May 16, 2011
May 16 13:08 Is New DFL Redistricting Plan a Stalling Tactic? May 16 09:19 This Week's BIG Question May 16 11:01 Get Out the Butter; Newt's Toast May 16 13:48 Trump's Out May 16 19:01 That's Gov. Dayton's Idea of Compromise?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Is New DFL Redistricting Plan a Stalling Tactic?
After Sen. Bakk's and Sen. Rest's announcement that the Senate DFL won't be publishing a redistricting map , I started thinking about why they'd adopt this strategy of doing nothing, especially on an issue this important.
Let's recall that the Senate DFL made this proposal in announcing that the Senate DFL wouldn't publish a redistricting map:
1. In the interest of promoting bipartisan discussions, we will not be introducing any redistricting plans for the rest of this session.
2. Let's develop joint redistricting principles that are truly open and fair. We should invite nonpartisan academics or other nonpartisan experts to vet the content and the structure of potential principles and indices to remove all partisan bias.
3. Let's take our plan out to the community for public comment. We suggest one meeting each in each of the congressional districts over the interim. Let's open the process for the people to submit their own plans.
4. Then let's try and come up with and pass a truly nonpartisan plan when we return next year that will be signed by the Governor.
Why didn't the Senate DFL put a proposal together that called for bringing in "nonpartisan academics or other nonpartisan experts" months ago? Why didn't the Senate DFL propose a series of meetings, one in each of the congressional districts, months ago? Shouldn't the Senate DFL have tried pushing these initiatives months ago so that Gov. Dayton could've possibly signed this legislation this session?
Now I'm left asking whether the Senate DFL's 4-point proposal isn't a stalling tactic. I'm questioning the Senate DFL's happy talk about bipartisanship isn't based more on the belief that this isn't going to turn out well for the DFL, especially on the legislative district level.
Frankly, this reeks of desperation. The state's biggest population growth during the past decade happened in the state's most conservative districts. I think that the Senate DFL's tactic is to delay the inevitable as long as possible.
What they haven't considered, it appears to me, is the fact that Republicans aren't afraid of Gov. Dayton's veto, just like they aren't afraid of letting judges draw the final map.
Another possibility is that the DFL will claim that Republicans didn't want to hear from the public, that they weren't interested in bipartisanship. That's easily refuted by the fact that they've alread held 13 House hearings, including 3 hearings held in Hermantown, Marshall and Rochester.
Though the DFL will try, they'll find that it's impossible to argue that Republicans didn't listen during those 16 hearings. What's more, the redistricting maps that Rep. Anderson unveiled do a great job of keeping cities and counties intact. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but it's apparent that they paid attention to those considerations.
It's important to not that a redistricting map isn't unjust just because it turns out better for one party than the other. Sometimes, like this time, the population growth is in a certain party's strongest areas.
It wouldn't be any different than if the biggest growth had happened in downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis. Had that happened, there wouldn't be a way to draw a map that didn't favor the DFL.
It's time that the DFL stopped with its stalling tactics, its PR ploys and its complaining. It's time that the DFL started producing real solutions that appeal to Main Street Minnesota.
If the DFL doesn't do that, this decade's redistricting map will be the least of their worries.
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-May-11 01:49 PM
You might as well ask turtles to fly. Demagoguery, hijinks and foolishness are all they've got. Why anybody treats them as if they were serious public servants is beyond me.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:48 AM
'In the interest of promoting bipartisan discussions, we will not be introducing any redistricting plans for the rest of this session.'
IF the Dems were truly interested in 'promoting bipartisan discussion' then they would put forward a map as a starting point FOR discussions. The fact that they refuse to put a map forward bespeaks their lies.
L
This Week's BIG Question
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this will be a hectic, sometimes hurry-up-and-wait week in the Minnesota legislature. That doesn't lead us to this week's BIG question.
This week's BIG question is simple: Will the DFL finally grow a spine and vote on Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme or another tax increase?
Thus far, the DFL have said that they admired Gov. Dayton's "balanced approach" to solving the deficit. Their actions, however, indicate that their admiration stops just a little bit short of actually proposing or voting on Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme.
Until the DFL pushes for a vote on a tax increase, then they really don't have a $37,000,000,000 budget. They've got a $37,000,000,000 wishlist but they've really got a $34,500,000,000 budget. (Actually, it could be anywhere between $34,100,000,000 and $34,300,000,000.)
Let's remember that the GOP budget calls for spending $34,000,000,000.
The facts don't support the contention that the DFL has taken a balanced approach to balancing the budget. The facts will only support the reality that the DFL has talked about taking a balanced approach to balancing the budget.
I suspect that the DFL will do what they've done this session. I'm betting that the DFL will complain that we need to raise taxes without having the fortitude to actually propose, much less vote on, raising taxes.
Once this week's BIG question is answered, the endgame and serious negotiations will start. If we get to that point, those negotiations should produce a settlement that is approved by the legislature before next Monday's midnight end of the 2011 regular session.
However, if the DFL plays the posturing game, then they'll be headed for a special session.
What's really needed are some DFL statesmen to step forward and tell their colleagues that there won't be a tax increase this session. One individual that's done that was Rep. Gene Pelowski. I applauded him then for taking a principled stand. I'd applaud him now if he took that stand again.
What isn't in question is the Republicans' resolve in not overspending this session. They've started a new alliance called the Not A Penny More :
By last Monday, posters had begun popping up on Republican legislators' office doors depicting an overflowing bag of cash with '$34 billion' stenciled on the front and the legend 'Not a Penny More' inscribed above. Many of the members who have hung the signs are new to the Capitol, including freshman Assistant Majority Leader Kurt Daudt as well as Reps. Mary Franson and Doug Wardlow. Among the more veteran Republican caucus members sporting signs on their door: Buesgens, Tom Hackbarth, Joyce Peppin, Peggy Scott and Mary Kiffmeyer.
This alliance makes a reasonable (I'd argue compelling) argument on holding at $34,000,000,000. When it was thought that there would be $32,000,000,000 in general fund revenues coming in, that's the figure Republicans settled on. The halfway point between $32,000,000,000 and $37,000,000,000 is $34,500,000,000.
The reality is that Republicans won't budge from that $34,000,000,000 number. Gov. Dayton still hasn't offered a compelling argument for why is plan is better. More importantly, until the DFL legislature is willing to push for increasing taxes, spending $37,000,000,000 is off limits.
The MMB won't say that spending $37,000,000,000 this biennium balances when we're 'only' bringing in $34,000,000,000 into the state's general revenue fund.
That leads to this week's REALLY REALLY big question, which is: Will the DFL dare bring up Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme knowing that there'd be significant DFL defections from the DFL's tax increases?
That's a big question the DFL probably doesn't want answered.
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 9:19 AM
No comments.
Get Out the Butter; Newt's Toast
As everyone knows by now, Newt Gingrich stepped in it on Meet the Press when he called Paul Ryan's plan " right-wing social engineering ." That essentially stops Newt's presidential campaign in its tracks. Simply put, Newt just gave himself a problem as big as Mitt's RomneyCare millstone. This won't end well for Newt.
Conor Sweeney, Chairman Ryan's Spokesman, responded this way :
'The solutions offered by Chairman Ryan and advanced by House Republicans make no changes to Medicare for those in and near retirement, while offering a strengthened, personalized program that future generations can count on when they retire,' Sweeney says. 'Far from claims of radicalism, the gradual, common-sense Medicare reforms ensure that no senior will be forced to reorganize their lives because of government's mistakes. The most 'radical' course of action on Medicare is continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo.'
'Serious leaders,' he adds, without naming names, 'owe seniors specific solutions to avert Medicare's looming collapse.'
Conor Sweeney is exactly right. He also nailed Newt from the standpoint that he attacked as unserious the people who haven't proposed serious Medicare reforms. Newt can talk about the principles that would guide him but that doesn't mean anything until he puts it into legislative format.
As the saying goes, CBO can't score a speech or an interview. Chairman Ryan put real legislation together that's been scored by CBO. Until Newt puts something together in legislative form, he'll be in a difficult position because the Republicans who attend caucuses and vote in their primaries are demanding specific solutions.
They're also wary of people who take cheapshots at fellow Republicans, especially Republicans whose plans are bold and that make sense and that help put the budget on a sustainable path, both in the long- and short-term.
If Gingrich wants to pick a fight with a details-oriented man like Chairman Ryan, I'd just suggest Callista bring lots of bandaids and gauze because Chairman Ryan will cut him to shreds.
As I said in the opening paragraph, this won't end well for Newt. That's disappointing because he could've brought so much to the nation's debate. That's now a disappointing missed opportunity.
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 11:01 AM
No comments.
Trump's Out
ABC News is reporting that Donald Trump has announced that isn't running for president:
After a roller-coaster flirtation with a presidential bid, Donald Trump bowed out of the 2012 contest in true Trump fashion, saying that while he would not be a candidate this year, if he had run, he would have been able to win the primary and the general election.
"I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election," Trump said in a statement. "I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector."
I can't say that I'm surprised but I can say that I'm relieved to hear his decision. I could never have supported Mr. Trump but that doesn't mean I don't wish him success in his privated sector projects.
The reason why I couldn't have supported him is because, other than his flamboyant nature, Mr. Trump reminds me too much of Mitt Romney: a man too willing to 'change' his positions. That's especially true with Mittcare's individual mandate and the life issue.
Mr. Trump and Mitt Romney have changed their positions on both those important issues. It's difficult to think that these conversions aren't election year conversions.
I didn't take him seriously at any point but I couldn't take him seriously after his declaration that the United States should take over Iraq's oil in exchange for us giving them their country back. That's when he reached national security/foreign policy unseriousness previously inhabited solely by Ron Paul.
It's difficult to picture a path to the presidency that mirrors Ron Paul's path.
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 1:48 PM
Comment 1 by Joseph at 17-May-11 01:34 PM
If you can't tell the differences between Trump and Paul, you should stay out of national politics.
If you don't understand that Ron Paul consistently stands for FREEDOM you should change the name of you blog.
I like your coverage of Minnesota politics, but you show your neocon stripes when you venture into national politics.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-May-11 01:56 PM
Ron Paul usually stands for freedom. He doesn't stand for fighting terrorists who want to eliminate our freedom. You can't say that you're fighting for freedom if you say we should be an isolationist nation that ignores the fact that radical jihadists declared war against us in 1979 when they took the American Embassy in Teheran hostage. That was an act of war.
Jimmy Carter ignored it & let it get a foothold. Then it spread to Syria, Tunisia & Gaza. Then al-Qa'ida tried blowing up the World Trade Center, followed by destroying the embassies in East Africa. Those are attacks on American soil. Where did Ron Paul stand on that? I'd tell you where if he wasn't busy being silent on the issue. He was nowhere to be found.
You can't be pro freedom if you're willing to let Americans die without a response. Ron Paul didn't express outrage. He didn't even utter a peep. That isn't be pro freedom. That's being selectively for the types of freedom that he agrees with. If freedom is a cherished principle, then it must be fought for wherever Americans are getting killed. Anything less says that some American lives are worth it & others aren't.
I don't find that acceptable, not one bit acceptable. Shame on you for supporting a man who selectively fights for Americans' liberties.
Comment 2 by Joseph at 18-May-11 12:43 AM
Ron Paul ALWAYS stands for freedom. Not making war is not isolationism. Constantly attacking other nations is against freedom. How many of the jihadists have be radicalized by our constant interference in their countries?
Yes, radical jihadists have been attacking Americans and Europeans for many years. But it didn't start then, you have to look at the history of the area and of the different countries. Western powers have been occupying the area for almost a hundred years and meddling for much more. If you think like Giuliani, that they hate us for our freedoms, you are sorely misinformed. Since it is now mostly the US meddling, the US gets attacked by the radical elements that want us out. This was one of bin Laden's reasons for 9/11.
Ron Paul supported going after those responsable for 9/11. He did not support starting endless wars in Afganistan and Iraq. You talk of Americans being killed, what about the over 4,400 that have been killed in Iraq that was based on lies and misinformation? Ron Paul would not have sent those soldiers to their deaths for lies.
I suppose you support Mit RomneyCare or Newt's version of big government conservatism. Or is it Pawlenty, who just pushed off all of the big decisions for the next governor to deal with. Other than Paul, the rest of the field of Republican candidates is a bunch of unprincipled, say anything to get elected politicians.
Again, I like your coverage of Minnesota politics, but you show your neocon stripes when you venture into national politics. Shame on you for not understanding the true meaning of freedom.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-May-11 03:01 AM
Not making war is not isolationism.It is when terrorists who don't know international boundaries have declared war on the United States. It is the epitome of isolationism.
How many of the jihadists have be radicalized by our constant interference in their countries?Precious few. They were radicalized a generation ago. Iran is funding terrorists that attack all around the world. Have we interfered with them? NOPE. Indonesian terrorists plotted to attack Los Angeles. When did we attack them? That's right, we didn't.
As for getting historical, let's look back farther than the last 100 years. Alot of the people that we now call jihadists were radicalized centuries prior to the 1800's.
I suppose you support Mit RomneyCare or Newt's version of big government conservatism.Please don't assume those types of things. It makes an ass out of you.
I'm betting that you're physically fit. You seem to jump to alot of conclusions. You seem to run on at the mouth, too.
PS- Why the hatred of Jews? You know that neocons originally were Jewish, right?
PSS- Ron Paul isn't the principled politician you pretend him to be. He's voted for earmarks more than a few times. His magazine employed racists. NICE PRINCIPLES.
Comment 3 by Joseph at 18-May-11 11:01 PM
If you think only a precious few have been radicalized by our overseas adventures, you are mistaken. You say we haven't interfered with Iran? What about all of the sanctions the we put on them through the UN and along with other Western nations?
If the jihadists were radicalized back in the 1800's, how come it took them until 1979 to make war against us?
I didn't assume anything, I inferred by your huge support of Rep. Gottwalt, who is in turn a huge Romney supporter.
Who said anything about hating Jews? And you accuse me of making an ass out of myself. I could ask you why you hate Muslims so much! Just like liberal used to mean something closer to libertarian, neocon has changed meaning also over the years.
I haven't checked every vote, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference in requesting an earmark as Rep. Paul's constituants want, and then voting against the spending bill is different than voting for an earmark. Remember an earmark means that Congress decides where the money is spent instead of the President. Only voting against the spending bill decreases spending.
I'm glad to see that when someone challenges you, you go right into personal attacks.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 19-May-11 03:30 AM
1. Yes, Steve Gottwalt is my friend. That doesn't mean I agree with him 100% of the time.
2. You said that I was showing my neocon stripes. If you want to think that, that's your right. I just wanted you to know that the proper definition of neocon is Jewish. Your use of the term was as an invective. That certainly isn't a term of endearment.
3. As for earmarks, it depends on what type of earmarks you're talking about. So-called airdropped earmarks fund projects that weren't included in the original legislation. They got airdropped into conference committee reports which can't be amended.
4. If Congressman Paul believes in all of our founding documents, then it's important to note that true rights come from "Nature's God" & that we're "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." That means EVERY human life is precious. At minimum, it says that the people who died in the embassy bombings died as an act of war.
5. Frankly, I don't care what rationalization jihadists use in explaining why they kill. If they killed U.S. citizens, that's an act of war & that must be punished. The rationalization that 'they attacked us because we did something wrong attitude' is disgusting to me. They killed. PERIOD. That's guilt trip foreign policy, aka isolationism.
6. If these policy disagreements are what you consider as personal attacks, I can't stop that. Instead, I'll just ignore those accusations.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 11:10 PM
Joseph - I call BS on your comment. If Ron Paul stood "consistently" and "ALWAYS stands" for freedom then why has he NOT stood for the freedom of Afghan and Iraqi women who were so brutally oppressed by the Taliban and Saddam? Why has Rep Paul stood silently as honor killings go on in THIS country? What about the freedoms of these people? Or don't they count???????
LL
Comment 5 by Joseph at 20-May-11 10:04 PM
1. Good.
2. You're right, it was an invective. I still maintain that the meaning has changed and means big government, war mongering "conservatives".
3. Great. We agree that the legislative process isn't the best. My original point on earmarks remains.
4. I don't believe that our inalienable rights means that we can take an eye for an eye. While the people who died in embassy bombings is tragic and those responsible should be brought to justice. I don't agree that the bombings would give us the right to attack a country and kill more than those responsible.
5. Well, if you can't understand why someone is made at you, you will just continue to upset them. It's disgusting that are so enamored with killing that you don't want it to stop. Oh and isolationism would require more than just not killing and policing the world.
6. I wasn't referring to policy disagreements. I was referring to:
"I'm betting that you're physically fit. You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions. You seem to run on at the mouth, too."
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 21-May-11 12:11 AM
4. I don't believe that our inalienable rights means that we can take an eye for an eye. While the people who died in embassy bombings is tragic and those responsible should be brought to justice. I don't agree that the bombings would give us the right to attack a country and kill more than those responsible.That's plain wrong. When was the last time a country that got attacked limited their declaration of war to only those who attacked them? It's never happened in the history of the world. And yes, it's definitely our right to take an eye for an eye. Anytime that you're attacked, whether by another country or by jihadists, it's our responsibility to terminate those attackers' lives.
That's Gov. Dayton's Idea of Compromise?
According to this article , Gov. Dayton has offered to cut his tax increase in half:
With just one week left in the legislative session, Gov. Mark Dayton today proposed a smaller income tax increase than he has been advocating, a move he hopes will convince Republican legislative leaders to compromise on the budget. But they rejected Dayton's overture.
Dayton's revised plan increases the beginning threshold for the new income tax rate of 10.95 percent to $250,000 in taxable income for married couples, up from an earlier threshold of $150,000. His new threshold for single filers is $150,000, up from $85,000.
Under the governor's plan, Minnesotans with such adjusted incomes would have to pay the higher tax rate only on the money they earn above those thresholds. The governor also dropped a proposed property tax increase on homes valued at $1 million or more.
Gov. Dayton couldn't resist criticizing the GOP legislature:
"The all-cuts budget has just a terrible effect on Minnesotans all over this state, on our quality of life, on our future, and I'm not going to agree to it," the governor said. "I've offered to meet them halfway, and I'm not going to do any more than that. It's their responsibility to meet me halfway, and then we'll have a resolution, and we'll all go home next Monday."
If Gov. Dayton insists on making questionable assumptions and biased opinions based on his ideological rigidity, then we're heading for a special session.
As for his statement that he's meeting Republicans halfway, that's absurd. Thus far, DFL leaders and rank-and-file DFL legislators have voted against Gov. Dayton's tax increases. That begs the question of what the halfway point between the GOP's budget and something that doesn't exist?
The reality is that Republicans are steadfast against raising income taxes. They aren't budging on that. PERIOD. It's important to understand just how firm of footing they're on on this. There are 20 House districts in urban St. Paul and Minneapolis that steadfastly agree on raising taxes. Those 20 districts went heavy for the DFL.
Once you leave the friendly confines of the Twin Cities, though, 72 of the remaining 114 districts voted for candidates who promised not to raise taxes. That's just short of two-thirds of the districts that voted for candidates who promised not to raise taxes.
Let's consider something else. Regardless of who draws the lines, the reality is that there will be more Republican districts than there is today and that existing Republican districts will be more bulletproof. Conversely, there won't be as many DFL-friendly districts.
How eager will swing-district DFL legislators be to vote for Gov. Dayton's tax increases? Of those that will, I'd argue that many of those swing-district DFL legislators will be defeated in 2012.
What that means is that there will bipartisan support for the Republican position but only half-hearted DFL support for Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme.
If, by chance, there's unanimous DFL support for Gov. Dayton's tax increase, there will just be more GOP victories that first Tuesday in November, 2012. It won't mean that taxes will get raised for the 2012-2013 biennium.
Another thing that's becoming apparent is that Tom Bakk is either utterly clueless or he won't hesitate in spinning a terrible situation:
Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk of Cook and House Minority Leader Paul Thissen of Minneapolis predicted their caucuses will line up behind Dayton. Bakk said the public needs to speak up.
"Public opinion should drive this process, and I do hope that Minnesotans over the next week weigh in and try to pound some sense into these people that are so incredibly inflexible that they need to compromise," Bakk said. ""Clearly the public is already there well ahead of them."
"These people" who are "incredibly inflexible" are representing their constituents. Contrary to this weekend's DFL chanting points, there isn't 63% support for raising taxes. The Minnesota Poll is, as usual, a joke. According to this article , they only sampled "806 Minnesotans." According to that article, the "margin of sampling error" is "plus or minus 4.7 percentage points", meaning it's essentially useless.
They didn't publish the crosstabs on this but it sounds like they didn't screen for registered voters, much less likely voters. For the past 2 years, tightening a poll's screening favors the GOP. Polling adults, which this appears to do, is the least predictive of all the polls.
Returning to Sen. Bakk, most Minnesota voters are already where Republicans are. It's time that the DFL ended their charade and proved that there's still a few shreds of political sanity left in the DFL.
If the DFL follows Gov. Dayton's lead, the DFL won't like the next election cycle. More importantly, the results won't change. Most importantly, people will see that their quality of life won't disintigrate if taxes aren't raised.
Posted Monday, May 16, 2011 7:01 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-May-11 08:50 PM
The GOP has already said that they have put all the compromises in the budget already, spending about 4% more than last year, and every nickel of additional revenue that's coming in. They should hammer that.
More quietly, they need to tell the Guv that he can sign this budget, or wait for a special session when the GOP will find MORE savings and send him a smaller one. Inflexible sounds like a great position, for a change! WTG GOP!
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 17-May-11 09:35 AM
Earth to Senator Bakk - the ULTIMATE public opinion poll shows that the GOP IS representing the will of the people of the ENTIRE state (as opposed to those Happy to Pay types in Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth). You see the ultimate poll is the election and the rest of the state handed control of the Legislature over to a GOP that campaigned on doing just exactly what they are doing!
LL
Comment 3 by B. Conner at 17-May-11 10:49 AM
Governor Dayton has offered a compromise for additional revenue and cuts. It is the Republicans who have not compromised at all. They insist on a cuts only method for balancing the budget.
Contrary to what other posters are saying on the site, the majority of voters in Minnesota favor both increased tax revenues and increased cuts to balance the budget. In fact, the vast majority of people favor more heavily taxing the rich. The rich are "skating" in our current system of taxation.
It is the inflexibility of the far right that is dooming our state and Federal economies to neanderthal times.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 17-May-11 11:09 AM
Republicans are keeping their promises that they made to Minnesotans during last year's campaign. That's when Republicans took the Senate for the first time since 1972. That's when Republicans turned a 46-21 veto-proof DFL majority into a 37-30 GOP majority. That's a +16 seat gain for the side saying "we aren't raising taxes."
PS- That was half of their central campaign theme, the other half being living within our means.
PSS- 2010 was also the year when Republicans turned an 87-47 DFL majority into an 72-62 seat GOP majority. (That's a +25 seat gain for Republicans.)
The Minnesota Poll notwithstanding, the reality is that Republicans are where Minnesotans are at. The Minnesotans I've talked with are sick of DFL tax increases. And I live in a very blue part of HD-15B.
Finally, until Gov. Dayton can convince Rep. Thissen & Sen. Bakk to offer his budget as actual legislation, the DFL isn't really on the field. The best way to put it is that the QB is on the field but the linemen, receivers, running backs & defense are back in the locker room getting taped & putting their uniforms on.
That isn't being on the playing field. Until the entire DFL team gets on the field & starts running plays, the DFL's proposals shouldn't be taken seriously.
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 18-May-11 08:56 AM
B.Connor - the PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA insist on a "cuts only" approach. It is what the GOP campaigned on in 2010 and what got them control of the House and the Senate.
What part of YOU LOST don't you get?
LL
