some are not. And what did you see? You saw the media start to ask the other Democrats, do you agree that this wall is immoral? Because it's a completely unsupportable concept.

Now Pelosi could probably get away with it because Pelosi is an advocate, right? So when you see the head of the party or one of the leaders of the party, when you see them say something crazy, you say to yourself, well, their job is advocate. Nancy P's job is not fair and balanced presentation. So you can't really hold it against her to say something that outrageous. It's something the president would have done. It's something that somebody who's a leader and an advocate does. But the problem is she created a standard that the people below her, who are just many of them who are actually just trying to do their job, they're going to have to defend this ridiculous standard that there's such a thing as a moral versus an immoral kind of barrier when all of these people have voted for barriers of this type in the past.

So you saw people asking about it, and that whole moral-immoral thing has just started to rot. It didn't go away. It just started to rot from within. It just doesn't stand the test of time at all. You put a little sunlight on it, it's like an old vampire. It's starting to crumble.

Anyway, the president apparently has a speech today at I guess 3:00 p.m. Eastern time in which he's going to offer, reportedly, you know anything could happen between now and the time the president goes on the air, but reportedly the president's going to make some kind of an offer to have something for both sides to chew on.

Now here's a rule of negotiating, and if you've never heard this rule, it's a really important one, but it's not common sense. So this is a non-common-sense, really smart rule about negotiating. You don't negotiate with yourself. Let me tell you what that means. What that means is let's say you and I are negotiating and I come to you and say I will give you a million dollars for whatever it is you're selling. And we're negotiating. If you say no, that's no good. What you don't do if you've been rebuffed for your first offer is make a second offer. That's called negotiating with yourself because you're the one who offered a million and now you're the one making the next offer which is lower. That's referred to as negotiating with yourself. It's a classic mistake that people who don't negotiate make.

You've watched that the president is very good at not doing that, right? It's a rock-bottom basic, most important thing you can do. You never make an offer and then just make another offer. You just don't do that. It's bad persuasion, bad negotiating.

So you've noticed that the Democrats haven't really made an offer, not really, right? Because they've said how about nothing, how about immoral. And the immoral response isn't really a counteroffer, is it? It's more of like we're not going to talk about it. We're not negotiating.

Now the mistake would be that Pelosi would trap the president into negotiating with himself. And if he were not the master persuader that I believe he is, he would be going on television tonight and negotiating with himself. In other words, she's creating a situation. Because the thing to keep in mind here, we always have to keep this in mind, is that Pelosi is pretty damn good at what she does, right? She knows this space. Whatever else you want to say about her, she's got a game and she brought it. And she was trapping the president into negotiating with himself, which is weak and stupid.

The president is now going to give a speech in which he's alleged to be making a second offer or at least a new offer that we haven't seen before that could be construed as negotiating with himself if that's what's going to happen. So let me make one suggestion, and I'm not going to predict that the president will do this, but it's by way of making my point. Suppose the president went on the air and made the following offer and he said this: I will reopen the government when the Democrats give me their plan for the border in a way that has a budget and shows exactly what they plan to do and where. Because this is not negotiating like I've just decided to go down on my price. It's a specific offer that the public will understand as reasonable.

So imagine this. The president says we all want to open the government. I will open the government if all you do is show me your plan and then we will negotiate from that plan. We will start with your plan and then we'll show it to the people. We'll have border patrol look at it and then we'll see how different is your plan from ours.

Now the key to this is that there was never much difference in what the left and the right actually wanted, right? Nothing I said would make sense if you knew you were really far apart. Because if you were really far apart they would just say oh okay, how about something way over here, and then you wouldn't be anywhere, right? But because we know they're close, and especially the rank-and-file Democrats are like yeah, we like border security, we just want to do it in the smartest, most humane way. Now who among you disagrees with that statement?

So here's the Democrat position on border security: yes, we want good border security. We want to do it in the smartest, most economical, and humane way. Who disagrees with that? Who disagrees with that? Nobody, right? So when you force them to actually put some meat on their proposal and you offer that you'll open the government if they do it, what voter is going to look at that offer and say well that's just playing games? Who is going to say that's an unfair offer? Who is going to say that the Democrats should sit tight and not even say what they want while 800,000 people are eating tree bark because they can't afford to buy food? All right, who thinks that wouldn't work? Because you know it would. It would put all of the pressure on the Democrats. If they brought a plan, it would reveal the bad will behind everything they're doing at the moment, which is they're not that far off from what everybody else wants.

Now to their credit, and I'm going to give the Democrats a very big compliment right now, to their credit they have killed the wall. I think that even Republicans at this point, because we've all learned more, you know there's something about this process that's very educational. On day one when the president said build a wall across the whole thing, solves all these problems, I have to admit I thought to myself I don't know, why wouldn't you have a wall? I'd have to look at the details but seems reasonable on the surface, right? But the further you dig into this and the more reasonable people get involved, you realize that walls make sense in specific areas and they simply don't make sense economically or on any other level in other areas. And that if the engineers get involved and the experts, they'll tell you where to put a wall. El Paso is a perfect place because when you're separating water and El Paso, I think those are the two places, they're both populated areas and you need to slow people down pretty severely because otherwise they disappear into the other populated area. But if you've got a big empty space and you can see the whole thin