captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. president obama demanded a final up or down vote on health care reform. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the "newshour" tonight, democrats are ready to force action without bipartisan support. we'll have excerpts of the president's speech, and analysis from ceci connolly of the washington post and congress watcher norm ornstein. >> lehrer: then, two political stories. the first in new york where two

top democrats are embroiled in ethics problems-- governor david paterson and house ways and means chairman charles rangel. >> ifill: and political tale number two-- from texas, where governor rick perry beat longtime senator kay bailey hutchison in yesterday's republican gubernatorial primary. >> texas voters said no. they said no to washington bureaucrats making decisions that state leaders and citizens should be making for themselves. >> lehrer: then, tom bearden reports on special courts that give probation and treatment-- not jailtime-- to veterans who plead guilty to crimes. >> i don't feel i got a special deal. i feel i got a just deal, i think justice was served in this case. >> ifill: and margaret warner gets the latest from chile, where the military has begun handing out food aid to earthquake victims in outlying areas. >> lehrer: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour."

major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> what the world needs now is energy. the energy to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challenges like climate change. what if that energy came from an energy company? everyday, chevron invests $62 million in people, in ideas-- seeking, teaching, building. fueling growth around the world to move us all ahead. this is the power of human energy. chevron. bank of america-- committed to helping the nation's economic recovery.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: the president stepped up the pressure today for votes on health care reform in the next few weeks. and, he challenged republicans not to block action. jeffrey brown begins our coverage. >> reporter: president obama made his appeal in a speech at the white house, as an audience

of health care workers looked on. >> i believe the united states congress owes the american people a final vote on health care reform. ( applause ) >> reporter: the president said his bill improves on an approach that evolved through debate over the last year. >> since then, every idea has been put on the table. every argument has been made. everything there is to say about health care has been said and just about everyone has said it. ( laughter ) so now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for america's families and businesses. >> reporter: the obama plan builds largely on the senate bill, calling for new insurance regulations. and requiring 31 million uninsured americans to buy coverage starting in 2014, with federal assistance. but it would also create a

federal body with power to block premium hikes. and it would end special medicaid deals for nebraska and other states, while adding more medicaid money for all states to pay for expansion. at last week's summit meeting with republicans, the president promised to include g.o.p. proposals. he said today he's keeping that promise, but he rejected demands to start from scratch. >> given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, i do not see how another year of negotiations would help. >> reporter: the republican for us to start over now will simply lead to delays that could last another decade, over even more. the american people and the u.s.

economy just can't wait that long. so no matter what approach you favor, i believe the united states congress owes the american people a final vote on health care reform. ( applause ) >> reporter: the republican ideas added to the president's plan include: encouraging the use of health savings accounts; sending out "undercover" inspectors to watch for fraud and waste and doing more to rein in medical malpractice claims. still, the president made clear he will urge democrats to push the bill through by themselves, if necessary. and he challenged republicans. >> many republicans in congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. and if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal i've put forward.

>> reporter: but even before he spoke, there was little indication the president's changes would win any republican votes. >> the sales pitch may be new, but the bill isn't. >> reporter: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said the obama plan actually hurts any prospects for real reform. >> americans don't want us to tack a few good ideas onto a bill that reshapes one sixth of the economy, vastly expands the role of government, and which raises taxes and cuts to medicare to pay for all of it. they want us to scrap the underlying bill. scrap it altogether, and start over, with step by step reforms that cut costs, and expand access. this whole exercise is unfortunate, and completely unnecessary.

the longer democrats cling to their own flawed vision of reform, the longer americans will have to wait for reforms they really want. >> reporter: if democrats do now move forward alone, it would be through a process known as reconciliation-- allowing final action in the senate with a simple majority of 51 votes. that became critical when republican scott brown won the senate race in massachusetts in january and cost democrats their 60-vote super-majority in the senate. republicans have already been out blasting that approach. house minority leader john boehner this morning. >> it was pretty clear that the obama administration and my colleagues in congress are going to continue on their march to shove this government-run health care plan down the throats of the american people. and during the 20 years i've been in congress, i've always found it pretty remarkable to watch the congress try to pass something that the american people have already said no to. >> reporter: in his speech this afternoon, however, the

president insisted there's plenty of precedent for proceeding with a majority vote for healthcare reform. >> reform has already passed the house with a majority. it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. and now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the children's health insurance program, cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and both bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass congress with nothing more than a simple majority. >> reporter: the president plans to tvel to pennsylvania and missouri next week to press his case for action. and democrats said they hope to have a final bill by the end of the month. >> lehrer: we take a look now at the situation. ceci connolly covers health reform for "the washington post." and norm ornstein is a long-time observer of congress and politics at the american

enterprise institute. ceci, the republicans said this is a new sales pitch. on substance alone, was there anything really new in what the president said? >> not terribly, no. and that kprobl explanation why i've been feeling like yogi berra the last week or so. this is really deja vu all over again. we're essentially back to where president obama began, literally the same room in the white house the east room, where he launched this with very similar rhetoric, all the major fundamentals independent legislation remain the same. what we've been seeing over the past few weeks are really in the category of what i would call adjustments. >> lehrer: the elements that are now labeled the "new elements" that are labeled republican, do they-- are they substantial in terms of the debate that's happened over this last year? >> well, certainly in terms of the scope of this legislation and the price tag and the people

affected, no. they're fairly small. but they are important steps. i mean, putting more money into state grants and experiments on different ways to deal with malpractice lawsuits qoof could have an important impact over the long term. republicans, for a language while, have wanted to be able to use health spending accounts more freely. that would also be a significant step. but these are not going to be large cop points of the overall legislation by any means, and they're also, quite candidly, not structured in exactly the way the republicans would have preferred. on malpractice, for instance, they'd like to have caps on damages in lawsuits, and the democrats are not talking about that. >> lehrer: and, norm, is the-- is the conventional wisdom right what the president outlined today isn't probably going to gain any republican votes. >> no, it look likes there will not be a single republican, unless some miracle happens in

the senate. it's quite probable the one republican in the house , who voted for it the first time will vote against it this time. >> lehrer: so the bottom line here, if there is, in fact, a bottom line here, is it-- >> wait a couple of months. >> lehrer: okay. the president said, okay, i'll put this on theitably , without the hope that it's really going to change anything. expectation, let's put it that way. >> the expectation is he will rally democrats now and get enough votes for a democratic party that, after the massachusetts senate election, turned pretty wobbly in many cases. and getting the 50 votes necessary in the senate, 50 democrats, even though they had 60 before, 59 available now, was not going to be an easy task. keeping at what maybe 216 vote in the house it's dropped

because of vacancy. >> lehrer: do you see it the same way , cece? do you think what the president added today helps? >> the day after the massachusetts election, was also about shoring up democrats in congress, who i think wobbly was probably generous. in the aftermath in massachusetts, they were absolutely panic stricken about this issue, and how is might affect their own political reelection campaigns come fall. stow it's very much an effort it kind of bolster those democrats to give them the confidence to go ahead. >> lehrer: what kind of democrats? is it possible to characterize the groupings here of the democrats? >> well, that's an excellent question because as we've seen throughout this debate, jim, there have been anxiety in sort of different wings of the democratic party in congress. now, all along

, especially in the house, there were those conservative democrats-- they're often called the blue dogs-- who were among the ones that voted against this bill the first time around. now, interestingly -- >> they thought it was too liberal. >> they thought it was too liberal, too expensive . interestingly, house speaker nancy pelosi now has an opportunity to go and say to them, "look, the senate bill is more to your liking. it's not as expensive. there's more of what we call cost containment in it.a- " that will be a key way that she'll try to bring some of that back along. but we've been hearing from the liberals that are very upset about losing their public option. >> lehrer: let's talk process for a moment, norm. the word is that the senate doll its reconciliation first before the house does anything. is that what you understand? >> probably not, jim. >> lehrer: probably not? >> more than likely we're going to have the house act first. the senate is going to have to give the house democrats who do

not trust the senate democrats at all, some assurance that they will have the 50 votes to vote for a reconciliation package. the first thing that is likely to happen is the house will accept the senate. the normal process is the house passes the bill, senate passes the bill, and they reconcile in the conference committee. they can't do that now. it will take overcoming the filibuster. they're finding a way around it. the hope is the house will accept what the senate voted on. but the house probably has to take that leap off the cliff first, and hope that -- or have something that goes beyond a little bit of hope-- that the sale in will follow. >> lehrer: what kind of-- will the house even take the vote if they don't have these kind of assurances going in from the senate? what do they have to gain from doing that? >> one thing that is happening is over the last few weeks-- and i think key to the summit -- the president's initial offer to

move forward-- the way he actedly in the summit was really to try to find common ground and what's followed, some of the senate democrats who have been leery about voting for reconciliation, people like mary landau of lose lurkz joe lieberman. kent conrad, the chairman of the budget committee -- >> moderate or conservative democrats. >> they're now coming on board. so the likelihood of getting the 50 votes will be there. and along the way, they've got to come up with a substantive package of changes that everybody find acceptable. i think they've probably got that close to being in the bag. >> lehrer: i don't want to go too much into the weeds on this, but the process in the senate, the way you then move to-- a way where you don't need the 60 votes, you can do it on 51 votes does that mean no filibusters? >> it does mean that there are no filibusters, and it's interesting because, of course , we've been hearing everyone use the phrase "super majority." i would like to

remind that there will be nothing simple about this process. can have amendments, and we know for sure the republicans are already preparing quite a stack of amendmentes . there will also be a lot of arguments over parliamentary procedure, and now in washington there's a lot of reading the tea leaves about who is this parliamentarian, and how is he going to rule on these tough votes? and vice president biden might have to sit in the chair for hours or days and make rulings on some of these fights. so it could still be a fairly long, drawn-out , messy process. >> lehrer: long like what? >> oh, a good month, i think. they keep talking about this august-- pardon me , easter -- >> they may be talk august. >> please, no. the easter red sox but that would be march 26 to april 8 or 9. so a good month. >> lehrer: do you agree, at least a month? >> we've got several steps along the way before we get to a vote in the senate, and that includes

coming up with a package that will make it under reconciliation there have to be things that affect spending or taxes. >> lehrer: why is that? that's just part of the rules of the united states senate? >> well, it's part of the law involving reconciliation, as it's been amended, and the rules of the senate sgli knew i shouldn't have asked you that. >> it goes back to 1973. this is a process where you take whatever bills passed house and senate between budget resolutions and reconcile them. the only way you can expedite action is by make sure these affect the budget directly. they have to design those things and get them squared by the congressional budget office and then we get to all the complications ceci talked about. >> lehrer: who decides whether wloo it fits the category correctly? is this really a budget thing rather than a health care reform thing? >> of course, as president obama pointed out today, and we know , many things, including almost

everything substantial in the health care world over the last 20 years, other than the medicare prescription drug bill, cobra, this plan that expendz -- extends health insurance for the unemployed, for the omnibus reconciliation act -- >> there's precedent for that. >> there's precedent for that. the welfare reform came under reconciliation. the parliamentarian -- >> nonpartisan? >> nonpartisan. he was brought in by the republicans. they're now saying he's too partisan as a democrat. but he makesab initial judgment. the parliamentarian gives advice and as ceci suggested, it's the presiding officer, who will be joe biden, the president of the senate, to make the ultimate ruling but then it can be challenged and the majority can uphold it. >> lehrer: we have a lot of fun ahead of us. >> full employment for health care journalists, i'm afraid to say.

>> full employment for journalists. >> lehrer: thank you both very much. >> ifill: and still to come on the "newshour"-- two political stories: democrats facing ethics troubles in new york, and republicans vying for conservative votes in texas. plus, veterans getting special treatment in court. and the aftermath of the earthquake in chile. >> ifill: but first, with the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: a string of three suicide bombings in iraq killed at least 32 people today with national elections just four days away. all of the attacks were in baqouba-- a former insurgent stronghold northeast of baghdad. two bombers targeted government offices. but the third pretended to be a wounded military officer, rode in an ambulance and blew himself up at a hospital. most of the wounded from the first two blasts were killed in the third attack. in washington, pentagon spokesman geoff morrell said the violence will not change plans to withdraw all u.s. troops by the end of next year. >> neither this attack or previous destabilize the

government have been or will be successful nor do we anticipate it will derail our drawdown of forces in iraq. >> sreenivasan: in turn, iraqi officials insisted sunday's election will go forward as planned, despite today's attacks. president obama has signed a temporary extension of jobless benefits, after a budget impasse ended in the senate. republican jim bunning of kentucky had held up a $10 billion stopgap measure for days, but he gave way last night. the temporary bill also restores funding for highway projects, and health insurance subsidies for the unemployed. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lost nine points to close at 10,396. the nasdaq fell a fraction of a point to close at 2,280. gay marriage became legal in washington d.c. today. same-sex couples lined up for marriage licenses at the city's main courthouse. washington is the sixth place in the nation where gay marriage is now legal. it joins connecticut, iowa, massachusetts, new hampshire and

vermont. the american cancer society is now urging doctors to tell male patients more about the risks of prostate cancer screening. new guidelines released today warned the p.s.a. blood test can detect false positives and lead to unnecessary treatments. millions of american men now get the blood test. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the "newshour's" web site. but for now, back to gwen. >> ifill: now, a look at two big political stories from two of the country's largest states. we start in new york. new york politics suffered two body blows this week. one occurred in washington, where longtime congressman charles rangel was forced to temporarily step aside from his influential post as chairman of the house ways and means committee. >> in order to avoid my colleagues having to defend me

during their elections, i have this morning sent a letter to speaker pelosi asking her to grant me a leave of absence until such time that the ethics committee completes its work. >> ifill: rangel's troubles began in 2008, with reports he misused rent-controlled apartments in new york city. a house ethics committee probe has also been investigating allegations that rangel failed to report more than $660,000 in assets and $75,000 in rental income from a villa he owns in the dominican republic. last friday, the ethics committee found rangel violated house standards by accepting caribbean trips financed by corporations. rangel said he had no knowledge of the corporate support, but

the committee's admonishment unsettled house democrats. after house speaker nancy pelosi pointedly declined to back rangel last night-- and with the prospect of a republican push for his ouster-- he agreed to step aside. >> the ethics committee ruled he violated rules. he does not deserve to be in the democratic leadership or chairman. >> ifill: the other shoe appears to be dropping in albany, where governor david paterson is under growing fire. state officials there are investigating whether he intervened in a domestic violence case to protect a top aide. and the state's public integrity commission said today he broke ethics rules by soliciting the yankees for free world series tickets. paterson spoke today in albany. >> people should have a right to tell their side of the story,

and i guess i will get that right, and i can't be more moved than that the public understand that. because when you read some of these accounts, you would think that it would change people's minds. but i'm glad to see that people understand there are different sides to a story. but my side will not be unsourced. it will not be inaccurate. it will be the truth. >> ifill: the new york governor has already bowed to political pressure once, announcing last week he would not seek re- election. but some democrats are now demanding he resign immediately. for more on the political rumblings in the empire state, we turn to douglas muzzio, professor of political science at baruch college of the city university of new york. professor muzzio, tell us, what is the significance of charles rangel's decision today to step aside, even if temporarily? >> as he said in his statement,

what is does is it precludes a bitter fight to remove him permanently from the chairman manship and have the democrats actually have to defend him, and therefore, endangering their reelection or election prospects. the narrative would have been here you have the head of house ways and means committee not paying his taxes. the national narrative would have been they are corrupt, meaning the democrats, and they are irresponsible. >> charles rangel succeeded adam clayton powell in the seat that he holds in congress. how large a figure has he been on the new york political scene and also in the house of representatives? >> he's been a giant. he's been a 20-term, 40-year member of congress. he's the dean of the new york delegation. he has had much power in washington, assuming the chairman manship of what is really the most powerful committee in the house. so he is both powerful within the delegation in new york and certainly powerful in the house. >> ifill: he has said up until

now, while all of these allegations have been brewing and growing, that it's basically a misunderstanding. so why step aside now? >> because it's more than a misunderstanding. there are really bases in fact for the charges. he didn't pay his taxes on his dominican republic properties. he did get an interest-free loan. he did have four rent-subsidized apartments provided by a manhattan real estate developer and he did solicit funds for the center. there are bases in fact and they may not be misunderstandings but in fact understandings of the facts. >> ifill: let's move on to governor david paterson. we have seen him backing away, backy away from his stance, saying last week he wouldn't run again and now he's under pressure to not even seb out his term. what is the significance of where he is right now? >> i think he's at t precipice and i would not be surprised if

he didn't jump or was aided in jumping by being pushed, particularly the accumulation of bad news. today's commission on public integrity report that he willfully mistestified under oath about his willingness to pay for those tickets, just as more to the proverbial camel's back. it's not straws-- strands of straw. it's bails of straw. and i don't know how much longer that spine can hold up. >> ifill: david paterson is not new to this game. he was a senate leader for many times in the state senate in albany. he was lieutenant governor. how did he get to this point, this crossroads in his career? >> well , when he was minority leader he didn't have much power because in new york state it's three men in a room, and he wasn't one of the three men leading the maminority in the senate. so he never really had leadership responsibilities. this was the first time that he actually needed to lead, and so far, he hasn't succeeded very

well. >> ifill: you know, most people outside of new york don't realize there is actually a personal connection between charles rangel and david paterson. a history that goes back some way. >> absolutely. david paterson's father was part of the famous harlem gang of four which really was the center of black political power in new york , and david paterson took over what was his father a seat . how big a distraction is this for democrats to have these two such significant figures in such trouble? >> it is a huge distraction. in new york, we're virtually deadlocked. there's not gridlock here. there's deadlock.

we don't have a dysfunctional government. we have a nonfunctioning government. it's sort of a combination of rod sterling meets lewis carol. it's the twilight expwron wonderland and you can't imagine what the next story is. >> ifill: well douglas muzzio, thank you so much for helping us out. >> thank you. next, rumblings of a different sort in texas, which held its primaries yesterday. the republican governor of texas, rick perry, rode a wave of anti-washington sentiment to an easy reelection primary win last night. perry bested four-term u.s. senator kay bailey hutchison, who announced she would quit the senate to challenge perry by 21 points. >> texas voters said no. they said no to washington bureaucrats making decisions that state leaders and citizens should be making for themselves. they said no to legislation that will kill jobs and drive people

out of our economy. they said no to a culture of reckless spending and policies that endanger our children's future. however, republican voters >> ifill: perry courted support from conservative tea party activists, and he aggressively went after hutchison, linking her to washington's most unpopular actions including bank rescues. >> you told the people of the state of texas that you were not going to vote for bailout. in sept of 2007, i believe it was you stood in front of texans and said, i'm not going to vote for the bailout, then you went to washington d.c. and voted for it. then you came back and months later said that was probably a bad vote. >> i will tell you, governor perry, you are disingenuous. you wrote letter to congress saying pass this bill, we need to shore up the financial markets, and the governor association supported it. it took a lot of leadership to do something that would be right

for our country, and governor, you asked for it too. you were for it before you were against it. >> ifill: but hutchison's campaign never gained traction, despite repeated attempts to burnish her conservative credentials. on the democratic side, former houston mayor bill white won 76 76% of the vote over six other candidates. he quickly turned his general election focus to perry, and to the republicans voters who did not support him. >> to those who challenged rick perry in the other primary, let me talk to them: we admire your courage. you've taken on a professional politician. he knows all the tricks in the trade. ( laughter ) no, he does. he's really experienced at the re-election business. that's his specialty. he's fueled by a torrent of money from the lobbyists and special interests in austin and he knows how to manipulate emotions in order to win re- election. >> ifill: if white does beat perry in november, he'd be the first democrat to win statewide

office in texas since 1994. and we're joined by james henson, director of the texas political project for the university of texas at austin. thank you for joining us. so, professor, tell me how rick perry seemed to win by such a large margin. >> well, he did a few things absolutely correctly. he had, from the very beginning, targeted republican primary voters and spoke directly to them. he then defined texas very clearly in distinction to the rest of the country at a time when economically, texas was objectively not suffering nearly so bad as the rest of the country. then finally, he bound all those things together, and hung the negatives around senator hutchison's neck-- that is, he defined her as kay bailout, as you headquartered as a washington insider. and at the end of the day, he framed her in a way that she

never successfully escaped. >> ifill: we're supposed to be in the middle of an anti-incumbencyy waive. what happened in the case of rick perry? he certainly is an incumbent. >> he did a great job of appeal to people's sense of texas identity, and honestly, i think, turned texas into the outsider and kay bailey hutchison into the insider. so in a sense, she became the incumbent and he become the insurgent. >> ifill: there's one thing he did i want you to explain to us, at one point did he call for secession for texas at some point? >> well, he walked right up to that. he had a real talent for feeling the sense of what was going on in the republican primary electorate last spring, and at one of the rallys in austin, when asked about secession, said that, you know, essentially sometimes maybe it's necessary. so without calling for it, he signaled to a lot of those that were really negative about washington that he understood

that, and i think-- it was very interesting. perry engaged in a number of moves through the campaign, the talk of secession, his nominal rejection of some of the stimulus money, even though texas wound up taking most of it his invocation of the tenth amendment that had his opponents his critics rolling their eyes and shake their heads but it was a kind of dog whistle call and everyone wouldn't hear it and republican voters zerooed in. >> ifill: the popular shorthand for the republican primary voters you were talking about who are so disgruntled and unhappy with washington are tea party voters. was there a tea party sentiment at work? >> i think you put it exactly right. it was a sentiment more than it was a movement. perry tapped into that, but i think his real talent was to take the numerous kind of frakt sectors of the republican party in texas and speak to all of them and have them all get along in ways that's really not that

easy. so there was this kind of populous conservative sentiment that we're calling the tea party folks. there are the traditional economic conservatives that are kind of the business establishment that are very well established in the republican party in texas. and then there are christian conservatives that have really dominated the machinery of the republican party but that have found themselves not really perfectly overlapping with these economic populists we're calling the tea partyers. perry's really talent lie in binding all these people together. >> ifill: we should mention there was a third candidate in the republican primary who was-- at least presented herself as a member of the tea party movement-- deborah medina. did she have an effect on the outcome. >> yes, deborah medina ended up finishing in mid-double figures. i think her final count was about 18. i think while she didn't ultimately have quite the impact that it looked like she might for a couple of weeks in the middle of the campaign, she

helped set the tone, and i think she really did bring a lot of issues that perry was raising to begin with really to the fore, and in an odd way, helped him out by keeping those on the agenda. >> ifill: did kay bailey hutchison in the end not see that coming? >> well, i think there's a lot of question eye mean, i think the political parlors and debriefing in austin right now are filled with that question. the kay bailey hutchison campaign seemed a little bit off note from day one. i think that she chose issues that were no longer very high on the issue agenda. she -- her first real barrage of ads was about the transportation issue, which was big a couple of years ago. it was kind of a settled issue in a lot of people's minds. and i think in doing that, she suddenly reinforced perry's framing of her as not really in touch with what was going on in texas, and more of washington, d.c.. >> ifill: now, how does this texas versus the world sentiment play out in a fall election where the democratic nominee

will be the mayor of houston, bill white? >> well, i think what you're going to see is the mayor-- and you already saw it in your segment-- try to turn the tables on perry a little bit and make it not so much texas versus the world as to reassert this notion that the problem is incumbents , people that have gotten settled into government. now,, you know, white's got a big hill to climb. on the one hand, he is probably the best democratic gubernatorial candidate for several cycles, and he's got the democratic faithful in many ways very excited, as excited as they've been in quite a while. on the other hand, he's going to really need, i think, a change in terrain. he starts at-- depending on who you ask-- probably a seven- to nine-point disadvantage just right at the outset, and he's got to make that up somehow, and i think in a lot of ways one of the things people are waiting for is to see what happens with the texas and the national economic trajectories between

now and then. if those lines cross, white is probably helped. >> ifill: are there lessons for national republicans or democrats for that matter, to learn from the outcome yesterday? >> i think know your constituents and know your audience. i think -- you know, to some extent the tea party phenomena, while it affectedly the tone of the campaign, at the end of the