Bill Bumgarner is a retired health care executive from northwest Iowa who worked in rural hospital management for 41 years, predominately in the State of Iowa.

The other day, just for fun, I took pencil to paper to assess the “hit rate” over the years for when my first-choice Democratic presidential candidate went on to win the party nomination.

Ugh. In ten election cycles—not counting years when there was an incumbent Democratic president—my success rate was an unimpressive 44 percent. Prior to 2016, it was an even more dismal 28 percent. Are you old enough to remember Mo Udall? 

However, my first-choice futility contributed to a better understanding over time—as I view it anyway—of what my vote represents.  

Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson made his first Iowa campaign stop this year over the holiday weekend. His September 3 rally in Des Moines attracted hundreds of people, making it possibly the largest Libertarian event in Iowa history. You can watch his full speech at C-SPAN or Caffeinated Thoughts.

Johnson will qualify for the ballot in all 50 states and is consistently polling far better than the Green Party’s Jill Stein, the only other minor-party candidate routinely included in public opinion surveys. I continue to hear the Libertarian’s radio ads on various Des Moines-based stations and have seen pro-Johnson television commercials by the Purple PAC on some cable networks.

The four most recent Iowa polls measured Johnson’s support at 8 percent (Emerson College), 12 percent (Quinnipiac), 6 percent (Suffolk), and 12 percent (Marist). Polls have historically overstated support for third-party candidates. Nevertheless, if the competition between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump remains very close here, even a 2-3 percent showing for Johnson could determine who wins Iowa’s six electoral votes.

Though I wasn’t able to attend Saturday’s rally, listening to Johnson’s stump speech reinforced my view that he is on track to outperform all previous Libertarian presidential candidates in Iowa by a considerable margin.

Representative Bruce Braley’s campaign for the U.S. Senate has steadily rolled out endorsements this month. Eight labor unions have backed Braley’s Senate bid so far, joined today by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Iowa State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald.

Since Braley lacks any competition in the Democratic primary, these endorsements aren’t newsworthy at face value. However, a closer look at the announcements points to five major themes the Braley campaign will highlight over the next 19 months.

UPDATE: Added a sixth theme below.

Catching up on news from last week, all four Iowans in the U.S. House supported a bill seeking to “freeze the pay of federal workers for the third year in a row” as well as the salaries for members of Congress.

Republican State Senator Bill Dix will chair the Iowa branch of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles’ new nationwide “Campaign to Fix the Debt.”  

Mitt Romney’s second general election television commercial is on the air in Iowa and three other swing states. Its look and feel are similar to the Republican’s first tv ad here since the Iowa caucuses.

Karl Rove’s super-PAC Crossroads GPS launched another television commercial slamming President Barack Obama yesterday, less than a week after its last ad hit tv screens in Iowa and nine other swing states. “Basketball” targets women who initially supported Obama for president but are discouraged about the economy. The video and transcript are after the jump.

Republican Congressional candidate Ben Lange launched his campaign’s first radio commercial yesterday. In the 60-second ad, Lange makes a broad statement about “restoring the generational compact.”

Candidates love to empathize with struggling middle-class Americans, but middle-income government employees are an easy target for politicians trying to earn their deficit warrior stripes. Today more than a third of U.S. House Democrats voted with nearly all the House Republicans to keep most civilian federal employees’ salaries frozen through 2013. All five Iowans voted for the legislation, even though Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) have repeatedly said they oppose balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class.

Last week’s deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling in exchange for long-term deficit reduction wasn’t what the doctor ordered to reassure investors. Stock markets around the world dropped sharply today, reflecting fears about lousy economic prospects in the U.S. and abroad.  

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is paying for robocalls attacking 60 House Republicans, including Iowa’s Tom Latham, for their intransigence in debt ceiling negotiations. Latham currently represents the fourth district but will run against Democrat Leonard Boswell in the new third district in 2012. Boswell can use the help, because Latham is building up a much bigger campaign war chest. I’ve posted the DCCC call script after the jump. Excerpt:

“Congressman Tom Latham and Speaker Boehner would rather our economy default just to protect tax breaks for Big Oil companies and billionaire jet-owners. Republicans quit negotiating with President Obama on raising the debt ceiling.

“This is serious. Latham’s billionaire buddies will be ok. But we will pay the price if government can’t pay its bills. Our Social Security and Medicare benefits are at risk. Interest rates would spike for our credit cards, car loans, and mortgages. Our 401(k) retirement accounts would drop. And, gas and food prices would skyrocket.”

That message might be persuasive if Obama weren’t begging Republicans to join him in cutting Americans’ Social Security and Medicare benefits. On a related note, Senate Democratic leaders just spent the weekend working on a deal to massively cut government spending without increasing tax revenues at all–not even from (gasp) “Big Oil companies and billionaire jet-owners.” No matter how the debt ceiling drama ends, the Democrats’ incompetence this summer will cause problems for the party’s Congressional candidates in 2012.

Meanwhile, Latham is pushing a plan B in case no deal comes through by August 2:

Under [Latham’s] bill, H.R. 2605, the federal government would prioritize payments to seniors, veterans, military personnel and “core public-safety functions” if the debt ceiling is reached and federal spending must be curtailed.

Latham said his bill is partly a response to what he called “scare tactics” that these critical payments would not be made.

“The White House and irresponsible special-interest groups have begun employing scare tactics as a means of achieving their political ends in the debt-limit debate,” he said Friday. “My legislation removes the use of these priority groups as political pawns and shields them from these contentious debates.”

No one knows exactly what would happen if Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling in the next week, but even if Latham’s bill became law, financial markets would see the federal government unable to pay all its bills. That would likely result in a downgrade of all U.S. debt.

After the jump I’ve posted Latham’s press release on what he called “safety net legislation.” It’s notable that he acknowledges the need to raise the debt ceiling, provided a “long-term plan” is in place to reduce government spending. Some House Republicans, like Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, oppose increasing the debt limit under any circumstances.

Latham’s bill is much broader than a fallback plan introduced by Bachmann and Representative Steve King (IA-05) earlier this month. That dead-on-arrival proposal would have “set payment of military salaries and payment of principal and interest on publicly-held debt as the top priorities if the debt limit is reached.” The DCCC immediately accused King of “putting China before Iowa’s seniors,” saying his bill “would require the U.S. government to pay debts to China before ensuring seniors receive the Social Security they count on every month.” Latham may not be the brightest bulb in Congress, but he wasn’t about to walk into that trap.

Yesterday’s heartbreaking attacks in Norway are the big global news story this weekend. This man, Anders Behring Breivik, is suspected of setting off a bomb in downtown Oslo on July 22. The explosion killed seven people and destroyed the prime minister’s office building. The suspect then reportedly dressed in a policeman’s uniform and shot to death at least 85 people at a youth camp run by Norway’s governing Labor Party. Breivik has “confessed to the factual circumstances,” according to his attorney, who said his client planned the crimes long in advance. Police are trying to determine the motive for the attacks. The suspect reportedly had right-wing and anti-Muslim views, but why would anyone attack teenagers at a summer camp?

The big U.S. news story is that House Speaker John Boehner was too stupid to take the deficit reduction deal President Barack Obama offered:

Obama said he had demanded $1.2 trillion in additional revenues over 10 years, in exchange for spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Social Security. He said the revenues had been structured in a way that marginal tax rates would not be increased, and no Republicans would be forced to cast a vote that would violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which most Republicans in Congress have signed.

You read that right. While agreeing to cuts in programs that tens of millions of Americans rely on, Obama was ready to guarantee no increases in any tax rates, even at the highest income levels, for the next decade. Not only that, he bent over backwards to give Republicans political cover, so they could accept his offer without facing blowback from Grover Norquist. The same Grover Norquist who now wants Congress to stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling. And Obama was angry Boehner walked out on negotiations, saying he felt “left at the altar”! I don’t see how this so-called Democrat could be handling the budget negotiations any worse. For the first time, I am seriously thinking about writing in a candidate for president in November 2012.

The Iowa Policy Project analyzed the latest state jobs numbers here. Iowa has more than a billion dollars in various state reserves, but Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa House Republicans insisted on an extremely tight budget for fiscal year 2012. The predictable result was a “sharp drop in government jobs” in June, which “fully accounted for the first net drop in Iowa nonfarm jobs in the last six months.” Shrinking government does not help the private economy create more jobs. On the contrary, government job losses contribute to our unemployment problem. Iowa’s unemployment rate is 6 percent, still well below the national average, but that’s no excuse for unwarranted austerity policies.

Here’s one good thing that happened this week: Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Admiral Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all certified “that the U.S. military is prepared to accept openly gay and lesbian service members, and that doing so will not harm military readiness.” As a result, the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy will officially end 60 days from July 22.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Iowa native Chuck Manatt passed away this week at age 75. He chaired the Democratic National Committee from 1981 to 1985 and co-chair Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. The Los Angeles Times published a good obituary of Manatt. He will be buried this week in Audubon, near the farm where he grew up.

The U.S. Senate voted down the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 today, three days after the House approved that Republican budget-cutting plan. All members of the Democratic caucus present, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, voted for a motion to table the motion to proceed with considering the bill (roll call). All Senate Republicans present, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted against the motion to table. Tabling the bill in effect kills it for this session of Congress.

After the jump I’ve posted the floor statement Grassley submitted yesterday in support of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. He argued that raising taxes would neither increase federal government revenues nor reduce the federal deficit. He described Cut, Cap, and Balance as “the only plan that has been put forth to address our deficit and debt problem” and claimed it would “impose budget caps to get our spending down to a manageable level compared to our gross domestic product.” This piece by Michael Linden and Michael Ettlinger points out that the “last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966.” Click through for a chart showing how severe spending cuts would have to be to bring fiscal year 2016 spending down to 18 percent of GDP. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described this bill as “one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades.”

I’ve also posted below Harkin’s floor statement opposing Cut, Cap, and Balance. He reminded colleagues that President Ronald Reagan warned Congress against refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and that Reagan supported “corrective income tax increases in 1982 and 1984” when he realized that “his 1981 tax cuts were resulting in large deficits.” Harkin also claimed the Republican bill would defund Medicare by putting “the federal government in a fiscal straightjacket, allowed to spend no more than in the mid-1960s, before Medicare.”

The battle of the incumbents in Iowa’s third Congressional district will be one of the most closely-watched House races in the country in 2012. Yesterday Karl Rove’s 501(c)4 group Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies launched a television commercial targeting eight-term Democrat Leonard Boswell. Similar spots went up against nine other Democratic incumbents, part of a $20 million summer advertising campaign by Crossroads.

Meanwhile, local media have devoted heavy coverage to the reported break-in attempt at Boswell’s southern Iowa farm on Saturday night. The latest comments from Boswell, his wife Dody Boswell, and law enforcement officers are after the jump, along with the Crossroads ad and annotated transcript.

UPDATE: Law enforcement officers have arrested two suspects in the break-in. Details are at the end of this post, along with statements from Leonard and Dody Boswell.

If Barack Obama doesn’t want to be a one-term president, he has a funny way of showing it. I can’t imagine how the president could come out of the debt ceiling negotiations in a worse political position.  

Conventional wisdom says President Barack Obama would love to run against an “extreme” Republican candidate, such as Representative Michele Bachmann. With unemployment up again and likely to rise further as Obama tries to outdo Republicans on government spending cuts, I’m not convinced that a big campaign war chest will be enough to get the president re-elected.

Watching Bachmann’s solid introductory television commercial and highlights from her recent Iowa tour, I challenge those who write her off as “unelectable,” especially in this economy. Ad video, transcipt, analysis and more Bachmann campaign news are after the jump.

A Republican-led filibuster blocked Senate consideration today of a bill that would end “tax breaks for the five largest oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.” Click here for more detail on tax breaks that would be eliminated. The 52 to 48 vote in favor of proceeding with the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” failed because 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. The roll call shows that Iowa’s Chuck Grassley voted against the motion to proceed, as did all but two Senate Republicans. Tom Harkin voted for considering the bill, as did all but three Democrats.

I’m all for ending oil company subsidies, but this bill was about optics rather than good energy policy. Andrew Restuccia wrote in The Hill,

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit. […]

Democrats say the bill would save $21 billion over the course of 10 years, savings that can be used to reduce the deficit at a time of increased belt-tightening.

Those talking points would be more convincing if party leaders had genuinely tried to end oil subsidies when Democrats controlled the U.S. House and had close to 60 votes in the Senate. It also makes no sense to focus this bill on the biggest oil companies, rather than the sector as a whole. Democrats apparently wrote the bill that way because of those companies’ large profits in the first quarter of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists today that he will press for ending oil companies’ tax breaks as part of legislation on raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling yesterday and won’t be able to pay all its bills if Congress does not act to raise the ceiling by August 2. I believe President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing a losing game by making budget negotiations part of a deal on raising the debt ceiling. When it was time to raise the government’s borrowing limit in 1995, President Bill Clinton wisely refused to let Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added a statement Grassley released on May 17, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the proposed Keystone XL Canadian pipeline project. Grassley depicts that project as a way for the Obama administration to help reduce the cost of gasoline. But an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year suggested that building this pipeline might cause oil and therefore gasoline prices to rise in the Midwest. Environmental groups have raised many objections to the Keystone XL project as well.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve also added below excerpts from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “the extent to which proposed tax changes on the oil industry are likely to affect domestic gasoline prices.” The report briefly explains the five tax breaks that would be repealed under the bill senators filibustered.

The Senate version of a bill designed to create jobs, support state budgets and extend various tax credits and benefit programs failed to overcome a Republican filibuster yesterday. Tom Harkin was among 56 members of the Democratic caucus who voted for the cloture motion (which would end debate on the bill), but Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted with all the Republicans present, including Chuck Grassley, to kill the bill (roll call here). Joan McCarter observed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

voted yes, without changing his vote, signaling that this iteration of the bill is indeed dead.

Reid followed the vote by attempting to pass the emergency provisions of the bill, the “doc fix,” unemployment benefits extension, and FMAP as well as the homebuyer tax credit, as separate bills under unanimous consent. McConnell objected to each, so we’re stuck in further limbo.

Extending unemployment benefits should be a no-brainer when the percentage of unemployed Americans who have been out of work for more than six months is higher “than at any time since the government began keeping track in 1948.” Without the “doc fix,” medical providers’ reimbursements for Medicare patients stand to drop about 20 percent. FMAP stands for Federal Medical Assistance Percentage funding, relating to federal government reimbursements for part of each state’s Medicaid spending. The 2009 stimulus bill temporarily raised FMAP payments for states during the recession, with larger increases going to states with higher unemployment rates. Failing to extend this provision will put state budgets under further strain for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years.

Republicans who blocked this bill claim we should not be adding to the federal deficit. A spokesman for GOP enabler Ben Nelson laid out his views here. Ezra Klein pointed out a few glaring problems with the analysis: the federal budget can’t start approaching balance with unemployment at 9 percent, polls show Americans are much more concerned about jobs than the deficit, and the current rate of economic recovery is “far, far too slow to really dent unemployment.” Meanwhile, the same senators who claim to oppose adding to the deficit also oppose rolling back tax cuts or tax loopholes for the wealthy in order to pay for extending unemployed benefits, state fiscal aid and tax credits.

I share John Aravosis’ view that it was a terrible mistake for President Barack Obama to talk tough about reducing the deficit earlier this year. As Aravosis writes,

[T]he President didn’t want to blame Bush and the GOP for the deficit, and he didn’t want to sufficiently defend the stimulus and explain to people that they had a choice between a Great Depression and a bigger deficit. […] If the public understood that the deficit was a) mostly caused by Bush, and b) not nearly as important as staving off a Depression and creating jobs, the GOP would be facing far more pressure not to launch these filibusters at all.

Perhaps no jobs bill passed this week would alter the economy enough to affect the November elections, but if we accept current unemployment levels and don’t pass additional fiscal aid to the states, the economy may still be very weak leading up to the 2012 election.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. From where I’m sitting, the case for Harkin’s filibuster reform proposal has never looked stronger.

sort of.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee, as given by John Kerry, member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971.

 Those in the Peace Movement have a lesson learned from Howard Zinn and Father Dan Berrigan, veteran peace activists.  In their opinion, the Vietnam War did not end until Congress stopped funding it.

To that end, a number of affinity groups from various activist communities have been calling on members of Congress to stop funding the U.S. activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This started last October.  A number of people started delivering petitions and engaging members of Senator Harkin's and Sentor Grassley's staffs on this issue in October.  Weekly, some members of the Des Moines Peace community have been delivering petitions, and evidence of atrocities, to staffers at both offices.  When there was no response from either senator, things were escalated to include non-violent direct action, in the form of sit-ins, with some people risking arrest by staying in the offices past closing time.  One woman, frustrated by a lack of response, escalated non-violent resistance to include a weekly "die-in" where she would simply lie on the floor, in solidarity with those being killed on the taxpayer's dime.  She would remain on the floor until federal Protective Service police would place her in a wheelchair, cite her for "criminal trespass", and then dump her on the sidewalk in front of the Des Moines Federal Building. 

During one of these "die-ins", a 12 year old became so frustrated by a lack of response from Senator Harkin, that she told her mom she was going to risk arrest by staying with her friend who was engaged in the die-in.  The police charge the mother with "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor".  The local and national press picked up on this,  and the charges against the mother were eventually dropped. 

But, in the meantime many called on Senator Harkin for a response, including activist media mogul, Michael Moore.

Today, finally, after more than six months of delivering petitions, staging sit-ins, die-ins, involving national activists, and media, we finally got a response from Senator Harkin.  Since everyone in the local Des Moines Peace Community tend to not be millionaires or multi-national corporations who can hire a K Street lobbying firm to represent their interests, I guess we now know what it takes to get Tom Harkin's attention.  A complete transcript of the letter follows.

April 23, 2010

[Insert Name and Address of Constituent]  

Dear [Insert Constituent's Name]:  

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding Presidents Obama's proposed strategy for Afghanistan.  

As you know, in December 2009 President Obama announced his decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan after conducting a thorough policy review.  These forces will supplement the approximately 68,000 United States troops already in Afghanistan at the time of the announcement- including 21,000 additional troops from the 42- nation NATO International Security Assistance Force (IASF), which will also be contributing at least 7,000 more troops.  This plan would increase the total international force to over 150,000, with 98,000 U.S. troops.  [ed. note, this number does not reflect the independent military contractors on the U.S. payroll, i.e. Halliburton, Xe (formerly Blackwater), KBR, etc..]

I have deep reservations about the President’s plan to deploy these additional troops to Afghanistan.  I strongly believe that our brave men and women in uniform will continue serving with unparalleled capability, bravery and honor to fulfill their new mission.  I do not believe, however, that the future of Afghanistan rests solely with our military.  If the Government of Afghanistan and its security forces are not able to take control of the country, keep Afghans safe, maintain accountability to the Afghan people, and enforce and obey the rule of law, then any military success would only be temporary. Lasting success is dependent upon developing a better, more responsive civil government in Afghanistan, including combating rampant levels of corruption, forming strong regional partnerships, and equipping Afghan security forces to provide for the country’s own security.  That is why I feel that increasing civilian, economic and agricultural assistance and implementing good governance programs are just as important as military action.

In addition, I have strong reservations about how the President’s increase in troop levels will be funded.  I believe that our federal budget must account for the ongoing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The open-ended spending of the past administration added a trillion dollars to the deficit.  We must have a responsible financial plan in place as we move forward.  Furthermore, I feel it is irresponsible to place the sacrifice of war on only members of our armed services and families.  I will work with my colleagues to find a way to fund this effort, instead of continuing to pass the full financial cost of our wars to future generations.  

Again, thanks for sharing your views on Afghanistan and the President’s decision with me. Please rest assured that I will continue to follow our progress in Afghanistan and will continue to pray for the safety of our brave young men and women serving so far from home.

Sincerely, Tom Harkin

United States Senator

Update, found this in my email inbox today, May 19.  

Dear Elton:

Thank you for visiting my office and expressing your views on H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations bill currently being considered by the Senate, and S. 3197, which requires a plan to withdraw U.S. armed forces from Afghanistan.  As you may know, the Supplemental was recently reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee and will soon be considered by the full Senate.  I understand that you care deeply about these issues, and I will be sure to keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, thanks for reaching out to me on this important issue.  I look forward to hearing from you again.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin

United States Senator

Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted no on Tuesday as the Senate rejected an amendment to “establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans.”

President Barack Obama supported creating that commission, which is the brainchild of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. The goal is to find some way to get big Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress. Don’t get me started on why a Democratic president and a bunch of Democratic senators are so keen on cutting the most successful programs Democrats have ever enacted.

Anyway, Conrad’s idea was for the commission to work out a comprehensive deficit reduction strategy, which Congress would be not be empowered to amend before voting on it. Two decades ago, a similar procedure was developed for recommending military base closings to Congress.

Conrad’s amendment, offered to a bill that raises the U.S. debt ceiling, failed on a bipartisan 53-46 vote. 36 Democrats, 16 Republicans and Joe Lieberman voted for creating the deficit reduction commission, while 22 Democrats, 23 Republicans and Bernie Sanders voted no (roll call here). Bloomberg News reported,

Conrad’s idea was attacked from the left and right, with groups such as the Washington-based anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform saying it would mean higher taxes while the AFL-CIO and NAACP said it would lead to cuts in federal benefits.

It was also opposed by lawmakers who lead congressional committees with authority over tax and spending programs. Among them are Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa, head of the health-care panel.

Senate Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander told Politico that Obama needs to “produce a Democratic majority in favor of” this idea if he wants more Republicans to vote for it.

During tonight’s State of the Union address, Obama is expected to announce plans to create his own deficit reduction commission. Bloomberg noted yesterday that “Such a panel’s recommendations ordinarily could be ignored by lawmakers, although Conrad, North Dakota Democrat, is trying to negotiate an agreement to guarantee a vote.”

Too bad the wrong North Dakota Democrat is retiring from the Senate.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.