The McLaughlin Group

Issues: Immigration and Supreme Court / Potential Running Mates / Prescription Drug Prices

John McLaughlin, Host
Pat Buchanan, Author and Columnist
Eleanor Clift, The Daily Beast
Clarence Page, The Chicago Tribune
Tom Rogan, National Review/Opportunity Lives

Taped: Friday, March 11, 2016
Broadcast: Weekend of March 11-13, 2016

Copyright 2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein
are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>

ANNOUNCER: From Washington, THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP, the American original. For over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Issue One: Immigration in the Dock.


SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And what I believe right now is not only that we need comprehensive immigration reform, if the Congress does not do its job, as president of the United States, I will use the executive powers of that office to do what has to be done.

MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of President Obama’s November 2014 executive action on immigration. So, this week, California business leaders and some politicians submitted an amicus brief supporting Mr. Obama’s action, to allow 5 million illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. They argue, quote, "Today, the undocumented workforce alone contributes $130 billion to California’s gross domestic product, an amount larger than the entire GDPs of 19 others," end quote.

Twenty-six states disagree and have sued President Obama. And the president took new action this Friday, announcing that international graduate students in areas such as mathematics, science and technology will be able to remain in the United States for three years after graduating, a seven-month extension.


MCLAUGHLIN: Will the court be swayed by the California brief’s arguments about the economic benefits of illegal aliens? Pat Buchanan?

PAT BUCHANAN, AUTHOR & COLUMNIST: No, I don’t believe it will, John, because obviously, this is an issue that has roiled completely the campaign, and all the conservatives, all the Republicans basically are now for border security, and most of them are repatriating illegal immigrants in the country.

But the economic argument that is being made by the businessmen in California, I don’t really understand its relevance, because this argument is based on whether the president of the United States had the authority, the legal and judicial authority, to do what he did in November of 2014, and whether or not -- that doesn’t depend on whether immigration is good or you don’t think it’s good.

So, I don’t think that brief is going to amount to a hoot and I think a much larger question is, what is the effect of the loss of Justice Scalia to this ultimate decision?

MCLAUGHLIN: What do you think of the volume -- if that’s the right word -- and the intensity of politics?

BUCHANAN: This is, John, this is an argument, the argument the businessmen made is over economics. But to the folks who are supporting and a great many of those supporting Cruz and others, it’s over the country, it’s over what happens to America, it’s over the ideas, same idea that is happening in Europe.

Is our country being altered forever? Is Barack Obama being a transformative president at the expense of the country we grow up in? It goes to the heart, it goes to patriotism, and the arguments from economics for tens of millions of Americans, don’t trump the arguments of the heart.


ELEANOR CLIFT, THE DAILY BEAST: I don’t believe the court is going to weigh the changing culture of American, where they were losing America. I think they’re going to look at whether the president acted within his powers as an executive, and I think they are going to look at the amicus brief from California and other places.

The workforce in California, many of them are illegal and many of them are the parents of legal American citizens, and that’s what’s at heart here. The court is looking at the president’s authority, allowing the parents of American citizens to get work permits to stay in this country, and bringing -- I think immigrants are 40 percent of California’s population, bringing them out of shadows is the right to do.

And I think we ought to point out that the 26 states who are opposed to this, 24 of them, Republican governors, the other two have Republican attorney generals that have brought the suits, and the governors have stayed out of it, and they’re claiming that immigration hurts the American economy. So, it’s an argument that’s directly at odds with what the states, with the largest numbers of immigrant populations, are arguing.

So, it’s very much the line between the Republicans and the Democrats. At the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are arguing over how many more people you can allow to stay in this country legally, whereas, the Republicans are trying to figure every which way to deport 11 million people.

So, the country as for the American voter could not be clearer.

TOM ROGAN, NATIONAL REVIEW/OPPORTUNITY LIVES: I think that’s true on the sense of contrasts, but I think one of the strange things here is that the president talking about -- Jeffrey Goldberg who writes for "The Atlantic" had a great piece out this week, discussing the president’s foreign policy vision and why he didn’t in August 2013 take action against Assad with chemical weapons.

And one of the big premises was that President Obama believes the legislative branch, Congress, must have more responsibility in these decisions, that executive power has its limits. And yet here, in this case, we see pretty clearly, the president refusing to enforce federal law at a very, very, very significant level, on a very, very emotive and important concern for the country.

I think it is clearly illegal. That would be decided by the court. I think it’s interesting that the two decisions that are in doubt are Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, or Chief Justice Roberts, that the left side of the court has sort of seen as consolidated, their mind has already made up. But the final point is, look, I think it is important that we have this big important debate going forward.

The Democrats are saying, as many more people as we can, the Republicans are saying, we need to secure the border, we need to reduce immigration in terms of people illegally immigrating.


ROGAN: And Trump is right on that. And it’s forced people like me to say, you know, let’s have a process of reform, but also a process of dealing with this issue.


MCLAUGHLIN: -- was it difficult for you?

CLIFT: Right.


CLARENCE PAGE, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: We had a process of reform, moving toward comprehensive immigration reform, and what happened? It fell apart because of Republican opposition. They don’t want a comprehensive reform. They now want just to close the borders off and kick out the undocumented.

But what about the economies in places like California, which are tied very closely with, as we say, undocumented workers out there? New York’s economy and other places.

This is -- this tends to be a regional issue, and what’s being argued is not really the culture, Pat, it’s economics. Who’s going to pick the fruit? Who’s going to pick the vegetables and that sort of thing?


BUCHANAN: What’s being argued is what Eleanor said, basically. Did the president of the United States -- set aside your arguments and mine, have the authority and right to do what he did?

PAGE: Or did Congress have the authority to block it? That’s part of it, too.

BUCHANAN: Well, we didn’t -- we didn’t -- the court decides that. Did he?

CLIFT: Right.

BUCHANAN: But I’ll tell you this, your argument against my argument and what I’m saying, that is going to be the number one argument in the election of 2016, and Donald Trump, and I think in places like Michigan and in places like Ohio, these --

ROGAN: Pennsylvania.

BUCHANAN: Pennsylvania. These are the -- this is the issue that can keep those states into the red column, Eleanor.

PAGE: Well, we’ll see.

CLIFT: We’ll see. There are a lot of --


PAGE: -- campaign got launched on these issues, but it hasn’t finished yet.

CLIFT: There are a lot of people here legally who are going to vote, and a Republican who can’t get 40 --

BUCHANAN: A lot illegally will also vote.


CLIFT: I don’t believe that’s the case.

A Republican who can’t get 40 percent of the Hispanic vote is not going to do very well in a general election.

MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Will the court be swayed by the Mexican national who should have been deported three times, yet killed five people this week? I ask you, you want to try that?

ROGAN: Look --

CLIFT: No, why don’t we do a round robin on that because I want to register my no.


ROGAN: I think, no, that won’t be important. I think it’s the legal issue. But look, I think Republican -- the debate in the conservative circle is, how many people even provided a path to documented ability to stay in the United States?

PAGE: Or if.

ROGAN: OK. But you need to secure the border, which I don’t think liberals are serious about.

CLIFT: Oh, please.

ROGAN: And you also -- and you also -- Congress has a role.


ROGAN: The Founders intended for Congress to do this. It’s not the role of the executive to decide the boundaries of the executive at the flip or toss of a coin.

CLIFT: We’re talking about the parents of legal American citizens.


CLIFT: The Republican Party is always so big on family values. What about family values here? You’re going to rip the parents out and deport them?

BUCHANAN: No, they could all go home together.

CLIFT: It makes no sense.

BUCHANAN: They could all go home together.

CLIFT: No, American citizens don’t get deported.

BUCHANAN: On your point, John, that atrocity, that’s not going to influence the court. But atrocities like that, a couple more of those in the fall of this year that will influence who is the next president of the United States. And if they have those atrocities, I’ll tell you, it will underscore Donald Trump’s campaign --

CLIFT: It’s a pretty --

BUCHANAN: -- if he’s the nominee.

CLIFT: It’s a pretty weak read to run to be expecting atrocities, counting on the deaths to support your candidate.


PAGE: Between the undocumented, it has been documented as a lower crime rate, violent crime, than other residents of the country.

BUCHANAN: Are you going to tell that to the families of the victims here?

PAGE: Well, I don’t have to speak to the families of the victims, but I do have to speak to the public about how do we proceed from hereon out. And we can’t be governed by emotions entirely. We got to be governed by practical politics.

BUCHANAN: We’re going to be governed by the electorate, Clarence, in November.

PAGE: Yes, right, right. Practical politics.

MCLAUGHLIN: Is that difficult for you?

PAGE: It’s easy for me, John. How about you?


MCLAUGHLIN: Whatever it takes.

PAGE: You got it.

MCLAUGHLIN: Does it surprise you that there are now 61 million foreign born immigrants and their families in the U.S.?

BUCHANAN: No, we take a million legals in every year, and that’s a question that’s going to be tabled as well.

PAGE: A country that’s built on immigration, I don’t think that’s -- not only not surprising, it is a positive development.

BUCHANAN: We’ve had periods of no immigration, and periods of high immigration, and periods of no immigration, and we need a timeout.

MCLAUGHLIN: Have we ever had a higher immigration rate in this country than we have today?

CLIFT: Probably when my parents came over.

BUCHANAN: From 1890 to 1920.

CLIFT: That’s right.

BUCHANAN: You had a similar percentage, but it was based on a population of about 110 million, not 320 million.

PAGE: Yes. But the thing is, I mean, when Bush was president and John McCain started running for president, we were talking seriously about comprehensive immigration reform. Then, McCain run up against a brick wall and a big pushback from the right, and we didn’t have a serious debate since then. That’s why we’re living in this situation that’s absurd, but there’s no progress being made.

BUCHANAN: But we had to push back, Clarence, because the public made their views known to the Congress, which rejected it.

PAGE: That’s OK, but why don’t we have a serious debate? That’s what I’m talking about.


BUCHANAN: We did, we did, and you lost. You lost that one.


CLIFT: And minority voices in the Republican --

MCLAUGHLIN: You’re all talking at once. It has to stop.

Exit question: this is the way to stop it, right, Clarence?

CLIFT: OK. We stopped.

PAGE: Absolutely.

MCLAUGHLIN: How will a court rule on President Obama’s executive action on immigration? One word, is it constitutional or unconstitutional? I ask you --

BUCHANAN: I think it’s unconstitutional, but I don’t know how it’s going to rule.

CLIFT: I believe it’s constitutional, based on what former presidents, going back to President Eisenhower and probably before that, have done that, in terms of this issue. So, I would guess constitutional, but, you know, it’s always risky to predict what the court will do, especially when it’s an eight-member court.

ROGAN: I think it’s pretty obvious. It’s unconstitutional. It will be a 4-4 decision, which refers to the court of -- federal Court of Appeals, which means that it essentially is ruled unconstitutional.

PAGE: I think it’s constitutional, under the president’s powers, emergency powers and other executive powers. It’s a kind of regulatory enforcement other presidents have done in the past, and especially now when you got fruit on the vines out there waiting for people to pick it. The president can make the argument very easily that we need to take some action right now.

MCLAUGHLIN: So, that amounts to the court ruling against Obama’s usurpation of powers that belong to the legislative branch.

ROGAN: Right.

PAGE: The legislative branch that won’t act, or blocks his action.

CLIFT: The court turned back that Arizona law, which was very anti-immigration.


CLIFT: And they said very plainly that immigration is a federal issue, not a state by state issue, and I expect they’re going to continue in that vein.

BUCHANAN: If the court calls it constitutional, the next president of the United States can use his executive authority to repeal it.

PAGE: That’s right.

MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Two: Picking a Running Mate.


STEPHEN COLBERT, TV HOST/COMEDIAN: Have you been asked or is there any likelihood or any truth to the rumors that she would approach, on a scale of one to Stephen, that’s flattering to be even mentioned but I have to concentrate on the job I’m doing right now?

JULIAN CASTRO, HUD SECRETARY: Stephen, it’s flattering to be even mentioned, but I’ve got to concentrate on the job that I’m doing.

COLBERT: So, she asked. She’s already talked to you about that?


MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): A member of President Obama’s cabinet, secretary of housing and urban development, Julian Castro, on whether he would accept an invitation by Hillary Clinton to be her running mate.

The former five-year mayor of San Antonio, Mr. Castro, age 41, is widely regarded in Democratic circles for his charisma, as a potential vote winner with Hispanic voters.

Yet, with the campaign now fully underway, Republican presidential hopefuls such as Donald Trump are also considering who they might pick as their running mate.


MCLAUGHLIN: Who will Trump pick? Eleanor?

CLIFT: I think we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves here. But I must say, judging by now the second former candidate who endorsed Trump, I think Trump’s not going to have any difficulty recruiting somebody to run with him. I think the Republican Party is going to begin to coalesce around him.

For Trump, if he could get Kasich, as the Ohio governor, I imagine he would look at Marco Rubio, little Marco, even if they could set aside all the personal insults.

But my favorite is former Senator Scott Brown. He was elected from Massachusetts, then ran in New Hampshire, didn’t come through. He evidently endorsed Trump in February.


CLIFT: He looks really good. He’s kind of, would give Trump some establishment patina. So, I think that’s who I’ll say today -- today, anyway.

BUCHANAN: I think that’s an interesting selection. You know, whether he picks some -- Kasich, depends, of course, on whether Kasich beats him in Ohio. If Trump beats Kasich, you don’t need him, but would Kasich help somewhat in Michigan and Illinois?

CLIFT: Yes, but if --

BUCHANAN: If you can get into those blue states and Pennsylvania, he’s from McKees Rocks, which is right up near Pittsburgh, up in that corner of Pennsylvania.

But Rubio had a great, I think an excellent final debate this week, and -- but he hasn’t won anything.

CLIFT: And he doesn’t seem, he doesn’t have the gravitas to be a potential president.

BUCHANAN: You know, let me tell you, Ted Cruz, however, I think would bring, you know, energy from the conservatives. But after you’ve called and said the guy has raised his hand or brought the bible in and holds it up, and then he starts lying, and this is what Trump has said about him, it’s hard to get together.

PAGE: Also, I think Kasich looks good here because a Republican has not gotten to the White House without winning Ohio, and if Kasich happens to beat Trump in Ohio, which makes sense since he’s the governor, it makes him all that much more valuable as a running mate. I think my personal choice, though, for Trump to pick would be Michael Bloomberg, except they both come from New York. You got to balance that ticket out.


PAGE: He’s got to broaden his base, though, one way or the other.

CLIFT: Right.

ROGAN: The question is, what does Trump need to do? And I think he needs to do three things. He needs to get the more establishment conservatives to sign up to him.

PAGE: Right.

ROGAN: He needs to consolidate his position with social conservatives. And I think he needs a candidate who has something different to him, in the sense of seeming more reserved, a kind of elder statesman, someone who has the ability to go and represent, would also, you know, show deference and be the second place in the ticket.

PAGE: And the winner is?

ROGAN: And the winner -- well, I thought Pat would make a good choice, actually, with social conservatives.

CLIFT: I don’t think --

BUCHANAN: I’m too young for the ticket.


ROGAN: But I think Scott Brown is very interesting.

BUCHANAN: I think Scott Brown is interesting, too.

ROGAN: And I think -- with Trump, with his -- of course, you know, the Chris Christie thing, what is he been offered to stand there with that morose face?

CLIFT: Oh, attorney general would be better.

BUCHANAN: Attorney general, I agree with Eleanor on that.


BUCHANAN: And I think -- let me say, I think Ben Carson would be secretary of education in a second.


BUCHANAN: He’d do an outstanding job.

CLIFT: Yes, but you don’t see him as vice president?

BUCHANAN: No, I don’t. I don’t think --

CLIFT: I don’t either.

ROGAN: They wouldn’t gel, would they?

BUCHANAN: Well, it’s not -- I don’t think --

CLIFT: Well, he doesn’t have --

BUCHANAN: I don’t think he would bring the African-American vote away from Hillary, who I think is going to be the nominee.

CLIFT: Right.

PAGE: I agree. I think education is good too, because that’s a department Trump that he doesn’t care about.

CLIFT: Right.

BUCHANAN: Yes. Well, some of our guys are going to extinguish it, aren’t they?

PAGE: Right. You always promise but it never happened. Even Reagan didn’t do it.

BUCHANAN: Reagan promised.

PAGE: He promised that. They always promise and it never happened.

ROGAN: I have to say, it is a fascinating, it is -- to see it from -- you know, this is -- 2012 in London, but it would be hard of Washington to see how quickly those political relationships and alliances change with the opportunity incentive changes, to the degree to which --

PAGE: No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interest.

ROGAN: Exactly, exactly. Yes, exactly.


CLIFT: Winning has its own dynamic. There’s kind of a bandwagon effect.

BUCHANAN: All right.

MCLAUGHLIN: What about California Congressman Duncan Hunter? Should he be in Trump’s short list?

BUCHANAN: I mean, Duncan Hunter, he’s a good man. His father was I think a great congressman, but ain’t no way we’re going to carry California, John.

ROGAN: That’s right.

CLIFT: Right.

BUCHANAN: You are dreaming.


BUCHANAN: Nixon might have carried it six or seven times. Reagan carried it all four times. Gone.


PAGE: It’s a different state now.

ROGAN: We need that Midwest purple battle state candidate.

MCLAUGHLIN: Who was one of the first to endorse Trump?

BUCHANAN: Who was one of the first to endorse Trump? Well, I’ll tell you, Jeff Sessions of Alabama was really as strong one.

CLIFT: Yes, but that’s --

BUCHANAN: Chris Christie was number one, but I don’t think Chris Christie can carry New Jersey for him.

MCLAUGHLIN: Hunter was one of the first.

CLIFT: Right.

BUCHANAN: Yes, but he doesn’t bring you California.

CLIFT: That doesn’t matter, I mean, loyalty might get him a spot somewhere on a committee. But it’s not going to get him the vice presidency.

ROGAN: On the Democratic side as well, though, you know, Julian Castro is obviously being talked about. A lot of people --

BUCHANAN: Elizabeth Warren is being raised for Hillary.

ROGAN: Yes, the Bernie counterpoint.

BUCHANAN: Elizabeth Warren going with, but going with all out, with the sort of populist add-on to Hillary’s centrist appeal, you know? But two women, I don’t know.

CLIFT: You know, I think Elizabeth Warren has a brighter future in the Senate. I mean, I think she is a really powerhouse senator and I think she will have essentially veto power over -- if it’s a President Clinton, over those economic appointments and the treasury. No more Goldman Sachs.


CLIFT: No more Goldman Sachs.

BUCHANAN: Hillary is going to have to give back a lot of money.

PAGE: Right. I find it hard to believe that she would sit still if Hillary did cut some kind of deal with Goldman Sachs. There’s nobody like that that Elizabeth Warren didn’t approve of.

BUCHANAN: I can’t see Hillary smashing up the banks or going after the banks.

PAGE: That’s right.

BUCHANAN: I really don’t.

MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, will he pick Hillary as his running mate?

BUCHANAN: She wouldn’t take it.

CLIFT: That’s not going to happen.


CLIFT: Either the number one or this number two spot that you just speculated.

ROGAN: He would, maybe go with Biden, some establishment, something, but I think it’s unlikely.

PAGE: He would need somebody like Hillary, though, who’s an establishment figure.

MCLAUGHLIN: He could take John Kerry, put him to --

PAGE: Yes, John Kerry --

ROGAN: With someone charisma, the Biden charisma factor I think would be a benefit.

PAGE: Yes, but not Joe Biden. I think Joe may have --


CLIFT: Yes, right.

Although at the Gridiron, where Clarence performed, Vice President Biden said, if all else fails, I’m available.


ROGAN: And the Naval Observatory, who doesn’t want to live there, right?

PAGE: And knowing Joe, he was serious about that.

BUCHANAN: But Democrats, they need a younger person.

PAGE: Right.

BUCHANAN: I mean, Hillary’s up there and Donald Trump is almost 70. So, you need a younger person.

CLIFT: Right.

PAGE: That’s right.

MCLAUGHLIN: The answer is he’ll pick either Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.

Issue Three: Bloating Drug Prices.


MCLAUGHLIN (voice-over): U.S. drug prices are skyrocketing across the board. According to AARP’s latest RX price watch report, the average annual cost of prescription drugs for elders over the last seven years went from $5,571 to $11,341. Today, that counts for about three quarters of most Social Security payments. Prices quadrupled on twenty drugs, and doubled on sixty others.

And note this, in 2013, three years ago, the average annual price of a specialty drug was over $53,000.


MCLAUGHLIN: Question: How should the next president work to reduce drug prices?


ROGAN: So, here -- this is the really fantastically interesting issue in terms of capitalism. The United States generates all these drugs because of the profit incentives for the research, which is very expensive and high risk. And then, European nations get the benefits of that because their government buy in bulk and negotiate. So, American --

PAGE: And Canada.

ROGAN: -- American consumers subsidize the health of the rest of the world, as a fact. The way you deal with this, though, I think a couple of things, you could say to American drug companies, there’s a basic minimum that you have to sell abroad, so that the Europeans can’t undercut so much, and have to produce more for the research on it.

But at the same time, I think you have to -- eventually, you have to allow Americans to essentially buy, you know, import drugs, because it is not a free market at the moment. It’s a monopoly and it’s hurting.

Who know -- when I get to the age of the some other panelists, who knows what I’ll be paying, right?


CLIFT: Well, presumably you take pills now, also. You don’t wait until you hit the upper age to take pills. It’s kind of --

BUCHANAN: Those aren’t prescription pills that he’s taking.

CLIFT: Right, exactly.


ROGAN: No --

CLIFT: The thing is Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are all right, that the Congress is in the pockets of the big drug industry, which is why Medicare is not allowed to bargain for lower prices, which is why we cannot import drugs from Canada when they’re made much more cheaply over there, and the drug companies are really ripping us off.

"The Washington Post" did an excellent expose of Novartis and the drug Gleevec, which was created to treat a form of leukemia. It’s a very effective anti-cancer drug. When other rival companies produced the same thing, which should be competition, Novartis just increased the price of Gleevec, when the second generation drugs come out, they make slight changes, they kept increasing the prices. It’s outrageous.

I mean, the capitalist system does not work in drug pricing.

BUCHANAN: Wait a minute. The capitalist system is what produced these miracle drugs that are keeping people alive. We’re all living longer. I take all kinds of these things. I’m walking around and alive because of this.

And in order for pharmaceutical companies basically to produce these things, they take an enormous risk and then they get an enormous benefit because they got to -- you know, they can hold to the rights to it for a long period of time. So, I just -- I mean, it is a problem of supply and demand. Frankly, though, John, because we’re living longer, it’s going to get to a problem almost of rationing one of these days where --

ROGAN: And that’s necessary I think. Medicare --

BUCHANAN: -- we’re all rationing by price and I don’t know the folks are going to like it.

ROGAN: Medicaid should not be -- you know, some of these drugs that those the people who are unfortunately coming to us, the terminal end, those extraordinary high prices, at some point, you got to back away from that because ultimately, it becomes unpayable, it bankrupts the system.

PAGE: That’s where most medical costs come, is in the last six months of life actually.

BUCHANAN: You’re signing death warrants.


CLIFT: Novartis made $4 billion on Gleevec. I mean, it’s not like they just made a marginal profit. I mean, they’re cleaning up. There’s got to be some more rationale to this.

BUCHANAN: What do they use this for? This $4 billion, they use it for new drugs.


CLIFT: They’re made for pennies.

PAGE: There’s no excuse for them not to allow bargaining between the government and these companies. They’re still going to make a terrific profit and they won’t have to gouge everybody. And --


PAGE: You know, otherwise, it’s only theoretical as to how much research would not get done.

BUCHANAN: Who invents all these miracle drugs?

ROGAN: The United States.

CLIFT: They are now being invented around the world, too. We’re not --

PAGE: But they do it, they have very high profit motive.

BUCHANAN: Exactly. Capitalism works, Clarence. It does.

PAGE: Yes, but it doesn’t work for everybody. We want to work for everybody, right?

MCLAUGHLIN: Should importing prescription medications from Canada be legalize?




ROGAN: I think we get serious reform and then we should have eyes shut --

CLIFT: Actually, there’s already a black market or an underground railroad, whatever you want to call it, of people crossing the border and bringing medicines back. So, let’s make it legal.


PAGE: Exactly right. People are doing it already. People are doing it already, especially folks in Michigan and other border states.

CLIFT: Right, exactly.

MCLAUGHLIN: Who will win Florida and who will win Ohio in next week’s voting? Pat?

BUCHANAN: Trump wins Florida, and Ohio is too close to call.

CLIFT: OK. So, split decision, Trump wins Florida, loses Ohio to Kasich.

ROGAN: Yes, I think Trump wins Florida, I think Rubio will do much better than expected, but Kasich will win Ohio, I think.

PAGE: I think the same. I think you may have a kind of a surprise that Bernie Sanders gave us in Michigan, where Kasich rises and takes Ohio, a state where he’s the governor.

MCLAUGHLIN: The answer is Trump will win both, but Florida will be close.

ROGAN: Right.

MCLAUGHLIN: This weekend, we pay our respects to former First Lady Nancy Reagan, who passed away last Sunday.

In his book, "Rating The First Ladies," my good friend and senior producer, John Roberts, described Mrs. Reagan as, quote, "a model of a modern first lady. She didn’t hesitate to involve herself in decisions affecting the presidency, whether they were over people, policy, or politics." That is as fitting a tribute as any.

Say hi to the Gipper for us, Nancy.