February 12-14, 2010
Feb 12 00:46 DFL: The Party Hostile Towards Job Creators Feb 12 04:11 Kelliher: Let's Use Tax Code To Pick Winners & Losers Feb 12 10:07 Exposing Holder's & Brennan's Incompetence Feb 13 11:30 Is Obamacare Summit Desperation or Subterfuge? Feb 13 14:36 Rep. Emmer: Let's Repeal Next Generation Energy Act Feb 14 04:50 Pomeroy In Trouble
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
DFL: The Party Hostile Towards Job Creators
Since the DFL took control of the House, they've pursued priorities that weren't the average Minnesotan's priorities. They've pursued their special interest allies' priorities instead. The House GOP has listened to the job creators and they've got a different message that my adopted state representative Steve Gottwalt encapsulates in this speech:
Here's the transcript of Steve's speech:
Madam Speaker and members, to the motion, let's not lose this opportunity, please. We've held hearings in our district, in our part of the state with literally hundreds of job creators, small and medium-sized job creators who told us the same things over and over and over again. Do exactly what Rep. Buesgens bill does and watch what we can do. Watch us grow jobs. Watch us return economic prosperity. Watch us get people back to work. Watch us return the state revenues. Let's not keep fighting this endless fight of $1.2 billion this year, $5.4 billion next year.The bill Rep. Gottwalt was referring to is HF363 , which would phase out the corporate income tax over the next decade. According to House Journal, the DFL voted against Rep. Buesgens' motion by 46-81 margin. On a local note, Larry Haws, Larry Hosch and Al Doty voted against creating jobs. Instead of voting to create jobs, they voted the way the House DFL leadership wanted them to vote.
If we want to end this, if we want to turn around Minnesota's economy, then we need to suspend the rules and take up this bill now. Let's show Minnesotans that we consider it as urgent as they do. The message has been delivered loud and clear from the job creators of our state to the families of Minnesota. Help us now. Help turn our economy now. And they don't mean taking out the credit card and borrowing more money.
So, members, I hope you vote in support of this. I hope we don't end up tabling this. I'm afraid that it could happen. I think that'd be a mistake. I think we'd lose a great opportunity.
It's long past time to fill the legislature with people who listen to the job creators, aka small businesses. Minnesota's economy has suffered because the DFL is more concerned about making small business owners pay "their fair share" than they care about prospering businesses and building a 21st Century economy. They've been obstructionists, standing in the way of the GOP's attempts to build a great economy.
This isn't conjecture either, thanks to this report . Here's the study's first key finding:
From 2002-2009 Minnesota lost an estimated 54,113 residents to other states, according to the new report, Minnesota's Out-Migration Compounds State Budget Woes. These out-migrants also take their incomes with them. Between 1995 and 2007, the total amount of income leaving the state was at least $3,698,692,000 on which state and local governments would have collected an estimated $423,317,000 in additional taxes.Capital flight is verifiable. In fact, it's tracked by the IRS:
Where are Minnesota's out-migrants going and why? According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), between 1995 and 2007, the top five states are Florida (21,256), Arizona (19,605), Wisconsin (9,449), Colorado (6,894) and Texas (6,551)-states with far more competitive state tax structures. Income left Minnesota in every year-even in years when more people moved in than moved out-which suggests that people with higher-than average incomes have been leaving the state.In even-numbered years, the DFL touts their jobs bill, aka the bonding bill. Most of the jobs generated by the bill are construction jobs. The bad news is that jobs aren't actually created. For the most part, they're jobs done by people who are already employed by their company. This isn't to say that there aren't important projects that are funded by the bonding bill. It's just that the jobs aren't high paying high tech jobs that a 21st century economy needs for its citizens to thrive on and prosper off of.
Here's what Gov. Pawlenty said about creating a prosperous minnesota in his State of the State Address:
So, the most important question before us is this: How do we best grow good, private sector jobs in Minnesota?The report I cited earlier bears out what Gov. Pawlenty said in his State of the State Address. Still, the DFL refuses to consider sweeping tax reform. Instead, their plan is to pass a series of tightly defined tax credits that only serve to pick winners and losers according to the desires of their special interest allies.
The people who can best answer that question aren't in this room. They're not in Congress. They're not in the White House. They're not in bureaucracies. In fact, they're usually not in government or politics at all.
The people that best know how to create jobs are the people who have actually done it.
If government listens to them, this is what they'll hear loud and clear: "Get out of our way. Leave us alone. Make it easier, not harder."
The message is clear so let's get to work. For starters, it's plainly obvious that Minnesota's tax system isn't even close to competitive. It was established in a different era for a different economy by politicians that most likely couldn't envision the hypercompetitive world of today. It's almost pre-Sid Hartman thinking.
I said in this post what I'll repeat here: Government, on any level, has done a pathetic job of identifying the next Fedex, the next Dell or the next Microsoft. The DFL leadership hasn't shown any ability to get the private sector humming. Why would we trust them with Minnesota's tax policies?
We shouldn't trust them until they join conservatives in building a 21st Century economy. Unfortunately, they've only shown signs of being willing to find new ways to fund a twentieth century, pre-Sid Hartman style government.
It's time we left the DFL's plans in the dust. It's time we got serious about building a prospering economy instead of continuing to cling to the DFL's failed policies.
Posted Friday, February 12, 2010 12:46 AM
No comments.
Kelliher: Let's Use Tax Code To Pick Winners & Losers
In her op-ed in the Winona Daily News , Speaker Kelliher admits that her economic plan requires changing the tax code so that it picks winners and losers:
After last year's session, I convened a bipartisan task force to address job growth in the 2010 legislative session that would help position our state for potential future economic growth by focusing on bio business, construction and clean-energy jobs .By admitting that, Speaker Kelliher is admitting that businesses that don't fit into those three categories will get hit hard by Minnesota's high marginal tax rates. What Speaker Kelliher doesn't say is why she won't cut taxes on all businesses. I'm betting that we won't hear that explanation anytime soon.
What we will hear alot of is DFL candidates playing the blame Pawlenty card:
I am focused on getting the economy working for Minnesota. I'm also focused on finding a way to get our state's budget back in line. Along with many other respected economists and former governors who have analyzed possible solutions to this problem, I disagree with Pawlenty that our state can get out of our budget crisis through cutting services and jobs alone.I'm curious about a couple of things Speaker Kelliher said, starting with her saying that we can't get through this crisis by just cutting spending. Isn't that implying that, in her opinion, we need to raise taxes? Doesn't that means that the tax credits she's supporting will be 'offset' by other tax increases?
It's also curious that Speaker Kelliher talked about cutting services. Why doesn't Speaker Kelliher propose reforming the way government delivers mandated services? If she wants to avoid cutting services, shouldn't she be signing onto Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan? After all, just applying it to a portion of Minnesota Care would save Minnesota's taxpayers $30,000,000 annually.
If Minnesota's tax code was competitive with other states, our economy would be much stronger. That alone would solve most of our budget problems. Another important step in making Minnesota prosperous is getting spending under control, something that the DFL hasn't shown an ability to do.
Another thing the DFL legislature hasn't shown a willingness to do is balance Minnesota's budget. The last budget they passed was the only budget that was scored as balancing. Even then, the 'surplus' was a meager $3,625 at the end of the biennium. That's what I'd call pathetic. The scary thing is, that's the best they can do.
If the DFL can't balance a budget, why should we let them pick winners and losers?
Posted Friday, February 12, 2010 4:11 AM
No comments.
Exposing Holder's & Brennan's Incompetence
The Obama administration, in the person of John Brennan, has fought to defend itself for mirandizing Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, with Robert Gibbs and Attorney General Eric Holder playing supporting roles in that fight. Unfortunately for them, the adults have entered the room and the Obama administration looks in over its head...AGAIN.
Two serious adults, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and longtime National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor have weighed in. First, let's look at what Gen. Mukasey said about mirandizing terrorists:
What to do and who should do it? It was entirely reasonable for the FBI to be contacted and for that agency to take him into custody. But contrary to what some in government have suggested, that Abdulmutallab was taken into custody by the FBI did not mean, legally or as a matter of policy, that he had to be treated as a criminal defendant at any point. Consider: In 1942, German saboteurs landed on Long Island and in Florida. That they were eventually captured by the FBI did not stop President Franklin Roosevelt from directing that they be treated as unlawful enemy combatants. They were ultimately tried before a military commission in Washington and executed. Their status had nothing to do with who held them, and their treatment was upheld in all respects by the Supreme Court.Here's what John Brennan said in defending the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights:
If possible, FBI custody is even less relevant today in determining someone's status. In 1942 the FBI was exclusively a crime-fighting organization. After Sept. 11, 2001, the agency's mission was expanded beyond detection of crime and apprehension of criminals to include gathering intelligence, helping to prevent and combat threats to national security, and furthering U.S. foreign policy goals. Guidelines put in place in 2003 and revised in September 2008 "do not require that the FBI's information gathering activities be differentially labeled as 'criminal investigations,' 'national security investigations,' or 'foreign intelligence collections,' or that the categories of FBI personnel who carry out investigations be segregated from each other based on the subject areas in which they operate. Rather, all of the FBI's legal authorities are available for deployment in all cases to which they apply to protect the public from crimes and threats to the national security and to further the United States' foreign intelligence objectives."
Brennan also defended the decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights, something that Republicans have harshly criticized. Brennan said the decision to do so was "a long-standing FBI policy that was reaffirmed under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general."The danger of quoting someone on policy is that an expert in the FBI's interrogation policies has the ability to write an op-ed explaining what policy has historically been and what current policy is. Predictably, Gen. Mukasey did exactly that this morning. As the former Attorney General, he's totally qualified to refute Mr. Brennan's arguments. Mr. Brennan will have difficulty explaining away this statement:
Rather, all of the FBI's legal authorities are available for deployment in all cases to which they apply to protect the public from crimes and threats to the national security and to further the United States' foreign intelligence objectives."In other words, Sen. Kit Bond is right in saying that capturing a terrorist in U.S. territory doesn't mean that the FBI, as a matter of routine, will read terrorists their Miranda rights. That's certainly an option but it's done on a case-by-case basis. It certainly isn't automatic. At least it wasn't during the Bush administration.
While John Brennan was the target of Gen. Mukasey's op-ed, current Attorney Gen. Eric Holder is the target of Stuart Taylor's scorn . Taylor's column heaps scorn on Gen. Holder:
Reasonable people disagree about how much coercion interrogators should use to extract potentially lifesaving information from terrorists. (None at all, President Obama unwisely ordered soon after taking office.)Anytime that a terrorist is captured, the first responsibility of any administration's national security team is to thoroughly interrogate the terrorist and learn as much about the terrorist's support system, the type of training he received, where he was trained, etc. This isn't rocket science.
But no reasonable person could doubt that starting out with "you have the right to remain silent" is not the way to save lives.
Yet this is essentially the policy into which the Obama administration has locked itself by insisting that it did the right thing when it read Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas Day bomber, his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning and a hospital visit.
I return to this subject because the rationalizations by Attorney General Eric Holder and other administration apologists have been so breathtakingly bereft of seriousness about the need for aggressive interrogation to protect our country.
Abdulmutallab might have been the first of a dozen Christmas Day bombers seeking to perfect the Bojinka plot, for all Holder and his colleagues knew at the time. It was sheer luck that this was not the case.
And the decision to read Abdulmutallab his rights, bring him a lawyer, and stop asking questions may yet get Americans murdered by his co-conspirators in Yemen, who might have been located and captured or killed but for his five weeks of post-Miranda silence.
In the aftermath of the failed terrorist plot, Janet Napolitano admitted that she was surprised by how well organized al-Qaeda in Yemen was. Had the Obama administration actually interrogated Abdulmutallab, they might've learned more about AQY.
That Holder put a higher priority on preserving Abdulmutallab's testimony than on gathering intelligence is stunning. Here's why reading Abdulmutallab his rights wasn't a priority:
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey told me in an interview that the CIA and national intelligence directors "and ultimately the president would have been in on the decision in addition to me"; and that "I like to think the default setting would have been toward gathering intelligence rather than worrying about whether a man who did his crime in front of 285 witnesses could be convicted without using his confession."With 285 eyewitnesses, along with his burns, the chances of conviction would've been close to 100 percent. The only way Abdulmutallab wouldn't have gotten convicted was if the jury was made up of CAIR's board of directors.
The need to mirandize Abdulmutallab wasn't just insignificant. It wasn't necessary. In fact, it was stupid to not collect important information in a timely fashion.
I don't know whether Mssrs. Taylor and Mukasey worked in coordination in writing their articles. What I'm certain of is that they've highlighted the incompetence of Eric Holder and John Brennan for all the political world to see. Their expertise in constitutional and counterterrorism issues make it difficult for Robert Gibbs to question them, though I expect he'll try criticizing them during today's briefing.
Posted Friday, February 12, 2010 10:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Feb-10 08:51 AM
Good morning, Gary.
Not an on point comment, but just to credit you on the time and care you put into posting. Even when we may not agree.
Your site is one I try to access regularly, and I think people across the spectrum should.
It is appreciated. That's all. No sniping at your ideas, today.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-10 09:32 AM
Eric, Thanks for that compliment. Disagreeing isn't a tragedy. That's what strengthens us.
Is Obamacare Summit Desperation or Subterfuge?
This Washington Times article suggests that the February 25 health care summit at Blair House is a final desperate attempt at reviving health care. There's no doubt that the Democrats are running out of options. Still, I'm not certain that this is the final desperate attempt at passing a health care bill.
I'm not certain because Wendell Primus, Speaker Pelosi's health care expert, told the world that there's a plan in place to pass health care legislation. Here's the gospel according to Mr. Primus:
In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.Here's how the AP reported about President Obama's summit invitation:
Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.
"The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill," Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.
In a make or break move, President Barack Obama on Friday challenged three dozen Republicans and Democrats to participate in a one-of-a-kind televised summit this month to thrash out a deal on health care.Democrats are trying to distract attention from Mr. Primus's statement by going on the offensive:
House Republicans immediately greeted the invite to the Feb. 25 event with derision, casting doubt on whether it would yield any bipartisan agreement to extend coverage to millions of Americans and rein in medical costs. "We need answers before we know if the White House is more interested in partisan theater than in facilitating a productive dialogue about solutions," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.
"It's disappointing House Republicans are trying every trick in the book not to attend this bipartisan healthcare summit. We bring our ideas and plans to the table, they bring theirs. It's hard to understand what is so complicated about that," a senior Democratic aide said.This "senior Democratic aide" knows why House Republicans are skeptical of the event. This aide's comment is meant for public consumption in the hopes of persuading the public that they intend to play fair. At this point, there isn't visible proof that they'll play fair. Quite the contrary. There's proof, thanks to Mr. Primus's statement, that they intend on ignoring the American if that's what it takes to pass this bill.
If President Obama wants to hold a substantive health care summit, then he should prove that it's a substantive meeting, not a photo op aimed at helping him appear interested in bipartisan cooperation without being interested in bipartisan cooperation.
In a sense, President Obama is running out of time. There's no disputing his centrist talk. Unfortunately, there isn't much proof that he's a centrist. People are reaching a tipping point in terms of expecting results instead of being satisfied with empty rhetoric. President Obama's rhetoric hasn't put people back to work nor has it helped refill people's IRAs.
Even people in his own party are questioning his rhetoric:
According to one published report, Rockefeller made it clear "he isn't sure he trusts the president's commitments to coal. !" Referring to Obama's pledges to support coal, the senator complained that, "He says it in his speeches, but he doesn't say it in (his budget proposal). He doesn't say it in the actions of (EPA Administrator) Lisa Jackson. And he doesn't say it in the minds of my own people. And he's beginning to not be believable to me."I've followed Scott Rasmussen's polling for quite some time. Once a month, he polls on who's more trusted on a set of 10 issues. For the past few months, Republicans were trusted more than Democrats on the most important issues of the day, mostly by fairly wide margins.
That won't change until President Obama changes or until the American people change presidents. The American people are demanding (a) that politicians listen to them, (b) that politicians are accountable, and (c) that their president is working in their best interests. Right now, the impression is that President Obama listens more to SEIU's Andy Stern than he listens to the American people.
If people don't start seeing President Obama listen and act on the best of the Republicans' ideas, they'll know that events like the health care summit are nothing more than another presidential photo op.
It's time for President Obama to decide whether he wants to be a centrist or if he just wants to sound like a centrist. The nation is watching and time is running out.
Posted Saturday, February 13, 2010 11:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Feb-10 08:05 AM
Either, or?
That's a narrowed choice.
More, or less, is too.
I think it's a call to ante, in terms of wanting movement vs. stasis.
Or calling a bet so the cards get laid on the table for all to see.
Rep. Emmer: Let's Repeal Next Generation Energy Act
DISCLAIMER: I'm part of Rep. Emmer's steering committee for his gubernatorial campaign.
Rep. Tom Emmer issued this statement on repealing the Next Generation Energy Act:
St. Paul, MN ; Rep. Tom Emmer has introduced legislation to remove Minnesota from the cap and trade scheme the state entered into with passage of the 2007 Next Generation Energy bill. In order to comply with the new law, Minnesota joined the Midwest Renewable Energy Tracking System (M-RETS) which uses data from states and provinces in the Midwest to create a Renewable Energy Credit (REC) in the form of a tradable digital certificate for each MWh of energy produced.This is the right thing to do, in my opinion, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, switching over to more renewable energy is expensive. Windmills and solar power are more expensive than electricity generated from coal-fired or nuclear power plants.
"With the economy slowly recovering and the state facing another budget shortfall, the last thing we need is an artificial tracking system that will be used to raise our energy rates ," said Emmer. "We need to get Minnesota out of this cap and trade system before the federal government starts penalizing businesses and homeowners for using more energy."
The cap and trade system was put in place as part of the Next Generation Energy Act that also forces utilities in Minnesota to produce 25% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2025.
The legislation (216H.02 subdivision 6) calls for the state to develop and implement a regional approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities in the region, including consulting on a regional cap and trade system. The law also directs the Commissioner of Commerce to:
(1) determine whether other states are interested in establishing and cooperating in a multistate or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade allowance program;
(2) identify and prepare an inventory of greenhouse gas reduction resources available to support a multistate or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade allowance program;
(3) seek cooperation on a regional inventory of greenhouse gas emission sources; and
(4) prepare an inventory of available renewable energy resources within a state or region.
"Some of us fought very hard against the passage of this legislation in 2007 and I believe we should repeal this section of the law and get out of this system."
It's also worth noting that nuclear power plants are excellent in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I suspect that a cost-benefit analysis would show that nuclear power plants shine compared with wind and solar, rivalling them in terms of greenhouse gas emissions while blowing them away in terms of cost. If that's the case, why wouldn't we focus on lifting the moratorium on nuclear power plants rather than on staying in this M-RETS system?
The Next Generation Energy Act imposes renewable energy mandates on utilities, which necessarily means that fossil fuel energy production must be cut. This means that technologies like clean coal technology that reduce pollution levels would be shunned because clean coal technology isn't a type of renewable energy.
After talking with an energy expert this week, I was told that the same people who champion cap and trade legislation are championing M-RETS because their goal is to get rid of fossil fuel energy production or at least get rid of it as much as possible.
Rather than locking Minnesota into this compact, Minnesota would be better off if they encouraged technology to maximize energy efficiency. M-RETS essentially assumes that renewable energy is the best path forward, both in terms of cost for families and in terms of limiting pollution levels. Based on existing data, we can't prove that.
That means we're making an assumption based more on wishful thinking than on verifiable information. That isn't the basis for solid legislative decisionmaking. That's more the basis for doing what's well-intentioned rather than doing what works. Personally, I'll cast my vote for doing what we know works.
The DFL can't let this legislation pass because it would force them to admit that they were wrong and, more importantly, voting for it would dry up the campaign contributions of the environmentalists.
That's unfortunate because that's the surest way of putting a higher priority on pleasing special interest allies rather than doing what's best for your constituents. That's the type of thinking that needs to be purged from the Capitol.
Posted Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:36 PM
Comment 1 by Brian at 13-Feb-10 11:18 PM
Just think you argued with me when I said this thing that Pawlenty signed was cap and trade. Or cap and tax.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-10 11:31 PM
Brian, I stand by what I said. The principles are very similar but Cap & Trade is about taxing busineses & people who create greenhouse gases. The Next Generation Energy Act is about penalizing companies that don't create a specific quota of renewable energy.
Comment 2 by eric z at 14-Feb-10 08:10 AM
Saying "an energy expert" begs a big question.
Isn't "maximizing" energy efficiency related to switching to more effective light bulbs, more light less energy consumption; and wasn't there someone on your side deriding that effort? It seems I recall a particular Congressional dimbulb ...
Comment 3 by Brian at 14-Feb-10 11:15 PM
Her complaint is lack of Freedom. The Goverment should not make us buy these stupid bulbs or anything else.
Comment 4 by The Truth at 27-Feb-10 12:23 AM
Actually the bill includes language specifically saying:
"The plan must also make recommendations on a proposed cap-and-trade system, whereby a cap would be placed on overall greenhouse gas emissions and power companies assigned "allowances" of emissions that they could trade with one another. (Art. 5, Sec. 2) Pawlenty is "conservative light" and a fraud.
Pomeroy In Trouble
North Dakota, like South Dakota, has 1 representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. Based on recent polling, Rep. Pomeroy might soon be looking for a new job. Today, Scott Rasmussen reported that Earl Pomeroy likely is in trouble :
North Dakota may be shaping up to be dangerous territory for the state's other longtime Democratic incumbent, too.That's only part of the bad news for Mr. Pomeroy. In fact, he doesn't get above 45 percent against any of the GOP candidates. Things won't improve anytime soon based on this quote:
Senator Byron Dorgan has already decided not to seek reelection, and now a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Congressman Earl Pomeroy in close match-ups with two of his three likeliest Republican challengers. Rick Berg, a Fargo businessman and state representative, now leads Pomeroy 46% to 40%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and 11% are undecided.
In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer. A Democrat who attended the Ways and Means session said Pomeroy was "very angry" as he spoke about the delay. "Other folks were upset, but he was the maddest by far."With health care expected to be a major topic of debate thanks to President Obama's health care summit, Pomeroy should just retire now rather than see his congressional career end in defeat.
Earlier this week, I wrote that the NRCC has identified 60 Democratic seats that are vulnerable. That statistic is amazing enough but what makes it more amazing is that, in most years, House races are murky until usually August, sometimes not until September. Political experts (think Charlie Cook, Stuart Rothenberg and Amy Walters) think it's possible that more Democratic seats will be competitive come September.
After Scott Brown's special election victory, Michael Barone said that, if the swing from an Obama 26 point win in 2008 to Brown's 5 point win this year was replicated nationwide, only 103 Democrat-held House seats would be safe. At the time, I thought that this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yesterday, Jazz Shaw of The Moderate Voice said that several big counties in Maurice Hinchey's district had recent elections in which Obama's margin of victory had disappeared and that Republicans had won. Jazz said that the swing was almost as dramatic as the Massachusetts swing.
That's before remembering the swing in Virginia, where Obama won by 8 points. Republican Bob McDonell won by almost 20 points. In other words, there should be alot of very nervous Democrats. If I was a Democratic consultant viewing the race-by-race map, I'm pretty sure I'd be drinking about a bottle of Maalox a day.
Unless something dramatic changes, and I doubt it will, Earl Pomeroy will be looking for a cushy lobbying job this time next year.
Posted Sunday, February 14, 2010 4:57 AM
No comments.
