June 17-20, 2016
Jun 17 05:29 Obama's policies failed us Jun 17 12:46 ABM, Orlando and #StopHate Jun 18 02:18 DFL corruptocrat pleads guilty Jun 18 14:09 Civil rights offenders Jun 18 23:31 St. Cloud Times' tired BS Jun 19 12:43 Dumping Trump is imperative Jun 20 16:35 GOP winning special session fight?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Obama's policies failed us
Yesterday, President Obama threw a hissy fit at law-abiding citizens. It's getting pretty difficult to listen to him, especially when he says "The notion that the answer to this tragedy would be to make sure that more people in a nightclub are similarly armed to the killer defies common sense. Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense."
It's time for this incompetent community organizer to stop lecturing We The People. It's time that he examined his terrorist-fighting policies. To hear President Obama put it, you'd think that the NRA killed 49 people in that Orlando night club. Newsflash to the community organizer: An ISIS-inspired terrorist killed those people.
While President Obama talks about shrinking the amount of territory that ISIS controls, the rate of terrorist attacks doesn't decelerate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out that shrinking ISIS-controlled land won't stop ISIS. Thoroughly defeating ISIS is what's required. That means shutting down their social media recruiting efforts. That means killing the entire leadership team in a short period of time. It requires a serious effort, something that's been missing from this administration.
"If in fact we want to show the best of our humanity, then we're all going to have to work together at every level of government across political lines to do more to stop killers who want to terrorize us," Obama said.
What's required is an administration committed to destroying ISIS. That isn't something that politicians can do. That's something only the Commander-in-chief can do. That isn't something that President Obama has committed to. At this late stage in his administration, it won't happen, either.
Posted Friday, June 17, 2016 5:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Jun-16 04:04 PM
Yeah, his policies have failed us. That Rockefeller Republican bent the man learned at Harvard has been evidenced by his foot dragging against progress from his beginning in the White House. Small CHANGE. Pocket CHANGE. No change at all.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-16 02:29 AM
President Obama's policies have made us less safe. He's pretended that radicalized terrorist organizations don't pose a threat to the United States. The man who pretended that al-Qa'ida & ISIS didn't exist has presided over the most terrorist attacks of any US president. He'd be a laughingstock if this wasn't such an important issue.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 18-Jun-16 11:13 AM
What did we expect from a guy who sympathizes with the enemy because he was raised with them? Now, not all Muslims are terrorists but he sure as hell refuses to call out the ones that are and then gets his panties in a wad and throws a hissy fit when people tell him he needs to call them what they are, Radicalized Islamic Terrorists. Also, this is the same clown who said ISIS was the JV squad and let them build themselves up to the varsity squad by ignoring them.
Comment 3 by eric z at 19-Jun-16 07:56 AM
Well, recall Econ 101, guns and butter.
TPP will take more of the butter away and that's more of a concern than the overreaching of the police state.
Just remember the numbers - bathtub falls kill more Americans than terrorists.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jun-16 08:44 AM
That last argument is beyond absurd. The government isn't responsible for preventing bathtub falls. It is responsible for protecting us "from enemies foreign and domestic."
As for TPP and any other trade deal, federal and state regulatory overreach kill more jobs than any free trade ever has or will.
ABM, Orlando and #StopHate
If anyone thinks that hardline lefties care a bit about the truth, they need to rethink things. This propaganda piece isn't just dishonest. It's frightening in that ABM isn't interested in fixing the problem.
Susie Merthan's propaganda piece opens by saying "The Orlando shooting is a tragedy. Unfortunately, for now, it's just the most recent example of the epidemic of gun violence in America." First, let's remember Merthan's history . According to Merthan's Twitter profile says that she's the "Communications Director for @ABetterMN by way of @mnhouseDFL." Trusting the DFL is foolish. Trusting the Thissen-led House DFL is the ultimate in foolishness in Minnesota. Trusting President Obama's spin of the driving force behind the Orlando terrorist attack is the ultimate in stupidity in the United States.
I wrote this article to make a specific point. I closed the article by specifically admonishing President Obama. Before admonishing him, though, I highlighted the administration's failures:
According to the CBS article, the "co-owner of a Florida gun store says his employees contacted law enforcement before the Orlando shooting after gunman Omar Mateen attempted to purchase body armor and ammunition." Further, the article says that "Mateen asked for level 3 body armor, according to Abell, but was told the store didn't carry it. He then made a phone call and spoke in Arabic before asking for bulk ammunition, but employees did not sell it to him." Finally, the article quotes Robbie Abell, the co-owner of Lotus Gunworks, as saying "we contacted FBI direct" after Mateen left the store.
Then I highlighted a Washington Post article:
"On the day of his rampage at a gay nightclub, the Orlando shooter posted messages on Facebook pledging allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State and vowing that there would be more attacks in the coming days by the group in the United States."
The indisputable truth is that the federal government didn't connect the clearly visible dots. President Obama didn't care. Like ABM, he'd picked his storyline and he wasn't deviating from it:
"Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense."
Susie Merthan's article read much the same way:
Gun violence in America too often includes hate crimes and acts of terrorism. Hate crimes and acts of terrorism in America too often involve the use of guns. Strengthening our gun safety laws and closing loopholes in the background check system will help prevent lethal hate crimes and acts of terrorism.
The first World Trade Center bombing used explosives. The terrorists used box cutters and airplanes to carry out 9/11. Richard Reid, the infamous 'Shoe Bomber', used explosives planted in his shoes in his attempted terrorist attack. The Times Square bomber used a car bomb .
President Obama and Ms. Merthan, should we ban shoes, box cutters, cars and airplanes? After all, they were used in the attempted commission of terrorist attacks, too.
Further, the gun laws that were already in place should've sufficed. They weren't the problem. The federal government failed us. Why shouldn't We The People be upset that the federal government didn't do its job?
Our not-so-illustrious senator took to the Senate floor to babble about gun violence:
Posted Friday, June 17, 2016 12:46 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Jun-16 03:59 PM
The truth is that Donald Trump is less a threat to a decent nation than Paul Ryan. Don't you care for that truth too?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-16 02:24 AM
Eric, how many times do I have to tell you that I don't consider it truth that Ryan is the bigger threat. Ryan doesn't pose a threat to the Constitution. Trump does. Ryan doesn't pose a national security threat. Trump does. Ryan understands tax & regulatory policy. Trump doesn't.
Don't you want an economy that's flourishing? Trump can't deliver it. Hillary can't deliver it. Ryan can.
DFL corruptocrat pleads guilty
At the end of the day, DFL corruptocrat Bill Davis pled guilty "to all 16 counts against him, including mail fraud, wire fraud, theft from a program receiving federal funds and conspiracy to commit such theft."
Former DFL gubernatorial candidate Susan Gaertner represented Davis. She said that Davis would do something rare for a DFL bureaucrat. She said "Davis decided to take responsibility for his mistakes", adding that Davis "did so with a heavy heart. He is very sorry for the conduct that you heard about in the courtroom today."
Apparently, corruption is the Davis family business. According to the article, "Davis spent 24 years as chief executive of Community Action of Minneapolis, which provided utility assistance and other social services to low-income people. He and his son, Jordan, were indicted last year for allegedly siphoning at least $250,000 from the organization for personal use."
That's not all. Davis "admitted that he used funds from Community Action of Minneapolis to pay for a vehicle in his name and personal expenses, including trips to the Bahamas and Puerto Rico. He also admitted directing the organization to pay his son a consultant's fee for work he wasn't doing."
Davis' son is pleading not guilty:
Jordan Davis, a Minneapolis police officer, has pleaded not guilty to six counts, including conspiracy to commit theft. His trial is scheduled to start next week.
I'm not a lawyer but I can't picture Jordan Davis' trial going well. He's a police officer. Why would he think it's ok to get paid to do a job he wasn't doing?
The best thing coming out of this investigation is that the Davis family business is out of business forever.
Posted Saturday, June 18, 2016 2:18 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 18-Jun-16 11:24 AM
Father, son, and 5 off and on girlfriends spent $850k of taxpayers money to live like kings and queens. And now the legislature approved $35 million more for racial equity and $17 million a year after that so the cycle can continue. When are we going to wake up?!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jun-16 02:19 PM
The DFL thrives off of people not paying attention to stuff like this. It isn't any different than watching the DFL do nothing about the millions that MnSCU pisses away. Money spent foolishly is abhorrent to taxpayers. It isn't a blip on the DFL's radar. It's like my old saying: It's impossible to find what you refuse to look for.
Civil rights offenders
Apparently, Terri Bonoff thinks she's a serious threat to defeating Erik Paulsen. She isn't. Nonetheless, she's pushing the DFL/DCCC meme that last week's terrorist attack is a gun control issue. It isn't. This tweet should be ridiculed. In that tweet, Ms. Bonoff said "Silence speaks louder than words. These members of Congress cannot defend their vote." According to this article , Rep. Collin Peterson "joined most of his Republican colleagues earlier this week in voting to keep the House of Representatives from debating a bill to ban firearms sales to people on terrorist watch lists."
What they did was vote against the government's ability to strip people of their civil rights without due process. Ms. Bonoff apparently didn't care about the truth. Apparently, she said that Paulsen's vote proved that he was "putting party politics above public safety." That's frighteningly dishonest. Ms. Bonoff knows that the murderer was a terrorist. Ms. Bonoff knows that terrorists don't obey the law. That's why they're called terrorists.
She's the politician who can't defend her position. Betty McCollum's position is indefensible, too:
"I strongly support a ban on weapons purchases by people on terrorist watch lists and expanded background checks on weapons purchases made at gun shows, online or in other commercial transactions," Fourth District Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat, said. "Both of these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Tragically, even these narrow measures will not pass this Congress. The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence. And the NRA controls this Congress and will obstruct and defeat any effort to fight gun violence."
TRANSLATION: Rep. McCollum supports stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms while also stripping them of their due process rights. In other words, she's anti-Second Amendment and anti-Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
McCollum is full of it when she said "these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." That's something that's impossible to prove. She's also full of it when she said "The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence." Since the Democrats' proposals haven't protected families and communities from gun violence, Rep. McCollum's statement is, at best, unprovable, if not downright dishonest.
Posted Saturday, June 18, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 20-Jun-16 04:21 PM
"McCollum is full of it when she said 'these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.' That's something that's impossible to prove."
__
But it IS possible to disprove, since such laws wouldn't have stopped any of the major shooting incidents in recent memory. The scariest thing about all this is that liberals know it.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-16 04:36 PM
Excellent point, Bob.
St. Cloud Times' tired BS
The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board's latest editorial could've been written by Moms Demand Action . The sad thing is that the Times is just as uninformed now as it was a year ago.
For instance, their chief recommendation is " Improving background checks. There are a variety of proposals in Congress that are reasonable. A good starting point is the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. Unfortunately, the Senate, the day after the San Bernardino shootings, rejected this proposal 50-48. It was the second failure of the measure. It also rejected 55-45 a proposal to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally buy guns."
First, the Times should read the existing laws. Sean Davis, the founder of The Federalist, did. Then he wrote this post demolishing the myths that the Times still perpetuates:
1) The 'Gun Show Loophole' Allows Anyone, Even Criminals, To Get Guns
In reality, the so-called 'gun show loophole' is a myth . It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.
If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction - a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer's car trunk, etc. - that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.
If an individual purchases a gun across state lines, from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer's home state.
Here's a pointed question for the TEB (Times Editorial Board): Do we need multiple federal laws covering the same situation? Here's another question for the TEB: Might it not be better if we just enforced the laws that already address these situations?
Further, I wrote this article to highlight the fact that the federal government failed to do what it's supposed to do. It won't do any good to write new laws if the federal government won't consistently and efficiently enforce the laws on the books.
To be fair, the TEB did its liberal duty. It did what it's expected to do. Unfortunately, according to chapter 1, verse 1 of the progressives' gospel is to disseminate untruths frequently and consistently.
Posted Saturday, June 18, 2016 11:31 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 19-Jun-16 09:56 AM
Add willful ignorance to the so-called "objective reporting." The Orlando shooter PASSED his background check, and two FBI interviews. He worked for DHS! He did not use an "assault weapon" nor did he use an AR-15. These problems are not going to be solved by any proposed gun law. Fact. But of course liberals prefer fantasy.
Dumping Trump is imperative
After watching Trump tank in the polls and after getting this news , it's apparent that Trump is a disaster waiting to happen. When Hugh Hewitt, the most loyal GOP establishment talk show host on radio, said that Trump was a disaster waiting to happen , people noticed. (I'm surprised that Sean Hannity hasn't ripped Hugh for not worshiping at The Donald's altar but that's another post for another time.)
NBC News is reporting that "Every single 2016 presidential TV ad currently airing in a battleground state is either from Hillary Clinton's campaign or the Democratic outside groups supporting her. The opposition, by contrast, hasn't spent a dime in these same battlegrounds, whether it's Donald Trump's campaign or Republican-leaning Super PACs."
That's just for starters. The NBC article continues, saying "So far in June, Clinton and the outside groups backing her have spent a total of $23.3 million on ads in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta. Republicans have spent $0 in these same eight states."
Add to that the fact that Trump doesn't have a GOTV operation. Add to that the fact that Trump insists on alienating major parts of the GOP base. (Think Second Amendment activists, amongst others.)
The lesson delegates should learn ASAP is that dumping Trump at the Convention isn't a movement. It's imperative. If Trump is the nominee, Republicans will lose North Carolina for the second time in 3 elections. They'll lose Florida, Virginia and Ohio for the third straight time.
It's indisputable that Hillary is a terrible candidate. It's equally indisputable that she's at least smart enough to put together a quality GOTV operation. At this point, any talk that Trump can win isn't based in reality. It's outright foolishness.
Trump isn't self-financing like he'd promised. He's opening up the electoral map but only in the sense that he's turning red states like Utah and North Carolina momentarily purple. It's time to stop this insanity. It's time to officially Dump Trump.
Posted Sunday, June 19, 2016 12:43 PM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 19-Jun-16 06:34 PM
Dump Trump = Clinton win.... just saying.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jun-16 08:26 PM
Clinton is less terrible...just saying.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 19-Jun-16 09:02 PM
Clinton is less terrible? Really?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jun-16 10:36 PM
Yes, really. Trump wants to demolish the Constitution. Hillary just wants her cut of the corruption.
Comment 3 by eric z at 20-Jun-16 07:41 AM
Gary, you are doing a glide and slide.
Without an alternative are you saying run nobody?
If somebody; WHO?
Sure, you can punt on that question; but it would be an interesting thing if you and readers put together a wish list.
My personal perspective is Ryan would really poison the well, but you guys think he's legit. Any somebody?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-16 12:44 PM
I'm admitting that Hillary will be the 45th POTUS. I can pretend that Trump has a chance but he doesn't. Worse, he's a scatterbrain that hasn't thought things through in decades. Worst, he's a bigot that I want nothing to do with. The best thing that could happen for the GOP is for ISIS to take out Trump Force One with a surface-to-air-missile.
Comment 4 by eric z at 20-Jun-16 07:42 AM
JEB!
Comment 5 by eric z at 20-Jun-16 11:26 AM
Gary, I believe you miswrote, "Trump wants to demolish the Constitution. Hillary just wants her cut of the corruption."
Second sentence should more precisely be, "The Clintons, two generations now at the trough, just want the family's cut of the corruption." It's a collective, not a mere individual.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-16 12:40 PM
Eric, I meant what I said. Since Bill is history, I don't care about what he did. That's in the past. It can't be changed.
Comment 6 by JerryE9 at 20-Jun-16 12:12 PM
I understand the desire not to have Trump the nominee. What I simply cannot imagine is how that possibly helps the conservative cause or helps the country as a whole, because every possible alternative seems to make Hillary the President. Who could the RNC Convention possibly pick that could mount a campaign at that late date, get on the ballot, and unite the Party after "shafting" Trump through rule changes and shenanigans by an "establishment" that is already unpopular?
My hope is still that Trump wins, finds the "best people" and does the right things. It isn't that unlikely, but I cannot imagine Hillary doing the same.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-16 12:39 PM
At this point, Jerry, it isn't about helping the conservative movement. It's about protecting it so it can fight another day. This election is lost. Period.
Trump doesn't have a GOTV operation. He can't raise money. He's already trailing Hillary by outside the margin of error & he's getting hammered by the pro-Hillary super PACs in the swing states. That's what a landslide looks like. If you want to fight, that's fine but it's futile.
The question is whether the GOP will have Trump's stench all over it for the next 10 years or whether we divorce ourselves from that bigot & live to fight another day. I hate saying this, Jerry, but you need to get over this notion that Trump can even be competitive. That ship sailed when he decided not to build a campaign organization. Then he made matters worse when he attacked the 'Mexican' judge. This morning, he fired his campaign manager.
If you want to engage in wishful thinking, be my guest. It's a free country. Just don't expect me to pay attention to it.
Comment 7 by Bob J. at 20-Jun-16 04:18 PM
Trump's campaign is so bad it actually leads to conspiracy theories. The Republican Party is about to nominate a loud-mouthed, racist, bigoted, sexist, misogynistic Liberal Democrat for President, which would make two in the race at the same time.
#DumpTrump
Comment 8 by LadyLogician at 20-Jun-16 06:11 PM
Jerry - how is nominating a marginal Republican good for the conservative movement. The GOP had a prime opportunity to nominate a movement conservative and stop Hillary and instead our nominee is maybe two steps to the right of the Progressive movement. How is that a win for conservatism?
Eric Z - at this point, I am thinking 3rd Party. Gary Johnson is not my ideal but he is at least enough of a fiscal conservative to get spending under control and get the economy going again.
I agree with Gary - Trump will not win. He does not have the ground game, he doesn't have the fundraising, he doesn't have ANYTHING necessary to win a 50 state campaign. It's not that I "want" Hillary to win, but I am a realist and I can see the writing on the wall.
LL
Comment 9 by Rex Newman at 20-Jun-16 06:39 PM
And the alternative is ? One of those 16+ other losers - nice guys and gals - most better qualified - but losers nonetheless for playing old school politics? Are you willing to make it a total slaughter by using Democratic Party style tricks to "dump" him? Sorry, but it's Trump or Hillary now.
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jun-16 07:54 PM
Rex, the alternative is to accept a defeat at the presidential level but waging a fierce fight to maintain majorities in the House & Senate and winning seats in the state legislatures & winning some governorships. At least we know that there won't be another Trump-sized mistake waiting to happen ever again in my lifetime.
Further, the media, including some talk show hosts who once were marginally conservative, sold us down the river. Ted Cruz didn't win but calling him a loser is BS. Marco Rubio didn't win but calling him a loser is BS, too. Scott Walker is a fantastic conservative. Calling him a loser is BS.
They lost because the media wanted Trump to win. Hannity & Ingraham especially wanted Trump to win because he meant ratings for their struggling shows.
Comment 10 by eric z at 22-Jun-16 10:10 AM
Gary, it is the family. Or do you want a future two terms of Chelsea? Perhaps the thread is dead, but you wrote:
"I'm admitting that Hillary will be the 45th POTUS. I can pretend that Trump has a chance but he doesn't. Worse, he's a scatterbrain that hasn't thought things through in decades. Worst, he's a bigot that I want nothing to do with. The best thing that could happen for the GOP is for ISIS to take out Trump Force One with a surface-to-air-missile."
A bigot you want nothing to do with, but a bigot that's just fine with Michele Bachmann and Dobson and the Liberty University crowd. Liberty University weighing in with Trump University? No panel on foreign policy. None on the economy.
But rally the fundies?
The man has his finger on the pulse of who the Republican party, today, is.
Comment 11 by eric z at 22-Jun-16 10:21 AM
Lady Logician - This cycle will see a record protest vote for the truly marginal third party candidates. It will not be like Ross Perot possibly being the swing between major two-party offerings; not the false claim that Ralph Nader did in Al Gore (Al Gore did in Al Gore, no help needed - Lieberman a part of it for certain). Nor the uncertain George Wallace thing - who did he help/hurt. A simple, large, protest vote spread around from both poles of the political spectrum against the business-Wall Street screw-everyone-else-and-take-short-term-cash-hand-over-fist cabals. That and down-ballot voting with the ballot top left empty, or write-ins. Low turnouts?
GOP winning special session fight?
When this year's legislative session ended, the CW was that the DFL held the upper hand in the PR/campaign fight. Whether that was true or not at the time isn't relevant anymore. What's relevant is who's fought the smartest fight to this point. This statement hammers home some important points.
In total, it says "House Republicans did their job this year, negotiated in good faith and passed bipartisan bills on the priorities most important to Minnesotans. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats and Gov. Dayton deliberately obstructed progress. First, Senate Democrats blocked funding for transportation and infrastructure, then Governor Dayton vetoed tax relief for working families, college students, parents, farmers, and veterans. If Gov. Dayton knew he was going to veto the tax bill, he should have done it a long time ago and called a special session right away. Now the election is ramping up and the political environment will get in the way of honest compromises. We are willing to hold a special session. We agree with Gov. Dayton's requests in the tax relief bill, and we should pass the bipartisan compromise transportation and infrastructure bill that was agreed to on the last day of session. We are not going to rehash the whole session by repeating negotiations on half a billion dollars of new spending demands."
The DFL has talked solely about process, talking about the end of session. Republicans have talked about Gov. Dayton vetoing the Tax Bill, then questioning why Gov. Dayton decided to hurt veterans, farmers, college students, parents saving for their kids' college education and small businesses.
I won't say that people don't care about process. If I were a betting man, though, I'd bet that people care more about getting tax relief. If the DFL thinks that they're winning that fight, I hope they keep thinking that.
The DFL is also highlighting the line 'If the Twin Cities wants to raise the money to build SWLRT, they should be able to.' I'd agree to that statement only if the DFL agreed that the metro also paid for the annual operating deficits, too.
The DFL needs to pick up seats in exurban and rural Minnesota. Arguing that tax relief for farmers, veterans and small businesses hinges on a metro project is exceptional stupid politics on the DFL's part.
Posted Monday, June 20, 2016 4:35 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 20-Jun-16 06:48 PM
The DFL is surprisingly quiet on the "need" for a Special Session, unable to spin this into a "need" for a gas tax nobody wants and/or a train to nowhere. Let the GOP message be short and direct this cycle.
