Sheldon Wasserman: A Winner and Loser in April's Election

Last week, voters convincingly took away the Governor's Frankenstein veto after years of abuse.

Prior to announcing he was running against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Rep. Sheldon Wasserman opposed attempts to put the Frankenstein veto issue on the ballot. After announcing that he was running, Wasserman supported the constitutional amendment to remove this gubernatorial power.

Darling issued a press release a few months ago pointing out this flip-flop. If her campaign proves to be adept, and I expect it will (even Democrats admit that Darling's campaigns have been well-run), we will hear more about this issue as the election approaches.

Wasserman's fiscal conservatism has been, at best, opportunistic. Voters will see through the veneer of this election-time facade Wasserman has tried to build.

Democrats and Darling's Health: Is This the Kind of Sleaze We Can Expect?

According to MJS:

[A] news item in Milwaukee Magazine ... reported that [Darling] was "struggling" with health problems. When the item appeared, Darling said, she asked the magazine to give her side, so the magazine did an online update quoting Darling as saying she is in good health and will "campaign aggressively for re-election."

"I haven't talked about (her health), and I didn't even know that Senator Darling had breast cancer," Decker said.

The Milwaukee Magazine story was mentioned at an April 2 briefing the Wisconsin State Senate Democratic Committee had for about 90 lobbyists who are interested in the campaign, said Jason Childress, director of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee.

During a presentation on the race, Childress said, either he or political director Kory Kozloski mentioned the article in passing during a discussion about Wasserman's campaign efforts and work ethic. Childress also sent an e-mail to a couple hundred lobbyists with a reference and link to the magazine story.

Darling said she later called Decker to ask why Democrats were using false health rumors against her. Childress said the committee won't raise the issue again.

It is shameful they raised it in the first place.

Darling had breast cancer seven years ago, and back surgery 13 years ago. Anyone who has seen her in the past few years knows she is fit as a fiddle. She is only 63 years old. She trained for a marathon, walks in parades and makes numerous appearances. Like her or not, she is certainly physically capable.

Besides the falsity of the rumor, do Democrats really believe that having had breast cancer is a negative? Has anyone noticed that breast cancer research is a favorite charity of the North Shore?

Spreading rumors about non-existent health issues is way beyond sleazy. Attacking a woman for having had, and survived, breast cancer is just plain dumb. If Democrats run that kind of campaign, it will certainly backfire.

Wasserman v. Darling: Wasserman Differentiates Himself By Ignoring Voters

Recently, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) has fashioned himself as a fiscal conservative to please the primarily Republican voters in the 8th Senate District. He has gambled that, while those voters are fiscally conservative, they are socially moderate, and he can paint Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) as a social right winger (regardless of the fact that she is a moderate).

Wasserman has, however, differentiated himself in one way that makes no sense. It has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative or being a social hardliner or social moderate. It simply proves that he cares more about what his Democratic colleagues in Madison want than what the people of his district want. The majority of people in his Assembly district, and even more definitely the people in the Senate district he wants to represent, disagree with him on this.

Wasserman has consistently voted against voter ID.

As Darling notes in an e-mail newsletter:

Wasserman voted against AJR 17, a bill that would change the state Constitution to require voters to show a photographic identification to vote or to register to vote in Wisconsin. Senator Alberta Darling is a cosponsor of the bill, and has always voted in favor of voter ID.

Two consecutive Legislatures must pass identical resolutions before changing the Constitution. Because Democrat leadership is holding up AJR 17 in a Senate committee, the 4-year process to require voter IDs to vote must start all over again next year.

Wasserman voted against similar measures to require photo ID in the past:

07AJR17 second consideration requiring photo ID to vote (4/17/07 54-43 SW: No)
05AJR36 requires photo ID to vote (11/1/05, 57-36, Wasserman: No)
05AB63 ID required for voting (2/24/05, 64-33, Wasserman: No)
05SB42 ID required for voting in elections (6/23/05, 63-42, Wasserman: No)
03AB111, ID to vote at a polling place (3/13/03, 60-34, Wasserman: No)

Wasserman's True Colors

Back in July, I noted that Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) was one of only two Democrats who had signed a tax pledge. I also noted that he voted against the Assembly version of the budget. I asked if any journalist was going to ask him where he stood on the budget.

Wasserman's position is important, considering that he has announced that he plans to run against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

Now, finally, a journalist has stepped forward. As reported by MJS reporter Patrick Marley, MJS called each state elected official who signed a tax pledge and asked if he or she could support a budget that included a tax increase. Here is what Wasserman said:

Yes. Wasserman, a doctor, said higher cigarette taxes drive people to quit smoking, thus saving lives. "I might have signed a pledge, but I also took a Hippocratic Oath," he said.

When Wasserman took the pledge, he was already a doctor. He knew about his Oath. He also was not a totally green legislator, so he knew that Wisconsin taxes cigarettes. He made a promise to voters. Perhaps he should not have made that promise, but he did. And he is going to break that promise. He has an obligation to the voters to whom he made that promise and, if he cannot live up to it, then he should resign. There has been no intervening extraordinary event that relieves him of that promise.

The pledge Wasserman signed is quite specific. It reads as follows:

I, Sheldon Wasserman, pledge to the taxpayers of the 22nd Assembly district of the State of Wisconsin and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

I try to be civil on this blog. But if Wasserman votes for the cigarette tax, or any other effort to raise taxes, he is a liar. Plain and simple.

Forget for a minute about whether you think a higher cigarette tax is a good idea. This is about integrity, and what is more important in an elected official than that? Regardless of your political views, can you really vote for a proven liar?

H/T to Charlie Sykes and Owen at bootsandsabers.com

Fraley and Pug J Post: Ho Hum Wasserman’s Slow Start Fittingly Uninspiring

For those interested in the upcoming Wasserman v. Darling race in the Eighth Senate District, this post by Fraley and Pug J is a great read. For those not interested, why are you reading this blog? This will probably be the most interesting Wisconsin legislative race next year.

For my prior posts on this race, click here.

My prediction: Darling wins. Wasserman takes the 22nd, and Darling takes the 24th, with essentially mirror image margins. The 23rd (Mequon, Thiensville, Brown Deer and Bayside)decides it, with Darling winning narrowly. My prediction depends on Darling's ability to mobilize the rather tempestuous activists in southern Ozaukee County (while there will be a great focus on dollars, the difference will come down to workers). Of course, a lot can change in 15 months.

Sheldon Wasserman: Tax Fighter?

In an e-mail announcement of his candidacy yesterday, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) states (my emphasis added):

I am giving up my seat in the State Assembly to challenge Alberta Darling for the State Senate next fall. I'm going to win. Why? Because it's time for a change. When Alberta first ran she pretended to be something she is not, a socially moderate and fiscally responsible leader. Her record over the years has drifted further and further from that ideal. She now follows a hard right wing Republican agenda. This is the same agenda that ignores real issues while making gay marriage extra illegal and banning stem cell research and the life saving hope it may offer. Despite their rhetoric, Senator Darling and her colleagues did nothing to hold the line on taxes. We can do better.

First, Darling is about as socially moderate as they come. Social conservatives have been unhappy with Darling's stance on social issues. It would be ironic, and very unfair, if Wasserman would beat her because of her "hard line" stance on social issues. But this blog is not about social issues; rather, it is about fiscal issues.

Sheldon, what have you done to hold the line on taxes? Last I checked, you voted against constitutional tax protections and against the Assembly version of the budget (which holds the line on taxes). Please, please let us know your accomplishments in this area.

PS to Wasserman's writer: You don't drift further, you drift farther.

Republicans Creating New Taxing Authorities???

Maybe I am missing something (if I am, someone, please explain), but I just don't get it. Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Bob Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie) and Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) have proposed Senate Bill 248, which authorizes the creation of local park boards. The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Jim Ott (R-Mequon), Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), Sue Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls), Al Ott (R-Forest Junction) and John Townsend (R-Fon du Lac).

This bill authorizes one or more municipalities (cities, villages, or towns), one or more counties, or any combination of political subdivisions (municipalities or counties) to create a local park district (district). A district is a local unit of government that is a body corporate and politic and that is separate and distinct from, and independent of, the state and the sponsoring political subdivisions which created it and that are within its jurisdiction.

I don't expect much from many of the sponsors. However, considering the upcoming election, I would have expected more from Darling. Moreover, I was starting to think that Jim Ott was turning out to be a pretty good choice. This is very disappointing.

Am I missing something?

Teacher Residency Requirements

Senators Darling, Lazich and Schultz have introduced a bill in the Senate (2007 SB 231) that would prohibit the Milwaukee Public Schools District from requiring its teachers to reside in Milwaukee. The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Gunderson, Vos, Pridemore, Pope-Roberts, Musser, Kestell, Albers, Bies, Mursau and Townsend.

This is a great idea. Residency requirements are a poor idea (other than, perhaps, for top administrators). They limit the talent pool, and having talented employees is far more important than any benefit received from residency.

But here is the important policy question: Why just MPS? If this legislation is good for MPS treachers, why not for Mukwonago, or Cudahy, or Fredonia teachers?

The Wisconsin Statutes devote dozens of pages differentiating Cities of the First Class from other Wisconsin cities. State law should, except in rare instances, not treat big cities better or worse than small cities and villages.

Democrat Convention: Here They Come Again

The Democrats are meeting, and they are naming their 2008 targets.

At their state convention Friday and Saturday, Democratic leaders identified some of the Republican legislators they hope to defeat in the 2008 election.

Rep. Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, the Assembly minority leader, said Democrats will target the Assembly seats of Republicans Karl Van Roy of Green Bay, Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls, Brett Davis of Oregon, J.A. "Doc" Hines of Oxford and Jim Ott of Mequon, among others. Democrats are three seats shy of controlling the 99-member Assembly.

"We're going to fight tooth and nail to get those three seats," Kreuser said.

Democrats currently control the Senate, and Gov. Jim Doyle is a Democrat.

Kreuser added that 15 Assembly Republicans hold seats in districts carried by Doyle in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and that all of those seats are in the Democrats' sights.

"We're going to play hard in those seats," Kreuser said.

Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit, said Democrats want to expand their 18-15 majority in that chamber.

Republican senators Alberta Darling of River Hills and Dan Kapanke of La Crosse are the top targets, she said.

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman, D-Milwaukee, has already said he is challenging Darling. Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, said convention-goers should urge Rep. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, to challenge Kapanke. Shilling could not be reached for comment.

Democrats also identified Sen. Carol Roessler, R-Oshkosh, and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, as electoral targets.

It is, of course, too early to know how outside influences, including the presidential race, the economy and the War in Iraq, will affect Wisconsin legislative elections. But we cannot control those events. Republicans can control how we handle the races in Wisconsin.

Republicans better be smarter than they have been in the past. Last year, Republicans spent too much effort trying not to lose. In almost all walks of life, that is a loser's strategy. Instead, Republicans need to be on the offensive (Democrats will be).

I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that! We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything...

There are plenty of vulnerable Democrat seats. For example, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) is abandoning his seat to take on Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

One of the first big tests of Reince Priebus' reign as GOP chair will be how he handles that seat. If Priebus truly is the leader we all hope, there should be an announced candidate this summer, that candidate should be a fiscal conservative (remember, Wasserman is hardly a wild fiscal liberal), and the party should ensure that candidate has at least $100,000 in his or her campaign account this year. The party should not take a hands-off approach until after the primary and then jump in to help the candidate. That is too little, too late.

Second, Republicans need to show that they have the courage of their convictions. I firmly believe that is why they lost so many seats last time. This budget will show whether they have any stones. Voters will notice.

In future posts, I intend to analyze the individual races targeted by the Democrats and some of the races Republicans should target.

Sheldon Wasserman's and His Pledge Not to Raise Taxes

Sometime in the last year or so, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee), signed the Americans for Tax Reform's tax pledge. When I read the list of elected officials who signed, I was more than just a little surprised to see Wasserman's name on it.

Personally, Wasserman is a good guy. He is a left-wing Democrat when it comes to social issues, and he is hardly a fiscal conservative. He isn't a wild spending Democrat, but no one is going to confuse him for a low-taxer.

The pledge Wasserman signed reads as follows:

I, ____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

I hope he lives up to his promise to the people who live in his district (the 22nd), and to the people who live in the State of Wisconsin. To do so, he will not to vote against Gov. Jim Doyle's budget - the budget his party has pushed in Joint Finance.

I will be watching. The people of the 8th Senate District will want to know if he is a man of his word. Wasserman hopes to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) to represent the 8th Senate District.

Wasserman Has an Idea Worth Pursuing, or at Least a Question Worth Asking

I am not a fan of Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) as a legislator (although he is a personable guy). I intend to help Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) eliminate him from the legislature.

However, regardless of the source, a good idea is a good idea. I am not sold entirely on his proposal (see some of my concerns below), but it certainly is worth discussing.

A Milwaukee Democrat says that one of the reason taxes are too high is that Wisconsin has too much government, and he's got an idea to fix that.

Go from 72 counties down to 18 or fewer.

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman believes there is no reason Wisconsin should have 72 counties.

"It's an archaic idea that was created back in the day when a county was how far you could go on your horse or buggy," said Wasserman.

He is circulating a measure around the Capitol that would form a nine-member task force to study the responsibilities and obligations of county government, and to develop a plan to reduce the number of counties.

"I looked at California and they only have 17 counties, but 10 times the population of Wisconsin," Wasserman said.

He added that with all of its counties, towns, municipal and state governments the state has a lot of government per capita.

The task force would have two members appointed by the governor, three by the president of the state Senate, three by the Assembly speaker and one by the Wisconsin Counties Association.

I have a bunch of questions about this idea, including:

A. What happens to Milwaukee County? I do not think the people of Ozaukee or Waukesha Counties should be saddled with Milwaukee County's problems, including its tremendous, self-inflicted debt.

B. Why do we need county government at all in urban areas?

C. Aren't there services that counties offer that could be eliminated or at least greatly reduced? For example, cities and villages already have highway, police and parks departments, and maintain libraries. Nevertheless, every county has a highway department, a sheriff, parks and a library. Perhaps those kinds of services should only be offered to, and paid for by, townships.

D. Can't we boil local government down to one level, eliminating county government altogether. Certainly there are some types of services that can be more efficiently provided on a regional basis, but isn't that why state law allows for inter-governmental agreements?

Wasserman's on an interesting track. But, maybe he is not going far enough.

Wasserman v. Darling: Local 2008 Race has Begun

Perhaps the most interesting Wisconsin 2008 legislative race will be Rep. Sheldon Wasserman's (D-Milwaukee) bid to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

Rumor has it that Wasserman is already going door-to-door in Mequon, taking on Darling in the heart of her support. He has set-up a website (on which he amusingly touts himself as a "fiscal conservative"). And he leads in the all-important money race.

Darling has made it clear she is running. She has been very visible of late in her District, and has started raising money. Her website, however, is just a little out-of-of-date.

If Republicans have any hope of taking back control of the Wisconsin Senate, they must win this seat.

This district will be a good test for new GOP Chair Reince Preibus. Will the GOP find a strong candidate to run for Wasserman's seat (helping Darling attract North Shore voters)? Will the Party put resources behind this race, or will it allow the Presidential race to overshadow all things Wisconsin? Will the Party find ways to win, or will they employ the same old losing strategies?

And this is also an important race for bloggers. Conservative bloggers have become a real force in Southeastern Wisconsin, but too often only for what they are against. In this past legislative election season, conservative bloggers were criticised for being late in their support for conservative candidates. Can conservative bloggers set aside their ideological purity (some have been criticial of Darling, despite her general fiscal conservatism) for a win for their cause? Will they put forth a real effort for an important race? Will they demonstrate the stark differences between these two candidates? Will they step forward early enough to make a difference?

Darling Proposes Limits on State Mandates

We too often overlook the good legislation offered in Madison.

Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) has introduced Senate Bill 289, a bill to limit state-imposed mandates. SB 289 has a number of co-sponsors (although it could use some Democratic support). It is about time that Madison stops increasing the overall level of state spending by creating local mandates, leaving local officials as the scapegoats (or in budget crunches) for higher taxes.

The bill states that any bill placing a statutory requirement on a local governmental unit must be referred at once to the committee and the bill may not be considered further until the committee submits a report or 30 days have lapsed. If the committee’s report concludes that the bill has a negative uncompensated fiscal effect on local governmental units, and the mandate is a wholly state−imposed mandate upon local governmental units, this bill states that the committee must offer an amendment to the bill appropriating funds to offset the cost of the mandate. The bill defines “mandate” to exclude certain provisions and those that have minimal
fiscal effect.

Additionally, the bill states that the legislature may not enact a bill that imposes future state−imposed mandates unless they receive a hearing before the committee or are funded. If an enacted mandate is not funded, either upon passage or in the future, the mandate may not be enforced until it is funded. The bill also states that a state agency may not promulgate a rule or take an action that imposes a mandate and that a state agency shall not take an action required by law if the action would impose a mandate, unless there is a sufficient amount to fund the mandate. Under this bill, affected local governments are reimbursed annually for the approximate costs attributable to state−imposed mandates.

A Republican Pandering to the League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Why is a Republican sponsoring legislation to increase taxes? It is even worse than that. This legislation purports to protect property taxpayers by having people forcing new services pay for them. But that is not the real reason municipalities want this. Instead, this simply fortifies the general fund. For example, it is absolutely unreasonable to require payment of an impact fee before the owner has even requested a building permit.

The fact that Rep. Gottlieb is a former Mayor does not excuse this blatant disregard for the rights of property owners. Gottlieb has many good ideas, but this stinks.

This is from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities website:

Impact Fee Trailer Bill Needs Co-Sponsors

Representative Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington) and Sen. John Erpenbach (D-Middleton) are circulating for co-sponsorship a bill the League supports that reverses some of the impact fee law changes that were made last session. The bill has bipartisan support and is a compromise between builders and local government groups.

Good things the bill does for municipalities:

Extends the time period in which impact fee revenue must be used from 7 years to 10 years and maintains the option for a three-year extension if the municipality justifies the need for the extension in writing.

Fixes retroactive application of 2005 Wis. Act 203.

Requires that all impact fees imposed on a development must be paid within five years after the municipality grants final approval for the development even if not all of the lots have been sold or no building permits issued.

Makes impact fee payments due at time building permit is issued instead of within 14 days of the date building permit is issued.

Restores the ability of a municipality to charge fees for park land and certain park improvements as a condition of approving new subdivisions.

Municipal officials are requested to contact their legislators and urge them to sign on as a co-sponsor of LRB 2113/3, relating to impact and park land dedication fees.

Taxpayers "are requested to contact their legislators and urge them" NOT "to sign on as a co-sponsor of LRB 2113/3, relating to impact and park land dedication fees."

You might never pay an impact fee, but this is another situation like that quoted in the header to this blog. As President Reagan said another time he used this line:

To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.

David Clarke, Scott Walker, Alberta Darling and the Ozaukee County GOP

The Ozaukee County GOP held their annual Lincoln Day dinner tonight. Scott Walker and David Clarke were the keynote speakers. A good time was had by all.

Kudos to new Ozaukee County GOP Chair Jim Konowolski and his governance board. This was the best GOP event in Ozaukee County in many years.

Some in the party wanted to bring in a "national figure." With Clarke and Walker available, why would anyone want to hear anyone else?

There are few stars in the Wisconsin political world. These two qualify. Some in the party who live outside of the area believe Milwaukee-area Republicans have too little respect for the out-state party. That is untrue; however, other than Paul Ryan, who does the party have who can be considered a rising star? It happens (lucky for us) that two of the three best and brightest of the younger officials live in this area.

Some observations and news:

1. Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), who represents much of southern Ozaukee County, announced in no uncertain terms that she will be running for reelection. Speculation by many insiders to the contrary has been wrong. While she will be making a formal announcement next month, she directly told all assembled that she will be running. Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon) is holding an event for her tomorrow.

2. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker proved again that he is one of the few bright lights in the party. He is witty, informative and charming, sticks to his principles, and understands what it means to be a conservative.

3. Sheriff David Clarke should not be the next mayor of Milwaukee (although, he would make a great mayor); rather, he should be the next United States Senator from the State of Wisconsin. He is an independent thinker and a common sense leader. He understands the value of hard work, perseverance and self-reliance.

Anyone who has heard David Clarke speak would realize that, if he was a liberal, he would already be governor. No one else in Wisconsin politics (and none of the current presidential candidates) has Clarke's presence, intelligence, polish, charisma or backbone. Even if I disagreed with him, I would respect him, and that is a lot more than I can say for most other elected officials.

I spoke to a very non-political woman after the dinner. She was dragged to the event by her husband. She stated that, while she does not get involved in politics, she intends to volunteer for Clarke's next campaign. People have that kind of reaction to Clarke.

If one wanted to compare Clarke to another black politician, he compares favorably to Barack Obama. Like Obama, however, comparing Clarke just to black politicians is a disservice. He is an inspiring leader who happens to be black, rather than a black politician. While he does not define himself solely by his ethnicity, he also does not ignore it or repudiate his background.

Clarke would be equally as interesting if he were white (or Asian, or Hispanic, or any other ethnicity).

While Clarke touted his conservatism, he did not repudiate his affiliation with the Democratic Party. He also did not announce his candidacy for mayor.

"Health Care For All": Republican Party - Wake Up!

Special interest support for Governor Doyle's "Health Care for All" plan is growing.

The name is itself is somewhat instructive. Government-run health care proponents across the country have been using the name "Health Care for All" for their plans. For example, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington all have "Health Care for All" plans under consideration. Ralph Nader used that title for his health care plan. "Health Care for All" plans in general look remarkably like Hillary Care.

The name is soothing. The concept is attractive. Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has used that as its health care motto. After all, who wants people to go without health care?

We all know people who have had catastrophic medical problems without adequate health coverage. We all know small business owners who have had to make the tough choice, in order to survive, of not carrying health insurance. We all know self-employed people who pay as much for health coverage as they pay for their home mortgage.

Health care is a real, and important, issue.

But is the Governor's plan the right solution?

Clearly not. Health Care for All, as proposed by the Governor, is just another expansion of government. It will increase costs, shift access away from those who have it, and create new programs and taxes.

Assembly Republicans have offered the Patients First plan. Some Senate Republicans, such as Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), have doggedly tried to make Health Care Savings Account tax-free and deductible.

But, overall, Republicans have failed to come together and, as a group, clearly and concisely articulate an overall vision of consumer-based health care. Even that term lacks, for most voters, much interest or meaning.

If Republican lawmakers do not make this issue their own, Republicans will truly have problems in next year's election. Not only do Republicans need to have a plan (perhaps "Patients First" is the right starting point, but it needs to go farther), but the need to sell their vision to the Wisconsin people. That involves creating allies in the medical community and harnessing the power of their own supporters (talk radio, bloggers, party activists and the like) and interest groups to get the plan across to the media and voters. It is not enough to just talk about the deficiencies in the Governor's plan.

Republicans are losing this battle. No battle is more important, not only for the party but also, and more importantly, for the future health (both physical and economic health) of this state. Waiting until the next election will be far too late. Republicans and their supporters must treat this with the same urgency as they treated, for example, this past Supreme Court race.