I got an email that Rob Andrews would be stopping at the Marlton Diner which is right by my house, so I figured I would say hello and take some pictures. The Congressman was joined by his daughter, Evesham Mayor Randy Brown and Councilman/Freeholder Candidate Chris Brown. The Diner stop is a staple of any NJ Campaign and a great chance for some retail politics...
More photos from the diner stop below the fold and Lautenberg supporters don't fret, if the Senator comes to the neighborhood, I will certainly go by to say hello and take pictures...
Monday Morning Edition -- Change your vote, change your prediction, mock the others, get ready for tomorrow!
The Gannet ed board, 101.5 debate and NJN debate are over. The campaigns are winding down. Two days from now we'll have started voting in person for the Democratic nominee for US Senate, and the probable Senator through 2012 (or longer).
I've been PERSONALLY invited in blast e-mails to both Frank Lautenberg's and Rob Andrews' "victory" parties. My husband and I will be attending neither. Kids at home, don't you know.
All in all this means that in about 60 hours from my posting this it will be all over. So that means: predictions!
There are a bunch of options below in the poll, and you each have the ability to leave your exact result (or a different result) in comments. Be sure to provide a reason for your results, whether evidentially, hopefully or snarkily.
I'll bump this again tomorrow and Tuesday morning so you can change your vote or new people can vote.
Last night I got this e-mail from Michael Murphy and the Andrews campaign, and I have to say it's pretty sleazy. It used innuendo, dog-whistle code words and intentionally slanted transcription in an attempt to paint Lautenberg as a doddering old fool.
His inarticulate, meandering performance did not even approach the standards expected of a United States senator, especially one who has held the office for 24 years.
How can a campaign that slammed Lautneberg for the "one of the low points in NJ political history" for calling Millicent Fenwick an "eccentric" go this far? Why don't they just come out and say, "He's demented and should be in a home"? At least that would be their honest position instead of creeping up on it like this.
But it gets worse.
His response to a question about his views on health care was just one example:
"Well uuhh I think umm ummm that everyone in the Country should have the kind of uhh healthcare uhh that we in the Congress uhh and uhh in order to try to get that uhhh to the people of the country. What we have to do is the Government to be a participant in deciding what kind of programs are gonna be available.
"But everybody should have the opportunity uhhh for Health Insurance and uhhh that uhhhh one plan or the uhhh is to make the Government uhhh produce the insurance for everybody but I don't thing that that's the right way to do it. I think that the Government ought uhhh to publish uhhh a review of all the plans -- the private plans -- so the people can understand what risks they're taking when ummm they enlist in a particular uhh program."
What in the world is he talking about?
Nice use of "uhhh, uhhh, uhhhh" there, Michael. You proud of yourself?
As for what he was saying, it's pretty simple when you remove the "uhhh, uhhh, uhhhh." Either you are lying that it makes no sense or you are as doddering as you just think Lautenberg is.
He said that the people of the United States should have the same level of care as members of Congress, and that the government should have a say in how the programs are run. He opposes single payer health care run by the government, but thinks the government should post reviews and analysis of all the private plans to ensure the public is educated about them and can make good choices.
See, Mike. That wasn't so hard. Unless, of course, you intentionally try to confuse the issue with "uhhh, uhhh, uhhhh."
Frankly, I disagree with Lautenberg on this. I fully support a single payer system like the VA has. Private plans have been an abject and massively overpriced failure for Medicare Part D. But disagreeing with the position is one thing, and mocking someone for not being a slick, polished speaker is another.
And it makes a liar and hypocrite out of Rob Andrews, because back in April he said:
"When Senator Lautenberg first ran for office in 1982, he based his whole campaign. He ran against then-Congresswoman [Millicent] Fenwick, who was 72, and the argument was that she was too old to serve. I won't do that to him," said Andrews.
The Andrews campaign can't run statewide ads saying that Lautenberg was wrong to campaign on age in 1982 and then spend the kind of money on attack ads and e-mails like this on age. And they especially shouldn't do it after promising less than two months ago that they wouldn't.
There are ways to argue these points on the merits, but mocking and using "uhhh, uhhh, uhhh" to slam a man who has been a champion for New Jersey for more than two decades is one of the lowest things I've seen in New Jersey politics.
Endorsements endorsements everywhere, it kindof made me think - do endorsements matter? Turns out, many people have asked that exact same question. The consensus appears to be that they can, and do, but to varying degrees, depending on the type of endorsement.
So, I thought of a different question: with endorsements flowing to both Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Andrews from newspapers, progressiveorganizations, and most of all, politicians up and down the state, where can we look to see if these endorsements mattered this time? In the real world. Right here in New Jersey.
And I think I have the answer: Perth Amboy.
Democratic voters in Perth Amboy who go to the polls on Tuesday will have the choice between Rob Andrews, endorsed by the Star Ledger, Congressman Sires, State Senator Vitale, Assemblyman Wisniewski, Middlesex County's other powerful State Senators Smith and Buono, and perhaps most importantly, incoming Mayor-elect Wilda Diaz, hot off her 61%-39% thumping of current Mayor Joe Vas; and Lautenberg, who is endorsed by Joe Vas.
Polls show Lautenberg fairly cruising to victory statewide on Tuesday, though we should all know by now that the only poll that really matters is the poll of actual voters on election day. While I have not seen any polling from individual cities and towns, apart from this series of endorsements there is no reason to think this Central Jersey working-class town wouldn't lean toward the incumbent, the northerner, the favorite - Lautenberg.
So, if there is anywhere in the state that can demonstrate just how strong the power of endorsements can be, it's gotta be Perth Amboy. I can't wait to find out what happens there Tuesday!
Check back with me next week for a post-mortem primary look back at what happened in Perth Amboy. Maybe we can finally get an answer to the oft-asked question - is our endorsements mattering?
(Note: I made a goof - Congressman Sires is officially supporting Lautenberg. Though, with his power base resting primarily in Hudson County, not sure that makes too much difference here.)
Well, Andrews is definitely in the lead, but Lautenberg is on the scoreboard with the Herald News. The score is, I think, 4-2 Andrews with the NY Times endorsement an unearned run for Lautenberg.
In next Tuesday's primary, Democratic voters can choose between two capable candidates for the U.S. Senate: Rob Andrews, a congressman from Haddon Heights, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Paterson native who maintains a residence in Cliffside Park.
Maintains a residence. That's funny!
But here's the real meat:
Nevertheless, Andrews has failed to make an argument for change that's based upon the issues, leaving questions about Lautenberg's age and vigor the linchpin of a tottering campaign.
Consequently, we urge primary voters to support Lautenberg. The incumbent's decades of service have earned him the backing of the New Jersey Democratic establishment and organizations that champion everything from peace in Iraq to security at home, to sound energy policies. The Andrews challenge has sparked a vigorous response from Lautenberg, whose campaign has been eager to point out that the younger man was a strong backer of the war in Iraq and other Bush White House initiatives.
Over time, Andrews has become a staunch opponent of the war. On the campaign trail, he's sounded more like a traditional northeast Democratic politician than he has in the past. Still, no matter how it is couched, Andrews' challenge to a still-effective senator is based on the incumbent's age, a notion the challenger's new TV ad makes clear.
Oh, they also endorsed Zimmer but kind of as an aside. he got much less ink, and his opponents are dismissed out of hand. So was Cresitello, who didn't even get mentioned.
Rob Andrews continues crushing on the editorial pages, taking the nods from the Jersey Journal (from North Jersey) and Courier Post (South Jersey) today.
The Jersey Journal, as noted above a Northern Paper, endorses Andrews essentially because he is from South Jersey:
Hoboken's Robert Menendez is already a strong representative for the Garden State in the Senate and his partner should be a well-rounded, driven individual capable of achieving results.
For these reasons, The Jersey Journal endorses U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews for the Senate to replace incumbent Frank Lautenberg. Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello, a third Democratic candidate, is not under serious consideration here.
The Courier Post rips the two leading candidates for sucky, negative campaigns but gives their support to Andrews:
In New Jersey's Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, it appears the leading contenders have received the same memo on how to grab voters' attention: Hammer away with negative soundbites that shrink the opponent to a one-dimensional caricature. U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews has attempted to make the age of 84-year-old incumbent U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg a negative. Lautenberg, in turn, criticizes Andrews for voting in favor of going to war in Iraq, although Lautenberg indicated during his run for office in 2002 he would have made the same decision. ...
On issue after issue, Andrews offers a detailed, thoughtful response unmatched by his opponents. He is the best choice for the Democratic Senate nomination.
There are several different reasons why I believe Senator Lautenberg will and should win.
The most important issue to understand is that Andrews was a co-author of the war resolution in 2002 that got us into Iraq. That's it. That is the end game. But if you want to go further I surely can.
Senator Lautenberg is a high ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, the Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, and the Environment and Public Works Committee. With his position on these committees, particularly the Appropriations and Budget committees, Senator Lautenberg has brought and will continue to bring more money and resources to New Jersey. Whether or not one likes it, seniority makes a difference in the Senate and it would be very hard for any freshman Senator to gain a position on any important committee.
I could go on (date of filing, negative commercials, lack of funding, lack of campaign resources, etc.), but there is little reason to. Senator Lautenberg has been a good member of Congress and has brought a lot to New Jersey and to the United States (preventing oil drilling, bringing more money to NJ security, fighting for health care, etc).
On June 3, it seems Senator Lautenberg will win, and I believe he should win for the reasons described above. But that will only happen if people vote, so go vote!!!
I've seen quite a few people arguing about why Rob Andrews wanted his wife to run for the NJ1 Democratic nomination and then turn it down. One thing that keeps coming up is that Andrews intends to return to that seat if he loses the nomination to Frank Lautenberg.
I really don't see that as the case, and would like to put a stop to that as a line of attack if I can. Here's my reason.
Andrews needs to run a very strong campaign and turn out huge pluralities in South Jersey in order to win. He's going to lose in North Jersey, and probably by a good margin. Without a blowout win in the south he's got no chance in hell to pull this fight out.
But if there were 5 or 10 people duking it out to get the nomination in NJ1 -- Andrews strongest territory of all -- it would blunt his plurality there. At least one of those people would want to run with Lautenberg, filling out his line with a strong candidate and delivering reverse coat-tail votes up ticket. Others would not align at all.
Further, the fight would drown out Andrews in NJ1 and become a major campaign issue throughout the state in a "Look at the chaos he caused by running!" kind of way. It's a fun story because the traditional media loves to cover a fight instead of issues, and Andrews' positions and retail campaign would be drowned out in the rest of the state.
This is the same reason Andrews wants debates, so that he can get face time about his issues and Lautenberg's age. Having a "civil war" in the NJ1 vacuum he created would have totally blunted any effort to talk about why he is running or why Lautenberg is too old, and destroyed his candidacy.
The only solution at that late date was to promise all the people interested in the seat a chance after the primary to go in front of the NJ1 county committee members to win the seat in a fair, if undemocratic, fight.
And the only way to do that was to put someone on the ballot with the party line who had no interest in actually getting the nomination.
And the person he can trust the most is Camile Andrews, so she got the nod.
But now he has promised the entire state that he is running for US Senate and not for the House, and he has promised many powerful people in the district that they will have a fair shot at the seat.
Were he to take the seat at this point he would be seen as an untrustworthy turncoat and lose the support of those powerful people for any future statewide run. Anyone who knows or has even watched Andrews for a while knows that what he wants is a statewide gig, primarily Drumthwacket.
And he can't do that without the powerful Democrats of NJ1, or with the tag of someone who is so ambitious he put his wife on the ballot as a hedge against losing a nomination fight that was a long-shot to begin with.
That's why he can't take the seat back when he loses to Lautenberg: the blow to his support in NJ1 Democratic circles and the tag as an ambitious politician willing to say anything and do anything to keep power would prevent him from ever getting what he wants: statewide office.
Andrews is leading in the newspaper endorsement game with the Philly Inquirer and Star Ledger from last week and the Gloucester Times from yesterday, but today the Lautenberg camp got a major bump with the New York Times coming in.
I'll beat folks to the snark -- it's Lautenberg's hometown paper so of course they endorsed him!
That aside, it is a glowing endorsement of Lautenberg:
Mr. Andrews is slightly more conservative than Mr. Lautenberg, but has focused his candidacy on Mr. Lautenberg's age. He has failed to make a convincing case on that basis, or any other, that New Jersey Democrats should fire Mr. Lautenberg and give him the job. We urge New Jersey Democrats to choose Mr. Lautenberg to run in the fall for this vital Senate seat.
Mr. Lautenberg will indeed be past his 90th birthday by the end of another six-year term, but there's little evidence that he has slowed down from the days when he was responsible for enacting a ban on smoking on domestic airline flights and raising the legal drinking age in all states to 21.
He proudly tells anyone who will listen about how he continues to ski in the Rockies. But what really matters is that he has not lost his enthusiasm for sensible, progressive causes: smart restrictions on gun ownership, effective protections against terrorism at chemical plants and a greater federal commitment to mass transit and Amtrak. He also argues strongly for a timetable for bringing United States troops home from Iraq, and he recognizes that even though he was not in the Senate at the time, his support for the authorization of force in Iraq was a mistake.
Well, I'm OK with all of that but the drinking age thing. Lautenberg slammed the states by getting the feds to withhold highway and transportation funds if the states didn't move to 21. I don't see drinking age as a federal issue, and this overstepped what the feds should be doing.
Andrews, on the other hand, comes out a bit bruised.
Mr. Andrews, who is 51 and was first elected to the House in 1990, maintains that he would be more effective than Mr. Lautenberg in working with Republicans to break logjams on crucial issues. That's not terribly attractive to us, given his record in this area. Mr. Andrews did not just vote for the war resolution in 2002, he was a prominent and eager Democratic cheerleader for Mr. Bush's effort to sell the war to Congress and the public.
Mr. Andrews also supported a misbegotten constitutional amendment to ban flag burning; Mr. Lautenberg voted against it.
This explanation from Rob Andrews as to why his wife is on the ballot to be the Democratic nominee but won't commit to running is pretty damning.
Essentially he is saying that instead of having an open primary (which he sued for in other counties) in NJ1 and allow anyone with an interest in running go before the voters and make their case, he and the party bosses arranged to bypass the voters and give 600 people the final say on who succeeds him.
There are currently 156,789 Democrats registered to vote in NJ1, and another few hundred thousand undeclared voters who can declare as Democrats on primary day. But Andrews thinks that it would be akin to a "civil war" to allow them to vote for their preferred candidate. No, it should be decided by .03 percent (not three percent, point oh three percent) of the Democrats in the district.
The people of NJ1 should rise up and have a civil war over this transparent, blatant and apparently unrepentant effort to discount their votes and subvert the democratic process. This is perfectly legal, but it's incredibly unprogressive.
What is most shocking to me is just how blasé he is about the fact that he not only created this mess, but had a hand in finding this massively undemocratic solution that disenfranchises the voters. And at the same time his campaign is yelling that Lautenberg is the one subverting democracy by not doing a retail campaign and using surrogates.
Q: Why did your wife not just agree to serve? She's running, why wouldn?t she just agree to serve?
A: Because in a two day period it was not fair or possible to fairly consider all the applications of the people who wanted to serve and there's a bunch of really qualified people. Dana Redd, Steve Sweeney, John Burzichelli (sp?), Lou Capelli (sp?). Lots or really good people.
Q: They could have all filed.
A: Well, I'll tell you what we didn't want to have happen there. It's not in the interest of the Democratic Party to have some big civil war over the Congressional seat at a time when we are trying to have a unified effort in the south. And why her? I'll tell you why her. Because she gave her word that she would abide by the county committee process and she'll keep it and not fall in love with the idea that she maybe won the primary and then not get off the ballot.
Q: So you don't see any problem with how a representative for your seat will be chosen?
A: There is a process.
Q: You don't have any problem with that?
A: No I don't have any problem with that, because the alternative would have been, given my late entry into this race which is something that I will explain why that was, given my late entry into this race there would have been a handful of people who put someone on the party line and no competition whatsoever. Instead what will happen is that 600 county committee people in the first Congressional district will have a chance to vote on who that replacement should be.
Apologies for any typos or small inaccuracies. This is a rush transcript. Anyone who wants to clean it up, just put the corrections in the comments.
It's an unfair shot at Rob Andrews, but it's a brutal one:
"We don't need another Lieberman in the Senate," says [Congressman Frank] Pallone. "We don't need more people who can't be counted on to vote for Democrats."
If Frank Lautenberg wins this race without actually showing up to anything, what does that say about Rob Andrews' statewide electoral strength for future races?
A few months ago, we here at Blue Jersey discussed the imperiled plight of the Red Knot bird, whose numbers are dwindling. The Red Knot is targeted for the endangered species list, and its sightings are getting rarer and rarer in the state.
Like the Red Knot, another native species, the frankus lautenbergus, has also become a rare commodity in the state, so much so that even editorial boards are calling for the organism to return to his state for some face time.
Kidding aside, multiple editorial boards have all but called Lautenberg a coward for not agreeing to multiple debates in multiple formats (the 3 a.m. equivalent on NJN notwithstanding) and for being generally absent from the campaign trail.
Rob Andrews has been playing the debate card for the entire month and a half he's been in the race for US Senate, and over the last week or so Frank Lautenberg agreed to two debates.
But Andrews doesn't think that's enough. He wants more. I just got this in my e-mail (I get stuff from both campaigns though I signed up for neither):
ANDREWS ACCEPTS ABC-TV SENATE DEBATE LAUTENBERG HAS NO EXCUSE TO SAY NO Democrats Must Nominate Most Electable Candidate Lautenberg's Failure to Debate a Clear Sign of Weakness for November
Weakness in November? Oh, give me a break. If this is the best the Andrews camp can come up with then they have nothing. The whole "electability" argument that extrapolates general election results from primary campaign tactics isn't working for Hillary Clinton, and it won't work for Rob Andrews.
This simply shows more and more that Andrews isn't looking to win this June, though I am sure he'd be happy if he did. No, the reason Andrews wants a debate on New York's ABC-TV is so that he can get face time in front of the part of the state that has no idea who he is.
It's the same as before where he sued the counties where he had a bad line placement for open primaries but not the ones where he had good placement.
Basically Andrews wants a chance to get in front of the North Jersey audience because that helps him as he prepares for a possible run for Governor next year. Lautenberg doesn't want Andrews to get in front of so many people because that hurts Lautenberg as he runs for reelection. Both tactics make perfect sense for the campaigns that are taking them, and pretending it's some sort of outrage is silly.
Lautenberg has already agreed to debate twice, which for a 70 day campaign that no one expected is really not out of line. In fact, one would have been appropriate, since this is a primary. The fact that we had 7,556,432,564,321.0089 debates for the Presidential primary notwithstanding.
So if Andrews wants to win this or any other campaign he really needs to get over this whole obsession with face time and start presenting real political and policy differences he has with Lautenberg. Otherwise it just looks like opportunism.
I'm a big fan of campaigns embracing new technologies to help perform traditional campaign functions. In today's campaign world, it's about more than just putting up a website. A contest for an ad is nothing new, but getting notified of a blogad contest by email through the Adler campaign's facebook group is certainly a concept that can be successfully replicated...
Do you ever see ads on websites, and think that you would do a better job at designing them? If so, enter the contest to design the first BlogAd for the Adler for Congress team!
To me, this is a great idea. As a campaign, you engage your supporters, support the netroots and encourage people to focus on how they can better elect the candidate to office without making the reader suffer through a press release to do it. It doesn't just have to be this idea with this platform. Campaigns can capitalize on other social networking platforms to reinforce the general campaign message in front of a different potential audience.
It's important to note that while technology will not replace traditional campaign tactics such as door knocking and phone calls, it certainly can assist and enhance those efforts. Technology can amplify the campaigns message across many mediums before numerous audiences. It's another tool at your disposal to help get the job done.
In the recent diaries, you can see a video blog diary by candidate Tom Wyka utilizing the youtube platform so that people who are lazy like me and don't want to read a complete message all of the time can click play to watch a video of him giving a clear explanation of money in politics.
The Andrews for senate campaign has capitalized on the skills of Jay Lassiter and a handy dandy youtube account to incorporate videoblogging giving us a behind the scenes look at a campaign for Senate along with having a facebook group. I've gotten emails about their latest videos and last week I got a message through the facebook group inviting supporters to the filming of a TV commercial. The Lautenberg re-election campaign also utilizes a facebook page allowing people to join and show their support.
Many candidates have attempted to engage the netroots through posts here on BlueJersey and other national blogs. We thank them for that and encourage them to come back frequently to continue the conversation. BlueJersey is also engaging people with technology, so feel free to follow us on Twittter and join our myspace or facebook groups.
I hope more campaigns will follow the lead of these candidates and Blue Jersey by continuing to engage technology as a tool to help enhance the great work they are already doing.
So like many of you, while I was intrigued by the entry of Rob Andrews into the Senate Primary, I felt pretty confident that I would be casting my vote for Frank Lautenberg. The Senator has been a reliably progressive vote throughout his career and is with us on the issues nearly every time. No candidate is perfect, but I felt Frank would pretty much cruise in this election once he began telling the public of his success over the years.
This is a cool video. Funny how the traditional media will ignore interesting things like this being done by a campaign but spill ink on pointless shit. Promoted from the diaries -- Juan
If there's one thing I know about Blue Jersey people, it's that we're all avowed politics junkies.
So whoever your candidate of choice is come June 3, this video should hopefully have some appeal.
To have such unfiltered access to the inner works of a US Senate campaign -- as a blogger -- is a very satisfying beat to cover as you might imagine.
For those of you who do not know, I headhunted myself for a job on the Andrews for Senate campaign staff. They bit so I am on the team.
Others (including Juan and/or Thurman, if I remember right) have suggested that Andrews wins from this primary even if he loses, because it gives him the exposure to mount a successful campaign for the gubernatorial nomination should Corzine retire or be sufficiently unpopular.
The polls suggest that Lautenberg can probably win this, even if he ducks all debates. Contrary to the slander put out by Andrews partisans, Lautenberg would do fine in a debate. He'd probably win according to a majority those who listen on the radio and he'd probably lose to Andrews' prettier face according to a majority of those who watch on TV. But neither would score a knockout blow, or anything close to it.
So Lautenberg wins if he debates and he wins if he doesn't.
The U.S. Senate campaign keeps moving along, although some days it doesn't really feel like we've moved on at all. First the endorsements. Senator Lautenberg picked up the endorsement of the Human Rights campaign...
"I am proud to accept the Human Rights Campaign's endorsement and vow to continue the fight against all forms of bigotry, hate and prejudice and for basic equality and human rights as New Jersey's U.S. Senator," said U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
Schneider said, "I'm supporting Congressman Andrews for Senate because he will not only bring new ideas and changes in policy to the Senate, he will also bring a sense of new energy and enthusiasm to New Jersey." Schneider added, "When Congressman Andrews reached out to us to discuss the issues affecting Long Branch and his campaign for Senate, we were very excited. It's been quite a while since Senator Lautenberg reached out to our city."
Now onto the accusations which came in the form of a release titled "Memo to Rob Andrews"...
Senator Lautenberg has been an early, brave, vocal and consistent leader in pushing for an end to the war and voted for troop withdrawal at every opportunity.
Congressman Andrews not only co-wrote the war resolution at the request of the Bush Administration and then helped sell the war.
Now look, I have alot of respect for Senator Lautenberg and give him all the credit in the world for standing up when he did along with the rhetoric he used. I'm also not questioning or excusing Andrews role in the war resolution either, but I find it rather disingenuous going back and forth on this issue every day. Yes the Senator was early to switch and I credit him for that making that decision, but he's only been consistent in fighting to end the war since his switch from his earlier support for the war resolution.
Today's release talked about how Lautenberg was fighting to end the war while Andrews was co-authoring, but that's about the time that the Senator was on TV saying he was "on the President's train." No, he didn't see the intelligence or have a vote, but he took a stand based on the information he had. He was a senior member of the party who got elected in 2002 in part because he was "tough enough" and supported the war, so I'm tired of having my own common sense insulted daily by trying to say he never supported it.
Continuing with more of the same, Congressman Andrews is keeping track of how long it's been since his call for debates...
"It's Day 20 and counting and yet Senator Lautenberg and his handlers still haven't agreed to even one debate with Congressman Rob Andrews. Twenty days ago, Rob Andrews issued his challenge to debate the incumbent Senator, while calling on seven news organizations to sponsor such events. Senator Lautenberg's response has been all over the map.
The Congressman also agreed to debate when he called in to Blue Jersey radio. The Senator's office has said that he will debate and while the Andrews campaign points to differing answers from the Senator, I'll take them at their word. Can I just request they all agree soon so that we can talk about something besides debates and who was where, when, and on what? I'm sure they both have great ideas. I'd love to hear more about them because I feel like we've been down this road before.
.gif)
