Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem (R-29, Rochester) surprised many when he operated with a heavy-hand on Tuesday in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee taking the bulk of the money to fill the Senate operating budget from the DFL Minority. We think his change in demeanor may be attributable to a few factors: One, his desire to be taken seriously by all parties; two, his decision to hire former House Speaker Steve Sviggum as the Executive Assistant to the Rules Committee.

We penned a story after Senjem’s internal caucus election comparing him to the current Congressional House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH8). Will Senjem Experience a Boehner Effect? (You need to be registered to follow this link otherwise it is still available on the page. Just go to http://checksandbalances.com).  Also the selection of Sviggum is a tactical maneuver which has much wisdom in it. One feature of Sviggum’s tenure as Speaker was his ability to prevent outliers from within his caucus. He was able to identify members who were soft in their support of issues within his caucus and get them to toe the caucus line.

Ellen Anderson

In our travels through the halls of the legislature, we have been asked on a few occasions what we are hearing regarding the approval of former Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL-St. Paul) as head of the Public Utilities Commission. By our read Anderson’s future is in doubt and she will likely not be confirmed.

In a press conference held today Senate Assistant Majority Leader Julianne Ortman (R-34, Chanhassen) she said, the Senate will take up four confirmations including Anderson’s on Monday. Regarding the specifics on Anderson’s confirmation said, “I understand she did not fare well in committee. She is known to be a passionate advocate and she has a tough record to defend.” Many people believe Anderson will fall due paybacks for to the rejections of Lt. Governor Carol Molnau (R) as Transportation Commissioner and Cheryl Pierson Yecke as Education Commissioner.

At the end of the press conference Ortman answered another Anderson question and said, “

What This Means  

There seems to be a spirit shared by Republican Senators of “It’s our time.” We conclude this to mean Republicans Senators feel compelled to act on a wide array of issues changing the overall relationship between the public and state government.  Because Governor Mark Dayton (DFL) is of a different party the interest in legislating by fiat of the public is higher from Republican legislators through Constitutional Amendment.

By avoiding any action by the governor and taking issues directly to the electorate Republicans feel their view of the state will prevail. They also feel this will help them in the various elections by generating a larger base vote to support their candidates.

DFL Minority

In a follow-up press conference to the Majority, Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook) challenged the data brought before the Senate Rules Committee as either inaccurate, misleading or false and characterized the staff cuts as purely partisan. He also commented on the pending confirmation of Anderson and asked what vote has she cast on the PUC puts her confirmation in doubt.

In response Ortman countered and called Bakk’s comments, “Extreme.”    

The House of Representatives opened the session with mostly procedure issues and a few speeches. Rep. Jim Abeler (R-48B, Anoka) talked about the loss of his son during the interim and DFL minority Leader Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A, Minneapolis) called for job creation and not Constitutional Amendments. All-in-all it was a yawner, but such was not the case in the Senate.

The Senate opened with procedural issues as well mostly based on the need to formally elect a new Republican majority Leader. After Sen. Dave Senjem’s (R-29, Rochester) election to the post and the installation of the Assistant Republican majority Leaders things seemed to be headed for a fairly mundane start of session, which lasted until the Rules and Administration Committee meeting. In his acceptance speech on the floor Senjem seemed all accommodating toward the DFL minority expressing his desire to work with them to meet the needs of the state and called members of the senate “brothers and sisters.”

When the Rules Committee met it became clear the honeymoon had ended, the time for happy talk was over and the true face of the Senate Republican majority emerged and not surprisingly it looks the same as the old Senate Republican majority. The reason we can say this will such conviction is because of the activities which took place in Rules to address a forthcoming deficit in the Senate’s $2.67 million budget.

We have been awaiting this issue since the later part of the first session and inquired of then Rules Committee Executive Assistant Michael Brodkorb whether or not the Republican majority would be balancing the deficit at the expense of the DFL minority. To which he said, “That has not been decided at this time.” Interestingly enough, it has now been decided and the Republican majority did just that. Their proposal looks good on paper to the public. http://www.senate.mn/members/member_pr_display.php?ls=&id=4248 It shows a 5% across the board reduction bringing the inline, but when one looks past the numbers and understands the full implications it means the Republican majority will retain all of their partisan staff while the DFL minority losses 12-14 staff people at the close of session. The staff cuts of session only staff, Senate Council and Research and not compensating interns will not remove a single person from the Republican majority staff.

Now this is not a new concept the majority traditionally has the upper hand and its staff has had more luxury during election years to use vacation and comp time to work on campaigns while the minority usually has less money to work with and has its staff hired by their caucus campaigns. The difference is this go round this decision, usually left the leadership of the respective caucuses, and is now being made unilaterally by the party in control, the Republicans.

This precedent will be one not long forgotten especially if the DFL regains control of the Republican majority and then there will be hell to be paid. The last gasp of collegiality will then leave the senate and everything will be partisan all the time. If the concept of, you reap what you sow is to be witnessed it will be seen if the Republican majority changes hands.

Senjem was right in pointing out the DFL Senate Caucus has more senior staff than does the Republican Caucus. This is because the DFL was the party in control since the 1974 election. The DFL staff, in spite of being at will employees, had stability up until the 2010 election. Because of this fact a smaller allotment in the DFL minority budget is spread far thinner and employs fewer people because the average salary is higher due to seniority. It may be a cold hard fact, but DFL Senate Staff is now incentivized to work tirelessly to get the members of the caucus reelected and elect enough members to bring the DFL back into the Republican majority and had they done so in 2010 they would not be facing this situation. Complacency has no place in partisan politics and not working on campaigns and expending vacation during an election year doing so is being complacent.

It appears the Republican majority justified its actions as retribution for the decision by then Senate Republican majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL-59, Minneapolis) to enforce the senate hiring freeze on the DFL minority and disallowing the employment of a new Chief of Staff Cullen Sheehan. Senjem made this point clear during the debate.

There were alternatives discussed. Sen. Dick Cohen (DFL-64, St. Paul) attempted to amend the motion to call for a reduction of the permanent Republican majority staff from two down to one at the end of session, but that motion failed on a 7-4 party line vote. He also brought up the idea of reducing per diem for all members of the caucus, but failed to put that in the form of a motion.

There was one attempt at accommodation by Sen. Claire Robling (R-35, Jordan) Finance Committee Chair. She acknowledge her Committee Administrator from last session, Amy Walstien, had left for another job and she was going to attempt to share a Committee Administrator with another committee. This decision would then help reduce the majority staff by one.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook) tried to bring some rationality into the discussion when he asked what the unemployment compensation costs the Senate Caucus would need to bear if this number of people were to be laid off. During this conversation Senate Secretary Cal Ludeman conveyed a figure which when fully accounted for only recognizes around a $195 million cost savings. The decision is not any way shape of form an example of shared sacrifice. It is solely born on the shoulders of the DFL Senate Minority.

The reality is this, the Republican majority recognizes due to its current troubles of sexual peccadilloes between members and staff along with the other known situations which have not yet been exposed, they will face a tough reelection year. They understand the need to retain their staff on government payroll throughout the campaign because they will need every dollar they raise to protect incumbents and if the state can pay for some of the freight for the people working on campaigns so be it. The fact is it will be hard for the Senate Republicans to raise money.

Ironically, the anti-government party turns to government jobs when it’s convenient. The reductions on the DFL staff side will mean Mike Kennedy, DFL Senate Caucus Director will become an important seasonal employer. There is a significant difference between the Republican and DFL campaigns as well. The DFL provides benefits for their campaign staff while the Republicans traditionally have not. This means Kennedy will need to fund-raise even more this legislative session and during the election year. Because it is a presidential election year and with U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) up for reelection there will be more federal money flowing into the state, which will be good for the DFL. This also means the DFL Senate Caucus staff will be far more wedded to the DFL Party than ever before.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-6MN) will seek a fourth term of office in November. She has proven to be a voracious fundraiser and lightning rod for social conservatives. Her performance in her quest to be President came with both its highlights and lowlights and has show to the entire United States the content of her character.

She was seen as a shining star for social conservatives and this election in a new district will show her appreciation or lack there of here in Minnesota. So was quick to point out her Iowa roots and now she will need to reestablish her Minnesota credentials. 

The thrum is increasing about a possible departure of Rep. Steve Smith (R-33A, Mound) from the House Republican Caucus. We have been hearing this thought for months. This potential move would come as no surprise because, the House Leadership stripped Smith of two committee chairmanships (Ethics and Judiciary Policy and Finance) over an alleged inappropriate relationship with a House staffer in late summer.  Smith, who is unmarried, has disagreed with the characterization as inappropriate.

Our inquiries into the Republican House Caucus have generated a variety of responses. Bill Walsh, Executive Assistant to the Majority Leader said, “The caucus has not had contact with him (Smith) in months.” Smith's situation did not draw as much attention as did Sen. Amy Koch (R-19, Buffalo) and the bevy of allegations about more extramartial affairs in the House Republican Caucus is on the rise.

Smith, a lawyer by profession, has not been a lockstep member of the Republican Caucus. He  was one of two House Republican votes against the Defense of Marriage Constitutional Amendment.  Smith’s relationship to his caucus has a familiar feel with that of former Rep. Ron Erhardt (R-Edina). Ironically, these two individuals were in the same freshmen class first elected in 1991. We have spotted Erhardt at a number of DFL events since, the last one being a December fundraiser for Governor Mark Dayton (DFL) at the home of Tom Borman.

Smith could take a path like Erhardt did and self-define as an Independent and caucus with the DFL Minority or he could make and outright switch to the DFL. The question is whether or not he would be embraced by the DFL Party and then be supported to seek reelection as a DFLer in November.

Smith is thought to be facing some health concerns and many of his detractors are taking about his social activities. It is speculated political circles experience higher divorce rates, extra-marital affairs and other societal problems such as substance abuse than does the general public.

There is speculation Republicans are trying to purge Smith from their caucus or at least ostracize him. We know he is likely to be a target for the more aggressive Republican support groups. We know this legislative session is a focal point for groups who have helped finance the Republican legislative majorities and are expecting to see legislation they support. The Freedom Club is currently meeting with Republican legislative leadership and seeking support for Right-to-Work legislation, which is now being dubbed the Employee Freedom Act.

Smith may be a target for the Freedom Club and anti-Gay Marriage forces. This triumvirate could create the perfect storm and expedite his departure from Republican ranks. If he goes the question is who will get the credit for jettisoning him from the Republican boat. Republicans who are seen as outliers are not likely to welcome into the GOP “Big Tent.” If this is true then, the people should question the actual size of the Big Tent.  

Party switching is not regular occurrence though when internal party disputes arise it often is an idea broached and does seem to be a harbinger in some elections. Recent significant party switchers include: Sen. Dean Johnson (R-DFL, Willmar), Sen. Bob Lessard (DFL-IP) and Sen. Charlie Berg (IR-DFL-I-R).

Johnson after his ouster as Senate Minority Leader in 1993 switch to the DFL Party in 1994 and subsequently has the unique distinction of being both the Senate Minority Leader and Majority Leader from different parties.

Lessard (DFL-I, International Falls) lost his chairmanship of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee mainly due to his public endorsements of Republican statewide candidates (Norm Coleman for U.S. Senate).  He switched parties and caucused as the sole member of the Independence Party Caucus in 2001. After leaving the legislature he still held some sway and is considered the father of the 2008 Legacy Amendment.

Berg (IR-DFL-I-R, Chokio) started out as a Conservative, but because there was not party designation was listed as Non-Partisan the after the change to partisan seats he was an Independent Republican switching parties to the DFL in 1986. In 1997, he claimed Independent-No Party affiliation until 2000, when he was again elected as a Republican.      

We understand Daniel Fanning will be suspending his campaign for 8th Congressional District. We have obtained a copy of the following email he sent out to supporters.

Confidential E-Mail, End of Year Review

 

Good Afternoon -

 

From the moment I began thinking about running for Congress, I always promised all of you - my good friends, wonderful family members, strongest supporters and closest advisers, that I would always be honest and forthright and would do what I thought was the overall right thing to do. I hope you would all agree that I've kept that promise. It has led me to be the only candidate that was unwilling to have blind loyalty to an irresponsible mining proposal unless and until it proved it could meet current environmental standards (which it currently does not) even if others falsely accused me of being anti-jobs or anti-mining. I also turned down a few contributions from folks very closely associated with the PolyMet Mining Proposal because I wanted them to know that my values are NOT for sale. Believe it or not, my decision to have the courage to ask tough questions and demand standards be met has already cost me several so called DFL supporters and some big contributions, as well as gotten me quite a lot of flack from my own party - even though environmental responsibility is suppose to be a staple of our party platform. Yet that is just one example. I've also been told, by some top party officials, that my stance against corporate personhood is too strong, my views on cutting wasteful military spending is too aggressive, and that some of my other deeply held values- such as supporting women's reproductive rights- are just too progressive for our district. Nevertheless, I've stayed true to myself and my beliefs and quite frankly, knowing many of you, that's why I think most of you have been supportive of me. As a candidate, and even more importantly as a progressive, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your support AND willingness to also stand up for the values you believe in. THANK YOU! (I know it sounds simple, but if the last few months and really years have taught me anything, it's that most people lack the courage to really stand up for what they believe in)

 

Having said all of that, I also now have to be honest and forthright with all of you, and myself, as we head into 2012 and assess the campaign and race. The new year and the 3 month mark are perfect time to step back and see where we and where we should be:

Over the past three months, I've traveled more than 10,000 miles and met with thousands of folks all throughout the district. I've always put all my cards on the table, stood up for what I believe in and outlined my vision and plan to move our district forward. I've been fairly well received. Our campaign signed up thousands of volunteers/folks willing to follow our campaign. We've picked up some impressive support and have some momentum. We have a fairly impressive base of grassroots support throughout the district, but its' not quite growing as rapidly as we need it to. In the last few days and weeks, I've made hundreds of phone calls seeking additional people's support and contributions. Tomorrow is the end of the financial quarter and our fundraising numbers are well below the minimal goals I set out a couple months ago. Just as importantly, if not more importantly, I've been calling through the list of previous caucus goers it is becoming increasingly clear that Rick Nolan has much more support that I originally expected. 

 

Many people indicate that have been impressed with our campaign and we would be their second choice, but they see Nolan as the guy that can secure the nomination, beat Clark in the primary (which is now inevitable) and then go on to defeat Cravaack in the General. I can't tell you how many people tell me how much they appreciate my knowledge and stances on the issues but think I should wait and run again in a few years. Along the same lines, one of the most frustrating things that I often hear is that folks agree I would be the best candidate to take on Cravaack BUT that I simply cannot secure the DFL endorsement this year so they're going to support Nolan (who they see as a lock for the endorsement) and then hope "the younger generation" gets involved in his campaign and helps him beat Clark and then Cravaack. It's frustrating, but that's the reality that I hear several times a day from folks who will be delegates again this year. The caucuses are now barely over a month away and my own call time and travels, as well as two recent polls, suggest Nolan has enough support to secure the nomination, I'm second, and Anderson and Clark are in the far distance. This is exactly how the first straw poll played out in late October as well. Many people dismissed that straw poll, for good reasons, but reality is I think a larger straw poll of DFLers would likely yield very similar results right now.

 

So, frankly, my point is that things are not looking good. The most important resources in politics are time and money and we don't have either of those working for us. Not only does our campaign not have much money, as many of you know I'm not a rich man myself either. Quite frankly, that's one of my greatest strengthens and weaknesses. Folks, myself included, like the idea of having a less than wealthy member of Congress for a change. However, it also means I have to be smart about how I use my own limited money. As many of you know, I had to leave my federal position with Senator Franken's office in order to run for office. I'm not dipping into the my own (very limited) savings/retirement account which will only last so long. Over the last few years my priorities have shifted considerably as I feel in love with a beautiful woman, who also happens to have two beautiful daughters who I now love like my own. I have to keep them in mind through this process as well. As I said in my kickoff speech, they were part of the reason it was hard to make decision to run in the first place. Part of me didn't want to because of them and how much I love being with them and knowing the risk it meant for us. However, one of the biggest reasons I did decide to run was because I think I owe those two girls everything I have to try to make their future better. It's a chance and risk I understood and was willing to take, with their support. Having said that, I also knew, as a relatively late entrant into the race, that my campaign was completely dependent on a very strong start right out of the gate and an immediate ground swell. It would have to take off fast, or it wouldn't really take off like we needed it to. We've had an impressive showing, but it's simply fallen short of what was needed. Several folks who were going to be involved with the campaign haven't been able to be as involved as they wanted to be for a variety of understandable reasons, and some folks who pledged to give money simply haven't been able to. It's a tough time for a lot of people right now, I understand. A variety of things just didn't work out like I had hoped. At the end of the day, I have nobody to blame but myself.  Some will say I waited too long to jump in, which may be accurate, and I wish I had more of an organization in place prior to jumping in. By the time we made our decision we just hit the ground running, trying to organize a campaign as we went. If we had more time and/or money, we may have even pulled it off. Others will say I didn't stay in long enough and people didn't have a chance to vote. Ideally, I would love to stay in until at least Feb 7th. However, in order to continue and do as well as we would need to in the Feb 7th caucuses we would need to hire at least two full time staff and quite frankly we don't have the resources for that right now. Even if we were somehow able to hang on until then, I fear (and actually know) many within the party have already made their minds up and will support Nolan. I don't see that changing much in the next month. Also, people have had the option of voting with their wallets for the past few months. I'm so grateful for contributions we have received. However, it simply hasn't been enough. We need to pull more from different bases and it's been harder than I expected. I know the 4th Quarter is traditionally a tough quarter to raise money, but at the end of the day we simply needed to do better than we did, period. Many who were supporting me did so because I could relate to them or actually talked about issues that impacted them such as lower income and working class families - so I never expected to be the top fundraiser or even close. However, the disappointment was in those who could give, who chose not to because they didn't want to be a public supporter of mine yet as to not offend someone else. Sadly, many folks wanted to support me (or so they claim) but wouldn't do so publicly until after I got the endorsement, which I couldn't get without their support and contributions. I need to persuade them to get involved earlier and I wasn't able to.  

 

As much as it pains me to say this: unless any of you can convince me otherwise, I really see no logical reason to continue. We don't have the money and we're running out of time. The most important thing is that we defeat Cravaack next November. Right now, Nolan seems like the only one that can do that. The fact that Clark (and Anderson) isn't going to abide by the endorsement means whoever gets the endorsement (which would be between me and Rick, and is looking much better for Rick at this point) will face her in what will be a very expensive and likely somewhat dirty primary. I know some folks are dismissing Clark, but I think that's a mistake. She'll have more money than Rick, and Rick will struggle to gain a lot of traction beyond the typical DFL base since he's 69 years old, very wealthy and a former Congressman from a different district. I think Nolan can defeat her, but it won't be easy and it will be VERY expensive. If I could somehow stay in the race a little longer, it seems all I would do at this point is divide the DFL base for a little longer but it will very likely eventually go to Rick anyway. The 8th District DFL is obviously very much favoring him and I simply don't have the time or money to overcome that right now. So, I believe it would be the best thing for the party to have get out now, let Rick have an even larger caucus victory and go in as the clearly endorsed candidate and take on Clark with the full backing of the DFL party. I don't think Rick is perfect, however I couldn't support Clark and nobody has personally disappointed me more than Jeff Anderson and the people he is surrounding himself with. I absolutely could not support him for any elected office anymore, especially Congress.  Rick is the only candidate I could even consider bringing myself to support. 

 

So, there it is. I don't like it. Nobody is as disappointed as I am! As Melissa knows more than anyone, I've had many sleepless nights over the past several days and weeks as it's become increasingly clear that it's not going to workout for us this time. The money and time just aren't there right now. I could stay on and wait it out, but I'll need to find a job and it's going to be hard to do so as a congressional candidate. If things were going well, I'd be more willing to continue to dip into our limited savings, jeopardizing our family's finances, but with things not going as well as I had hoped it's becoming more difficult to do so. The numbers just aren't there to justify that. Also, another thing that keeps me up at night is knowing I may have disappointed many of you. Again, I can't express how grateful I am for your support and help over the past few months. This experience has reminded me of what I already knew, I have the most amazing family and friends a guy could ever hope for. Melissa, the girls, my mom, dad, aunt, grandmother, brother, uncles, so many of my friends from all around the district have been amazing (if you're getting this e-mail, this means YOU!) Many gave a lot of their own time and money to help our cause and I'm forever grateful. From volunteering their time at events with me, to helping organize around the campaign, making calls, hosting hose parties, helping with social media and the website, advocating on our behalf, etc.. Thank you all so much! I love you all and could never thank you enough for giving me the this chance to chase this dream. I'll be reaching out to each of you individually but I also feel like I'm letting many of you down and that pains me. I'm letting myself down too. However, know that I've looked at this from every angle I can look at it from (and please call me asap if you have a better idea) and it keeps coming down to to this: Hey,we gave it a hell of a shot. We gave it our all for three months. No other candidate worked harder than I did in that time. I'm proud that we gave it a try because in a lot of ways we never know until we try, and I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I hadn't tried. However, unfortunately, in this case the timing just wasn't on and the money just isn't there. I needed to make a bigger splash to overcome some of our obstacles within our own party.

 

I think we've raised the bar and we can all be proud of that. A few weeks ago I was at a forum with Jeff and Rick and I was the only one who came out and flatly said I oppose Corporate Personhood. Rick said he opposed it too, but was soft on his answer. Jeff, as usual, didn't take a position and said he needed to learn more about the issue. A week or two later he helped Duluth become the first city in MN to publicly oppose corporate personhood. Sure it was political pandering by Jeff during his last city council meeting, but we can take some credit for that. :) Other candidates have backtracked a bit on PolyMet and now talk more about environmental standards as well. They also talk about Native American Issues and issues re: low income families, which I've been talking a lot about and at first nobody else was. There are other ways in which I know we've already influenced this race and I'm proud of that, and know I couldn't have done it without you all. But, the truth is, that wasn't the goal. The goal was to win. Unfortunately, I can no longer see that happening at this point and I'm sorry we weren't able to pull it off but I am proud that we tried!

 

I can second guess a lot of things. Perhaps we should have started sooner, should have secured more money earlier on, been less vocal about some positions, etc.. but there isn't anything I can do about those things now. I wouldn't change my position on anything, because all I've been is honest. Timing was a big factor and perhaps I misjudged it. Nolan got in sooner and secured more support that I originally assumed. Some folks were on the fence between me and him up until recently, as the two progressives in the race, but now seem more likely to lean his way somewhat thanks to Clark being in the race and doing as well as she is with funds. Damn, I hate how important money is in politics but it's sadly the reality. I can't compete this time. I campaign doesn't have the funds and I don't personally have the ability to do what some of the others do and use my own money. I can't afford two houses, I can't afford to pay staff directly off the record, I can't afford much at all and sadly that puts me at a major disadvantage. That's not the only issue, but it's a big one.

 

Anyway, sorry for the long e-mail. I wanted to lay it all out there for you all because you deserve to hear what I'm thinking. I know that many of you have put a lot of your own time and resources into this campaign - and words cannot express how grateful I am-  so I didn't want to do anything thing without telling you first. With that in mind, out of respect for you and many others, I have a hard time continuing to ask people for their hard-earned money and valuable time if I know the numbers just aren't on our side. In fact, I haven't deposited the several checks we've received in the last few days as I've been waiting to see how many we'd get. So if we do pull the plug you can cancel your checks and save your money. We have enough to pay all our bills and leave debt free right now. I know something anything could happen, hang on a little longer. I wish I could stick around for a while longer but more than anything our fundraising isn't there which leaves us with little choice. We have some money, but we needed a lot more. We had some great help and enthusiasm (thanks to all of you!), but we needed a lot more from some new blood (some of which just wasn't willing to publicly support us when we needed them to). We have support, but simply not enough.  So, again unless anyone can think of something that I haven't thought of I feel it would be in the overall best interest if I bowed out gracefully soon and start the New Year on a fresh foot, look for a new job, be able to spend a little more time with my family and still look for ways to contribute to our shared values and help our shared causes. If you think I'm wrong, or if you have other ideas, please tell me. Otherwise, I'll make it public sooner rather than later.  

 

PLEASE keep all this very confidential until we make a final decision, and please delete after reading. This is only going out to about 20-30 of my most trusted friends and family members who have been involved, who have been part of our kitchen cabinet, or who might come from a different vantage point, to see if you have any thoughts prior to making a final decision. I would much rather have this conversation in person, but I know folks are busy with the holidays and are spread out throughout the district and state so it made more sense to put it all out there in an e-mail and I trust that you'll delete this after reading. I'll put out a much shorter, public statement in the next few days unless anything changes. Call or write back if you have thoughts prior to anything becoming official. Again, words can't express my gratitude for all of you enough. THANK YOU all for everything.

 

Politics aside, I wish you all a very Happy New Year. I hope 2012 is an amazing year of positive change for all of us!

 

Thanks, Daniel

The political future on the national stage for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN6) appears quite bleak.  As we are writing this Bchmann is preparing to announce her withdrawal. Her 6th place finish with 5% of the support from Iowa caucus goers is a blanket rejection of her candidacy for President. She now becomes a minor footnote in the annals of Presidential politics. She successfully supplanted Sen. Phil Gramm’s (R-TX) 1988 position of 9% for poor performance by the victor of the Iowa Straw Poll.

Bachmann’s inability to generate any support from the Evangelical community is a testament to the weakness of her message for a national audience. She was even outperformed in her hometown of Waterloo, IA. The community which should have been quick to embrace her refused and in turn supported a Catholic in former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).  The 25% support Santorum secured could have bolstered Bachmann’s campaign into New Hampshire and onto to South Carolina.

The person who should be kicking himself is former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) had he remained in the race he would have been well positioned to capture the Evangelical Iowa vote.  He converted from Catholicism in his twenties to Evangelical Lutheran. Had he remained, as the various factions repositioned themselves, it is likely his star could have risen instead of Santorum’s. Santorum proved his ability to build support with a limited campaign treasury, but it would have required a lot of hard work and determination, which are not characteristics associated with Pawlenty.

Granted, we acknowledge this is a great deal of Monday morning quarterbacking, but we found it hard to believe the Iowa Evangelical would go so far as to support a Catholic over a field of Protestants.  Additionally, the Evangelicals also rejected Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), largely because he snubbed them by announcing his candidacy in South Carolina the day of the Iowa Straw Poll and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) who is a Baptist.   

For the record we at Checks & Balances harbor no ill will toward the incoming Majority Leader David Senjem (R-29, Rochester). We have always found him to be an amiable and approachable individual. In our last article, entitled “Will Senjem Experience the Boehner Effect?” we questioned his ability to guide his caucus in any direction they are not already headed.

In the article we misstated one point which Sen. Senjem emailed us to correct. He did not contend for the Majority Leader’s position after the 2010 election. We were wrong.  In spite of comments to the contrary we apologize for any misstatement. It is always hard to glean information from a closed meeting like a legislative caucus meeting and even those who try to tell what occurred have a specific motive for spinning the results in their own favorable fashion.

In order to correct this error, we will publish the entire email from  Senate Majority Leader Senjem.

“Interesting but we need to get the history right. Did not run against Koch in 2010.  Hann did.  Winning the Majority was my huge and forever gratifying reward!  Absolutely did not want the ML job, ever!  Out of gas after all out candidate recruitment, election, and $ raising efforts, and was not ready to do the same again in 2012 and 2016.  Had 4 years in the leader box.  It was time to pass the torch.

Tuesday I won on the first ballot with a refilled gas tank.   

Dave”

During the negotiations with President Barack Obama (D) over extension of the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH8 )lacked credibility once he cut a deal and failed to convince his caucus to support the agreement. The Congressional Republican Conference has a number of extreme, vocal members who can influence their fellow members and effectively block decisions with which they disagree. We are calling the inability to gain caucus support for a prior negotiated agreement the Boehner Effect.

We are wondering in advance of the legislative session if newly elected Senate Majority Leader Dave Senjem (R-29, Rochester) will experience the Boehner Effect. The reason for this speculation is multi-fold. First, Senjem was the Minority Leader going into the 2010 elections his caucus won a clear majority; he sought the position as leader and lost to Sen. Amy Koch (R-19, Buffalo). Second, his selection took over 12 hours of caucus votes and deliberations.  We understand he became the selection by attrition or effectively, default.  Third, he is a nice guy, a decent man and won who seems open to compromise, but his caucus is not open to negotiated settlements. They are wedded in their belief system seeking smaller government, lower taxes and a conservative social agenda.

We think Senjem will be forced to negotiate with Governor Mark Dayton (DFL) with one hand tied behind his back.  If there are hands shake agreements made in a closed door meeting Senjem will be forced to gauge the support within his caucus after the fact. This means there will need to be a multi-step negotiation process. The leaders will meet, then go back to their respective corners and comeback and reengage.  It’s likely the negotiation process just became more complicated and protracted.

Letter from Bakk

If there are any indicators as to how the Senate is to be controlled by Senjem one can look at the congratulatory letter from Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook). In his letter, Bakk discusses the $2 million shortfall in the senate budget. We have heard DFLer’s speculate the deficit will come from reductions in DFL Minority staff.

Click here to read Bakk's letter.