Republicans on the Rise

Pages: 1 2

[Editor’s note: Below is the transcript — and video — of Michael Barone discussing what is emerging on the political national scene  at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Nov. 18-21.]

Video Part I:

Moderator: Michael Barone, American political analyst, pundit and journalist, is well known for being the principal author of the Almanac of American Politics.  Considered the dean of American political journalists, Michael started analyzing population statistics as a boy after the 1950 census by studying the New World Book Encyclopedia his parents brought home.  He has gone on to visit all 50 states and all 435 congressional districts.  He can still tell you, down to the last digit, the number of residents in the major cities of the United States.

Michael is a popular commentator on US elections and political trends for the Fox News Channel.  In 2009, Michael Barone joined the Washington Examiner.  Leaving his position of 18 years at US News & World Report, he is based at the American Enterprise Institute as a Resident Fellow.

Some of Michael Barone’s expert commentary has been concerned with the topic of immigration.  He’s the author of several books — “Our Country — The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan,” “The New Americans — How the Melting Pot Can Work Again,” “Hard America, Soft America — Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future,” “Our First Revolution — The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America’s Founding Fathers.”

Scholar, pundit, political ally and admired friend — please welcome our very special guest, Michael Barone.

Michael Barone: I’ve been given a tough assignment here.  I have to wake up everyone who was put to sleep by Michele Bachmann.  So that’s tough.

We’ve just had another election, an interesting election.  In some ways, I think I could sum it up by saying that a tsunami spread across America from the George Washington Bridge to the Donner Pass.  Unfortunately, it’s still leaving the cannibals on each side still standing.  Speaking of the public employee unions, of course.

It’s really — this has been a fascinating period for me.  Because we’ve actually had two historic elections in a row.  And I think it’s insufficiently appreciated by much of the mainstream media.  2008 in some ways was a record election victory for the Democratic Party.  And 2010 in some ways was a record electoral victory for the Republican Party.

Start off with 2008, although perhaps some people in this room would rather not reflect on this.  Barack Obama — and keep this mind, by the way, when people tell you that the American people can’t stand having a black President.  Barack Obama was elected with 53 percent of the vote.  That’s more than any other Democratic nominee in history except Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.  It’s more than John Kennedy or Jimmy Carter, more than Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman.  It’s more even — and don’t think that he doesn’t know this — than Bill Clinton.

In the popular vote for the House of Representatives, which is a kind of key metric of American political sentiment every two years, the Democrats beat Republicans by a margin of 54 to 43 percent two years ago.  That may not sound like a lot, but it was better than the Democrats had done since 1986, when they were still winning most of the popular vote for the House in the South, which of course they don’t anymore.  And in the 36 non-Southern states, the Obama Democrats won 57 percent of the vote.  That’s more than any time in the last hundred years — perhaps ever.  It was actually a record victory for the Democratic Party.

Now compare 2010 — Republicans won the popular vote for the House by 52-45.  That’s the same percentage as they won in 1994.  It’s higher than any percentage that they’ve won since 1946.  And at that time, the figures aren’t actually commensurate.  Because in 1946, only about 10 percent of the popular votes were cast in the South, which was then the most Democratic region in the country.  If the South had voted proportionate to population as it does today, the Republican percentage would’ve been lower than it was this year.

So we’re looking at a historic high for the Republican Party.  If you compare the popular vote for the House in 2008 and 2010, the Republican percentage went up nine percent; the Democratic percentage went down nine percent.  That’s a huge change.  Remember, a lot of congressional districts, even in a wave-election year like 2010, are not seriously contested.  There’s just sort of momentum for the incumbents.  There’s sort of a drag factor there that keeps those national numbers from changing too much.  In an ordinary election year, they change by one, two or three points.

This is a nine percent shift.  We are talking about a tsunami crest going across America between those two locations that I mentioned.  We haven’t seen as large a shift as nine percent of the popular vote since the elections just after World War II in 1946 and ’48.  And interestingly, American voters at the years just after World War II were faced with a choice something like the choice the Obama Democrats have presented.  And that is to say a choice between a vast expansion of the size and scope of government.

President Franklin Roosevelt in his last years called for national health insurance, public housing to replace the private housing market.  He called for the vast continuation of wage and price controls, the vast expansion of labor unions and so forth.  American voters and the Congresses elected in that period effectively rejected that policy.

So while Britain was voting for the Labour government after World War II that nationalized industries and put in national health insurance, the United States made another choice.  And I think that that is the choice that Americans made once again in 2010.

There’s two kinds of periods that we have.  We have periods of trench-warfare politics and periods of open-field politics.  Trench-warfare politics — political opinion is relatively stable, voting behavior doesn’t change much from year to year.  Issue focus remains the same.  In periods of open-field politics, politicians and voters are moving around, issue focus shifts, and we get very different results sometimes from election to election.

And we had a period of open-field politics roughly from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, with sharp changes in voting behavior; and then a period of trench-warfare politics from 1983 to ’91.  Most voters voted Republican for President; Democratic for Congress.  And political scientists developed, as they do, theories why this would always be so.  The Republicans had a lock on the presidency; Democrats had eternal control of Congress.

That was promptly followed by a period of open-field politics from ’91 to ’95, in which all those theories were demolished.  American voters in their wisdom broke the Republican lock on the Presidency and elected Bill Clinton in 1992.  Republicans ended the supposed eternal Democratic majorities in Congress in 1994, as Newt Gingrich predicted.

And we had third-party candidates who were leading in the polls against major-party candidates — Colin Powell, in the fall of 1995 and Ross Perot in Spring ’92.  You’ll all remember how Ross Perot got out of the race because he said the first President Bush was going to send the Air Force in to strafe his daughter’s wedding.  Then he gets back in.  Nineteen percent of our fellow citizens voted for a man who was obviously clinically insane.  But we had — nonetheless, all the old rules were broken in that period.

And then, that was followed, between 1995 and 2005, by a period of trench-warfare politics, which the two parties, politicians and voters were like two almost equal-sized armies in a culture war, fighting it out for small bits of terrain that made the difference between victory and defeat, and in which the demographic factor most highly correlated with voting behavior was religion or degree of religiosity.  And many of the issues that were emphasized — issues like abortion — had, for many voters, specific religious content.

This was the nation I call the 49 percent nation, after the 2000 election.  In the five House elections, Republicans won pluralities of the popular — they won the popular vote and won more seats [to] the Democratic Party, but never by a wide margin.

And I can remember how close this was.  Ten years ago, on Election Day, I was at Fox News headquarters in New York.  And we got the first tranche of exit polls, in those days, about 12:45 p.m.  And we got all these results, very close results, in, you know, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Florida — close results in one state after another.  And I looked at these and contemplated the lengthy election night, and I had a two-word comment, of which I will relay only the first word to you, which was, “Oh….”

Brit Hume said, “Michael, this election may not be decided till the wee hours of the morning.”  And I said, “Brit, we may not have a result in this election for two or three days.”  As you remember, it was 36 days that we had the result.

So, since the summer of 2005, since Katrina, since the explosion of violence in Iraq, we’ve been in a very different period of open-field politics.  During this period, we’ve seen the issue focus change sharply.  2006, it was all on Iraq.  By 2008, you don’t hear about Iraq anymore.  Because the surge is working, and even Harry Reid has a hard time denying it.

You get the interesting phenomenon — $4-a-gallon gasoline made a huge difference for Americans on environmental issues.  Before that, the attitude on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska was — we must preserve the pristine environment.  When the gas went to $4, the attitude changed to — nuke the caribou.

And in fact, you know, for people concerned about global warming supposedly caused by carbon emissions, I should point out that there are 377,000 caribou in Alaska.  They have multiple stomachs and considerable flatulence.  And I’m not sure that maximizing the number of caribou is actually the way to prevent global warming.

In any case, the Democrats, as we know, made big gains in 2006 and won historic majorities, as I’ve argued in 2008.  The political philosopher, James Carville predicted 40 years of Democratic dominance.  Carl Rove had predicted something a little more modest than that four years before, when Bush won by narrower margins.  It turns out Carville was wrong.  Forty years of Democratic dominance turned out to be more like 40 weeks.  Republicans moved ahead of Democrats in the generic ballot question — which party’s candidate do you support for House of Representatives — in August 2009, which is almost exactly 40 weeks after the November ’08 election.

In my view, the Obama Democrats made a fundamental miscalculation about the American people.  They interpreted the Republicans’ defeat as not just a negative verdict on their competence — which I think it clearly was — but as a rejection of their ideology.  And they assumed that economic distress would make Americans more supportive of, or at least amenable to, big government policies.

This is the lesson, after all, taught by the New Deal historians, which were bestsellers in their time.  I tried to advance a somewhat different view in my book, “Our Country — The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan,” a more nuanced view, if you will.  That book is now available on Amazon for $3.50.  And maybe you can double-buy with Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man,” which attempts to do, in a somewhat different way, the same kind of thing I was trying to do there in the ‘30s.

Go back to the polling of the late 1930s.  Unemployment was stubbornly going above 10 percent.  You had — most Americans believed that government was spending too much and choking off recovery.  They believed that uncertainty about government tax and regulatory policies were preventing business from creating jobs.  They thought labor unions had too much power and needed to be curbed.  It actually sounds kind of familiar today.

And at the same time, if you look at the other Anglosphere democracies in those days, you’ll see big-government parties were rejected by voters in the UK, in Canada and Australia.  You know, the New Deal historians said, Well, the Democrats won five elections in a row, Roosevelt won four times.  If you go back and look at that, at the 1940, ‘44 election, you’re talking about elections in time of war.  1940 was a period of foreign policy crisis.  Hitler and Stalin were allies in control of, or threatening to be in control of, most of the land mass of Eurasia.  It was the closest the world came to 1984.

And in that period, the voters went with Roosevelt as a seasoned leader against a utility executive who had not held public office.  I don’t think that that’s a big-government-supporting election.

Now, a lot of people would say that these old elections are irrelevant.  And I don’t think so.  I think they should’ve been a warning that in a time of lingering high unemployment in the wake of a financial collapse, recessions after financial collapses last a lot longer than recessions that just occur as incidents in the business cycle.  Voters are rejecting big-government policies as economically damaging, and they are politically dangerous.

And so we’ve seen, through this campaign, the Democrats ban the word “stimulus” from their campaign vocabulary.  I guess you were allowed to use it with appearances of former President Clinton.  The GM and Chrysler bailouts, which earlier speakers have talked about — you know, that should’ve been popular in my home state of Michigan.  But Michigan voted for Republican Rick Snyder for governor by a margin of 58 to 40, and they won a majority of the state Senate at 27 to 11.  That doesn’t sound like support of the GM and Chrysler bailout.

Then the healthcare bill — voters, speaking through the medium of public opinion polls and through the unlikely [agents] of the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, said don’t pass this bill.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided they should pass this bill.  She persuaded President Obama, or he went along with this.  And they did pass the bill, after marching one after another Democrat up there in an endangered district to say that they would support it.

This is, as far as I can tell, the most unpopular piece of major legislation passed by the Congress since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  And Pat Caddell points out that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was campaigned against by the Republican Party — the just-coming-into-existence Republican Party — as the crime against Kansas; and that the healthcare bill might be thought of as the crime against healthcare.

In any case, the Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted in the disappearance of one major party, the relegation to minority status of the other major party, and civil war.  I don’t think those results — you know, Obamacare’s not going to be as dire as that.  But it sure seemed that way to a few Democrats on the night of November 2nd.

The most unexpected development of the last 19 months — and Michele Bachmann spoke to this, speakers at the different panels referred to it in different ways — is the spontaneous inrush in the political activity of hundreds of thousands, even millions, of previously uninvolved Americans, in the movement which is symbolized by but not limited to the Tea Party movement.

And I find this absolutely fascinating.  We haven’t seen anything like this in quite a few years.  It is not Astroturf.  Nancy Pelosi was projecting when she said that.  She knows that those SEIU people that are picketing the Republican candidates are only there from noon to two because they’re only paid for two hours.

But the Tea Party people were there in those town hall meetings in August 2009.  And after those meetings, many Democratic congressmen basically abandoned having public schedules any time, or making public appearances where citizens and their constituents could actually talk to them.

Pages: 1 2

  • stacyejones

    You know what You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by searching online for "Wise Health Insurance" If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

    • davarino

      Trust you? Oh ok, if you say so I will trust you.

      So just because Ried and Pelosi were able to jam through this 2000+ page health care bill I am suppose to just sit back and shut up? I am not going to sit back and wait to see how it affects me while it wraps its tenticles around every function of government like the creature from the movie Aliens. Once its tenticles are wraped around your head there is no getting it off. If this health care is so great why is it that they have given special interest groups exemption from it?

      Lastly, the health care we have right now is the best in the world. It can use some tweeking, but not government take over.

    • USMCSniper

      And guys like you need to realize that health care is not a right. Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them. You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs and bear the cost of them.

    • "gunner"

      "trust me", why do i hear alarm bells every time i hear those words? could it be that what i'm actually hearing is "b.o.h.i.c.a.".

      • Reason_For_Life

        You won't know for sure until you try to sit down after the political anesthetic wears off.

  • USMCSniper

    The RINOs have already sided with the Democrats on making the tax cuts only temporary, the estate tax , the repeal of DADT, and next will ratify START. Then in the new session, there will a half hearted attempt at controlling earmarks that they, the Republicans will all vote for. Most Republicans are guttless RINOs that are so afraid of the mainstream media so they compromise their principles evry time.

    • Stephen_Brady

      And your alternative is?

      I'm really not trying to be a wise-a** with you. But if we abandon the only center-right party that has a chance to make real changes, do you think that the DEMs will step up to the plate?

      If, in the next two years, a national political party … let's call it the "National Conservative Party of America" … were to arise, overcome all of the legal roadblocks to third parties, get organized in every precinct in the country, and mount a candidate for every office available, I would support it. But that's not going to happen, and you know it.

      So, let's stay with the GOP and force it into our direction out of a sense of party survival. As for me, it's the GOP or nothing. It's all I have.

      • Guest

        Unfortunately the RINO-infested GOP is therefore a schizoid entity and always has been. The result is political impotence. Too many liberals run as R's just to get GOP $$ from the RNC. The latter needs to be in the hands of true conservatives who can screen-out the RINO's and LIRC's (Liberals in Republican Clothes). That's the only way to "force it into our direction".

        • Stephen_Brady

          This is where the Tea Party comes in. The GOP doesn't win without us, and that's a fact. The GOP doesn't govern conservatively, without us. The Tea Party has to put the fear of God into the hearts of Republican leaders.

      • Reason_For_Life

        I've heard this for 46 years since the Goldwater election and things have not gotten better with the Republicans. The Republican are now, always have been and always will be the party of Big Government. At best Reagan was only slightly more than a break even president with the primary gains against big government being in deregulation, most of which was undone by his REPUBLICAN successor GHW Bush.

        Nixon gave us price controls! PRICE CONTROLS!!!

        What big government Democrat in the last 60 years came even close to this!

        The EPA, prescription drugs for seniors, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Sarbanes Oxley and Campaign Finance Reforms all signed into law by Republican presidents!

        Nothing can be "cured" of its essence without ceasing to be what it is and the essence of the Republican party is big government. By what mystical process do you expect the Bushes and the Romneys of the world to become free marketeers?

        We gave them more chances than any sane people should have. One month after their last chance they betrayed us with increased spending. One month!

        Shakespeare was wrong. First we kill all the Republicans! Then, with only one remaining enemy we finish off the Democrats. (Kill them politically, that is. I am not advocating mass murder just in case any brain dead leftists are reading this)

        • Stephen_Brady

          First, I think that you and I share one common belief, and I won't compromise on that … the desire to protect life, especially that of the unborn. Also, I know that the GOP has done little to alter this situation, over the years (with the exception of four Supreme Court justices who would end Roe. v Wade if only there was one more conservative on the Court … that, in itself, is reason enough to vote GOP because you won't get another conservative justice from the DEMs).

          That said, why dont you start a new political party? If the GOP is hopeless, perhaps someone whose passions are as strong as yours could create a organization that would send the GOP the way of the Whigs. I warn you, however, that the laws of the United States, and its governmental structure, make a successful third party virtually impossible.

          The "revolutionary" view in your last paragraph? Good luck on that.

          BTW, you didn't think I was going to defend Nixon, did you! :)

          • Reason_For_Life

            "I warn you, however, that the laws of the United States, and its governmental structure, make a successful third party virtually impossible. "

            Why do you think the Tea Party came about? It has no structure to be controlled. It is decentralized with dozens of autonomous groups, yet it exerts more pressure than any "organized" third party in history. Not even the Socialist Party of the 1930's has had the kind of influence that the Tea Party has had

            The laws that were enacted (ballot access for instance) for the express purpose of destroying third parties were what made the Tea Party happen. Actually the laws were intended to prevent the existence of a real second party since the supposed "two party system" had coalesced into a single entity acting to preserve itself and enhance its control over the country.

            The Tea Party was a spontaneous market response to an attempt to "corner" the political market. The Republican Party is dead and has been for years. It consists of zombie politicians muttering inanities about economic stimuli, wars on terror, drugs and poverty which they don't understand but which had good responses in focus groups.

            The problem with zombies, as any horror movie buff can tell you, is that they slowly disintegrate over time especially when they can't find living brains to eat. There are no living brains in the Republican party now so don't expect your Republican friends to last much longer.

          • Stephen_Brady

            PART I (And this is really irritating)

            "Why do you think the Tea Party came about? It has no structure to be controlled. It is decentralized with dozens of autonomous groups, yet it exerts more pressure than any "organized" third party in history. Not even the Socialist Party of the 1930's has had the kind of influence that the Tea Party has had …"

            And why is there such power in the Tea Party? Because most of the Tea Party realizes that there will NOT be a successful third party. They realize that they need a party to make all desired reforms happen. That party is not the Socialist/DEMs party. We sink or we swim with the GOP. If you abandon the two-party system, you absolutely guarantee the ascendancy and perpetual rule of the DEM party. Do you realize this?

            As for remarks about "zombies", work in the system, keep yourself glued to your goals, and get rid of the RINOs. We can make the current system work for us. But that involves staying in the system (or do you think that these statements, on my party, are some part of an evil neocon plot to oppress you?).

          • Stephen_Brady

            PART II

            Also, I think that Jim DeMint, et al, would take exception to your statement that there are no "living brains in the Republican party".

          • Reason_For_Life

            Jim DeMint is not the Republican Party. If he were it wouldn't be ratifying the START treaty.

            Why do you pretend that there is a two party system? There is only one party – the Big Government Party.

            The treaty will pass because nine members of the Republican wing of the BGP will vote for it. Cap and Trade passed the House because Republicans jumped ship to allow Democrats from coal states to vote against it. This isn't government, it's Kabuki theater with exaggerated gestures and a predetermined outcome.

            What we now have is a single big government political structure that will never be taken down from inside it. If you really believe in limited government both parties will marginalize you as they did Ron Paul for thirty years. Only the pressure from the Tea Party got Paul on the oversight committee for the Federal Reserve Board.

          • Reason_For_Life

            "We sink or we swim with the GOP. "

            Go and cling to your solid lead GOP life preserver.

        • coyote3

          Well, I agree, not murder, but then that depends on the definition of what is being killed, and how. Let's call it capital punishment, and we have never really given it a chance in the United States.

          • Reason_For_Life

            How about calling it Capitol punishment?

          • coyote3

            We still haven't given it a chance.

        • coyote3

          Additionally, wasn't it "Tricky Dick" who introduced the illegal food stamps, among the other thing you mention?

          • Reason_For_Life

            Who else?

            Nixon is still considered by Republicans to have been a good president whose crimes were "over played" by the liberal press. Supposedly, Nixon did nothing worse than what Democrat presidents had always done. You will never hear a Republican refer to any other Republican as a big government guy even though Nixon was worse than Lyndon Johnson in expanding government power.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Are you a libertarian? You keep talking about "the Republicans" like you are not one. Surely, you're not on the Left, like a DEM, CPUSA, Socialist Workers, and so on, are you?

            Why all the venom against the GOP?

          • Reason_For_Life

            Because the Republicans have betrayed me for 46 years and I'm not carrying their water one more inch. They are scum, unrepentant scum.

            They talk small government and then pass price controls, the Patriot Act, create the EPA, invade public school education, give away drugs to seniors, create two Islamic theocracies in the name of fighting Islamic fascism, pass Sarbanes Oxley, enlarge Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and bailout Democrat controlled investment banks like Goldman Sachs.

            If you say "But the Democrats would have been worse" you are making the same kind of argument that the Democrats make about their "stimulus" plan.

            When you do something stupid you don't exonerate yourself by saying that the other guy is dumber than you. What you do is own up to your stupidity, and stop doing stupid things. The Republicans still can't admit the George Bush was a wretched president. Until they can, they cannot lay claim to having "learned their lesson".

          • Stephen_Brady

            Actually, it was "Tricky Dick" who rid America of the possibility of having a Communist spy, Alger Hiss, of being President. For this, the media hated him forever after.

            As for food stamps, Wage and Price control, etc., you have no argument frm me.

          • Reason_For_Life

            Many people were anti-communist, most of whom simply wanted to eliminate a competitor in the battle to create a socialist America.

            Nixon was anti-communist like Norman Thomas was anti-communist.

          • Stephen_Brady

            If we … and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are one form or another of a conservative … do not find a way to stop this warfare among ourselves, we will hand our country over to Marxist America on a silver platter. Do you want them to rule our naton for the next 50 years, or to hand our sovereignty to the UN?

            Once again, if there is something to replace the GOP with, I will be on your side. The only other chance is change the Republican Party from within. If we're split, the DEMs win. Simple …

          • Reason_For_Life

            You're probably religious so I'll put this in terms you'll appreciate.

            To be absolved from sin you must confess, show contrition, do penance and ask forgiveness. When have the Republicans confessed, shown contrition, done penance or asked for forgiveness? They still praise Nixon, and the Bushes. I haven't heard any apologies for TARP or the bailouts.

            All I have heard is the "some Republicans lost their way" without a single mention of what way they went and what way they intend to go now.

            Only Paul Ryan has come forward with a decent proposal and he can't get Republicans to sign on to it. Do you see Gingrich or Romney agreeing to Ryan's roadmap?

            When I see the vast majority of elected Republicans endorsing Ryan's proposal (or another plan of equal or greater merit), demonstrate support by voting to implement it and not voting for increased spending then, and only then will I vote a Republican ticket.

            I'm not holding my breath.

          • Stephen_Brady

            I notice that you use many absolutist terms … "they", "the Republicans", and so on. Only in your last paragraph, above, do you see the use of the term "vast majority of Republicans", which qualifies your previous use of generalities.

            Which is it? All Republicans are devils, or just some Republicans are devils? By the way, I thought I would the term "devil" to accomodate your view of someone who doesn't agree with you on everything …

          • Reason_For_Life

            "They" refers to all active Republican officeholders. No active officeholder (or office seeker for that matter) has condemned the abominable presidency of George W Bush. None have acknowledged their errors, none have apologized, none have attempted to rectify their errors.

            Even Paul Ryan, whom I like, voted for the TARP and the bailouts and never once acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Are you a member of a Tea Party group, as I am? If so, now is the time to target the RINOs, and keep your own representative's feet to the fire.

            Where I live, we just elected a Tea Party favorite … in Illinois, no less. Congressman Kinzinger's staff will almost certainly tire of hearing from me, and my brothers/sisters in the Tea Party. I want results, and I want them, yesterday.

            Hold them to their promises, my friend. Make them keep their word, or throw them out. Demand a conservative at the head of the RNC. Stay in the system. Fight the good fight.

            But we will not win this fight if we are divided.

          • Reason_For_Life

            Holding feet to the fire? You betcha.

            We just have to be sure to avoid "Battered Republican Syndrome" which is like "Battered Wife Syndrome" where a woman continues to return to a man no matter how badly he treats her.

            Perhaps we should send DVDs of the movie "The Burning Bed" to every Republican.

  • Tar_n_Feathers

    I've been a regular subscriber to Barone's annual "Almanac of American Politics" for a decade. The man has that rare ability to read and understand political numbers in a way that steers clear of the pseudo reality that we always get from the political pitchmen and media shills. He's my point man when I want an accurate lay of the land.

  • Dave

    John Pistone will run for Congress in 2012.
    Connecticut 5th District.