McCain and Lindsey Graham for doing it.

GLENN: So help me out on this. There's no one in the Senate or the House -- there's -- I mean, is there a group of you guys that are standing together?

RAND: I think there has been in the past. And I think what they've been sold is a bill of goods by leadership that, oh, it doesn't matter anymore what's in the budget. It's toilet paper. It's basically, the budget is just a vehicle for doing Obamacare repeal. Well, then they didn't repeal Obamacare, because we lost like six or seven Republicans who said they were for repeal, and then they changed their mind. So now they say, oh, the budget doesn't matter. Well, the budget is what we stand for. It's like our platform. It's like saying, well, we don't care what's in our platform. Why don't we put that we're for single-payer in our platform, because it doesn't matter what's in our platform. No, it matters. It's what the Republican Party stands for. And what I'm so upset about, is that the Republican Party -- we're turning out to be a bunch of hypocrites who say we care about the debt. Yet the debt gets bigger and bigger under us.

GLENN: Yeah, you've already pointed this out, it's not only the debt. It's small government. It's constitutional principles. It's, you know, freedom of the press.

It's everything.

So what is the future of the Republican Party?

RAND: Well, I'm going to give them a chance to vote on a couple of things. But I can tell you I'm getting pressure and my arm twisted not to introduce any amendments to the budget. But I'm going to introduce my First Amendment will be this, there's $43 billion in it that's above the spending caps that's put in an account that is immune to any kind of surveillance. The account that spent 2 trillion, the overseas contingency account.

GLENN: Wait. What does that mean? Where does that money go? What is that money?

RAND: Starting 15 years ago, we started saying, you know what, we're at war, but we're not going to account for the money. We're not going to appropriate it, as we should through the defense budget. We're just going to put it into an account that exceeds all the caps, and then we're going to pretend like we're fiscally conservative. And the liberals said, well, you can do that, but then you got to give us more emergency money for welfare. So we got the welfare and the warfare crowd coming together.

GLENN: My gosh.

RAND: Look, George Bush -- the debt went from 5 trillion to 10 trillion under George W. Bush. Under Obama, it went from ten to 20 trillion. And now we're going to do it again because Republicans are not serious and honest about really wanting to cut spending. So in the budget, in the first year of this budget -- this is a good thing -- there's a $96 billion entitlement cut. And I asked them: Okay. Who has the bill that does that? Which committee is studying entitlement reform? There is no bill. There is no one studying it. And there is absolutely no intention of doing it. So I'm going to introduce an amendment to --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. You're moving too fast. Wait.

So they said that they were going to cut, but then they took no action after they passed that?

RAND: Well, it hadn't passed yet. This is going to be voted on today. But my point is, why don't we have budget reconciliation instructions? These are the instructions that through simple majority, we can do entitlement reform. There's nothing stopping us. Just our will. So I'm going to give them a chance today. I'm going to put an amendment forward today, that says, to a simple majority, through the budget process, we can do entitlement reform.

And you know what's going to be fun to watch? To watch them squirm. Because I guarantee all of leadership will vote no. And most of the Republicans will vote against doing entitlement reform. I'm also going to give them the chance to vote on Obamacare again. I guarantee, most of them will vote against, considering instructions to do Obamacare repeal. Then I'm going to try to cut the money that they've put in that's above the spending caps. And I will lose probably overwhelmingly because Republicans are not serious. And basically, they are hypocrites.

They say they want to cut spending. They go home, and they say they have a problem with the debt. And the debt gets worse under Republicans because they're not serious.

GLENN: So this to me sounds like a -- gauntlet being thrown down at the foot. What is the if not, then?

RAND: I think what happens is they're going to get their budget through. Because I'm the sole and only voice that says, we should stay within the spending caps. So I don't have anyone else to join me. But I'm going to raise hell doing it anyway.

GLENN: You can't get Mike Lee to even help you on this?

RAND: You have to ask him on that.

GLENN: Okay. I will.

RAND: The thing is, is that, I'm going to stay where I am. Because the thing is, is, look, they tell me that the budget means nothing. They tell me it's a piece of toilet paper, and it doesn't mean anything. It's just a vehicle for tax reform. And I say, well, if it doesn't mean anything, why don't you let me put into it a conservative vision that we shouldn't spend too much money? Why don't we put that in the budget?

And they say, oh, no. We can't change it. Because John McCain and Lindsey Graham want unlimited military spending. And I say, well, that's bankrupting us as well, because then the liberals come back and want unlimited welfare spending. And so they say, we can't give -- there's more of those who want unlimited spending than there are conservatives.

If I had one or two other persons, two other senators to stand with me, we could dictate what's in the budget. But they refuse to do it.

GLENN: Okay. Who is most likely to help you? And we can have the audience to call them.

RAND: Right now, there isn't anyone. And so that's the problem. And that's a sad fact is that nobody cares about the budget. Nobody cares about the debt. And we're just going to do this to get to a tax cut.

And, look, I'm all in on the tax cut. The bigger, the better.

I told the president this weekend, I will vote for the biggest tax cut that comes down. I will also vote for the small one. But I am all in on the tax cuts. But just I can't just give up on being a conservative and say, oh, I'm not for spending cuts. That's my whole principle, is the way we would balance a tax cut is with spending cuts. We're not going to do the spending cuts, then we're just dishonest.

GLENN: Yeah. In fact, the Roaring Twenties was caused by the spending cuts and the tax cuts second. It's the way it should be done.

Let me go to -- let me go to health care. It was amazing to see you standing behind the president as he signed -- I hate to describe it as an executive order because it was just a clarification of the law, that allowed people to buy insurance in ways they had never been allowed to buy before. And the reason why it was amazing is because you and people like you were the biggest enemy of Donald Trump, according to his side. You know, it was the Freedom Caucus and the -- and the small government constitutionalists that were causing all the problems. And in the end, you were the only one that could get anything done.

RAND: This is going to be bigger than many people imagine. There's up to 50 million people in our country who could possibly get insurance through health associations. Some of these are pretty big. National Restaurant Association has a couple of million restaurants. Fifteen million employees.

Can you imagine if you worked at McDonald's and right now you have no insurance, but then they said, oh, you can join to be part of a 15-million person group insurance plan, and you're going to be able to get the leverage of having 15 million people to tell big insurance that they're going to have to come down on their prices? This would be an amazing thing. There's 28 million people right now under Obamacare, who don't have insurance.

I think this allowing individuals to join groups could potentially help a lot of that 28 million. There's 11 million people in the Obamacare individual market. Many of them have had 100 percent increase in their premiums. This is a good chance of letting them get insurance that isn't so expensive.

GLENN: Now, how long does it take for these -- like the Restaurant Association to be able to do it? Are they motivated to do it?

RAND: Well, I think they are. A lot of the associations are excited. The realtors, the retailers, the franchisees, a lot of them are excited by it. Unfortunately, the government is so damn slow.

So the regulations probably won't come out for a couple of months. When they do, it will be too late for 2018. Because people buy their insurance in 2017, for 2018. So, really, we're looking at unfortunately 2019. But we have to do this kind of stuff. We have to allow more people to have freedom. And on whether or not it's executive order, I think it's important to know that an executive order that undoes -- an executive order that was overreach is a good thing. So I think you have a natural right, a natural liberty to associate.

And the Supreme Court has upheld this several times. You have right to peaceable assembly. But you also have the right to associate for economic means, and the Supreme Court has upheld that too. So if you and I want to get together and in association to get purchasing power, I think there's actually a First Amendment protection of that.

Either way, what President Trump has done, is looked at the original health care law from the '70s, read it closely, and said, guess what, the regulators of Clinton, Bush, and Obama got it wrong. We're rereading the bill, the original bill, and this is the interpretation we think is most consistent with the bill. I think as long as that's allowing freedom and not creating a new government program, but allowing you the freedom to buy something, I think that is an appropriate use.

GLENN: So quickly, I've only got about a minute and a half left. Let me play this audio and get your reaction. This is testimony from Jeff Sessions yesterday.

VOICE: And I'll ask the same question, will you commit to not putting reporters in jail for doing their jobs?

JEFF: Well, I don't know that I can make a blanket commitment to that effect. But I would say this, we have not taken any aggressive action against the media at this point.

GLENN: So it's a pretty easy answer for me. How would you have answered that, Rand?

RAND: My answer to his answer is, oh, my God. I can't believe that was his answer. No. Nobody is going to jail. Nobody in the press should go to the jail.

In fact, the thing about the First Amendment is it protects all speech, even offensive speech. And probably most particularly offensive speech, because good speech, nobody complains about.

If I tell you I loved Glenn Beck, you're not going to want to censor that. If I say something mean, that's what people want to censor. But you have to have dissent and criticism in a free society. My goodness, if you can't defend the First Amendment, where are we?

GLENN: Right. Right.

It is terrifying the road that we're on. And, Rand, I appreciate all your hard work and the hard stances that you take. And I'm sure you get a lot of -- a lot of trouble on Capitol Hill and maybe some trouble back home. But we're a fan. Thank you so much for your hard work.

RAND: You bet. Buh-bye.

GLENN: You bet. Rand Paul.

See if we can get a hold of Mike Lee. Ted Cruz. Ben Sasse. See if we can get any of them to go on the record of why they won't stand with him on this. I can't believe there's nobody in the Senate. But, you know.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Rand Paul Is ‘Worked up’ About Tax Cuts, Lack of Conservatism in the GOP

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?