Republicans on the Rise


Pages: 1 2

And one of the fascinating things — and I think it reflects a wider feeling in our society — is that they dress up in the 18th century costumes but, more importantly, talk in the language of the Founding Fathers.  And I think, you know, over the last 15 years, those of us interested in the publishing business have noted that there’s been a fascination on the part of readers and book-buyers with books about the Founding Fathers.  Mean, we had one summer when the major beach book was a biography of John Adams.  Who’d o’ thunk it?

But the fact is, the American people are thirsty for knowledge of the Founders — the challenges they faced, the ideas and thoughts they portrayed, the heroic acts that they overcame, pledging their lives, liberty and sacred honor to creating a new kind of government on the face of the earth.  We’ve got — we want to learn more.  We’ve had wonderfully written books about Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton.

And so you hear people talking about how no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law; that the powers not directly given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

This is suddenly part of our political dialogue.  And it’s — you know, Phil Hare, the congressman from the 17th District of Illinois — a district drawn up by gerrymanderers to be a safe Democratic district — it squirrels all around downstate Illinois — somebody asked him about the constitutional basis of the healthcare plan.  And he said, “I don’t care about the Constitution.”  That’s got a million hits on YouTube.  And he — you know, these people take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  And when you see them saying, I don’t care about the Constitution, that seems to jar a lot of our fellow citizens.  And Mr. Hare lost to a pizza parlor operator from Moline by a margin of 55 to 43.

And so, you know, I think Americans — funny thing, they do care about the Constitution.  Mean, Nancy Pelosi was asked about the constitutional basis of the healthcare bill.  And she paused in disbelief and said, “Are you serious?”  Turns out they are serious.

And I’ve kind of seen the election cycle this year as a kind of argument between the ideas of the founders and the ideas — which are the guiding ideas for the Obama Democrats — of the progressives and New Dealers.  Founders’ ideas — 220, 230 years old.  The progressives, 100 years old; the New Dealers, 70 years old.

And you know, the progressives and the New Dealers basically said that, you know, the Constitution is a horse-and-buggy document.  This was a term used by President Roosevelt.  Woodrow Wilson used it.  These limitations on government are simply inappropriate in a modern industrial era.  We now have great factories that produce technological marvels like the Model T.  And in that kind of environment, you can’t expect the ordinary citizen to make his way through society.  He needs the guidance of centralized experts with command-and-control public policies to help them navigate through.  The intension here is to create a culture of dependence, where the ordinary citizen depends on an all-seeing and all-wise government to navigate them through life.

And what I think we see with the Tea Partiers, and I think we saw with the voters, was that Americans reject that culture of dependence and instead prefer a culture of independence, a culture in which people can choose their own way of life, make their way upward, make their contributions to society in ways that are particularly suited to their talents and abilities, and so forth.

So I think that we have seen an outright rejection of this.  And what’s fascinating to me is that the words and ideas of the progressives and the New Dealers 70 and 100 years ago now sound tinny and old-fashioned as the Model T.  The words of the Founding Fathers 220, 230 years ago ring as true as a silver spoon on a crystal goblet.

Now, we’re still counting the votes.  California, in its wisdom, takes five weeks to count the votes.  Brazil had an election on October 31st.  They had all the votes counted in five hours.  But California is not as advanced as Brazil, so we’re still waiting on that.

We know the Republicans gained six seats in the Senate.  That’s less than some people had hoped.  There are people who are going around saying, Well, that’s because Tea Party candidates ran and won.  I think there may be something to that.  When you get an inrush in political activity, you get a certain amount of people who prove to be maladroit candidates.  And you get some true-believers that knock off people in the primaries, and the other party wins the general election.  That happened with the peace or antiwar movement 40 years ago.  It happened with the Tea Party movement today.

But I think that there can be no doubt that the Tea Party movement, the broader movement that it symbolizes, really added energy, enthusiasm, ideas and principles to the Republican Party that enabled it to win up and down in a historic victory.  Six seats in the Senate is actually a good-sized gain.  It’s now at 61, 62 in the House of Representatives.  The Democrats are trying to count a couple other people out — we’ll see what happens to that.

In 1994, when the popular vote for the US House was the same in percentage terms as it appears to be this year, the Republicans gained about 450 seats in the House.  This year, they gained about 680.  I’m just talking about state legislatures.  That was ballooned a little bit, because they won 122 new seats in New Hampshire, which has a 400-seat House of Representatives.  But the fact is, this is very big.  This shows the depth and the breadth of the public opinion movement that we’ve seen.

A lot of these people were not even queued to win.  I mean, I follow some of the political newsletters of insiders of various states and talk to the political insiders.  And I can tell you that Republican gains in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Minnesota, in North Carolina were larger than anybody expected.  I mean, in Michigan, the Repubs needed 13 new seats to get a majority in the state House.  The inside guys were saying, well, they probably pick up four or five; they may lose a few.  Then they started dialing it upward.  They gained 20.  They gained — a lot of people that nobody figured was going to win those elections are now state legislators in the various state capitals.

That’s important for redistricting.  We shouldn’t overemphasize that, but Republicans will control redistricting in 13 states, which will have five or more US House members with 165 House seats.  Democrats control redistricting in only four states with 40 House seats.  That’s not a huge — one of those states is Massachusetts which, bless them, elected 10 Democrats and no Republicans to the House once again this year.  They’re going to be reduced to nine by the reapportionment following the census.

And so, while we can all hope that Barney Frank has returned to the House so that he can confront, as ranking minority member, Chairman Ed Royce of the Financial Services Committee, he is going to have one fewer Massachusetts Democratic colleague.  No way the redistricting magic can work there.

So basically, we’ve got a country that has spoken loud and clear, that has made it a historic movement from one party to the other, and a movement that, it seems to me, is supported much more than that ’08 movement by serious thinking, intellectually rigorous thinking, about important public policy issues.

You know, what was the Democrats’ theme in ’08?  Well, we had candidate, as he then was, Obama saying things full of content like, “We are the change we are seeking.”  This time, we’ve got people talking about serious public policy, the Pledge to America from the House.  House Republicans said we’re going to take spending back to 2008 levels.  There’s — you know, some people say, Oh, government can’t get along with that.  There’s a lot of people in this country that would like to have a W-2 that looked like their 2008 one, would like to have their 401(k) account that looked like their 2008, would like have house equity that looked like 2008.

And I think that the question facing us that we don’t fully know the answer to about public opinion is that — will a public that seems clearly to have opposed a vast expansion of the size and scope of government — will it now support cuts and changes and rollbacks and so forth?  You know, it would be logical, certainly, to do so.  Voters don’t have to be logical; they’re not confronted on “Meet the Press” with a YouTube of what they said four years ago and asked to justify the change of mind.

I’m optimistic, however, as I look around the country and around the world.  Looking around the country, you have people like Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana who has a record of cutting back government.  When he went to one school district, and they said, “This district has been hit terribly.  We had to lay off nine teachers and one administrator,” he said, “Why didn’t you lay off nine administrators and one teacher?”  I think we got on the public payrolls a lot of facilitators and liaisons and outreach officers that actually America did pretty well for 200 years without.

And I think Mitch Daniels was reelected in India by a margin of 58-40.  When Barack Obama was carrying the state, he ran one point ahead of Ronald Reagan in the most affluent county in the state, carried 20 percent of black voters, 37 percent of Latinos and young voters, 51-42.  That says to me that there may be a future in cutting back government.

We have seen emerging onto the political national scene the very large figure of Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  How many here have seen Chris Christie videos?  Clearly, the Teachers Union has been spending $10 million on ads against him, $10 million that come straight from the taxpayers.  The taxpayers have not been deluded by this, and they seem to be on the side of Chris Christie.

We can see what’s happening in Europe.  You know, many of us have been saying that America was following the policies of Old Europe.  Now we’ve got a situation where the Chancellor of Germany has informed President Obama that the US is spending too much money to have an economic recovery.  We’re seeing the government of the UK have 25 percent spending cuts for many government departments.  They’re laying off 500,000 public sector workers.  The public approves.  We see center-right governments winning reelection in Sweden and Latvia.

This is something that seems to be happening around the world.  And I think that, you know, there’s a conventional wisdom out there that Republicans got in trouble after the 1994 election because we had a budget fight between Speaker Newt Gingrich, President Bill Clinton.  I think this is [among] many reasons the conventional wisdom doesn’t get the whole story.  For one thing — and obviously, Speaker Gingrich can answer the particularities of this better than I can — the result was spending went flat for a year, which went a long way towards the balanced budget in the later decade.

The other thing is that, you know, although President Clinton was reelected, the supposed disaster for the Republicans was they lost nine seats.  That’s a little less than 62, isn’t it?  At least if I’ve got my math here.

So I think we’re going to see some continued fights.  We’re going to see important fights between the administration trying to use regulatory apparatus to achieve policy goals, now that they no longer have supermajorities in Congress; and between Congress trying to do something else.  So it’s vitally important for Republicans to have effective committee chairmen on the Governmental Operations Committee, which Darrell Issa will be chairman of/ on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Financial Services Committee, which our friend, Ed Royce, is a candidate for chairman.

Let me just close with a few words about 2012.  Look, in a period of open-field politics, it is risky to make straight-line extrapolations from the last election to the next one.  Ask Karl Rove, ask James Carville.  You know, there’s some reasons to believe that 2012 won’t be as unfavorable to Barack Obama as 2010 was.  He’s not likely to have primary opposition, unless it comes from perhaps the peace wing of the party.  And if you [ever] want to send contributions to Howard Dean, I’m sure it’ll be appreciated.

But most Democrats — you know, the primary electorate is 20 percent black on the average in the Democratic primary.  And I think, you know, most Democratic politicians wouldn’t want to run on that. People have asked me about Hillary Clinton.  And my line is that Hillary Clinton has saved a lot of money for the American taxpayers.  Because previous secretaries of state have travelled around the world on very expensive jet aircraft, and Hillary can get around on her broom.  That’s just a cheap partisan shot, it’s not meant as vicious criticism or anything.

But anyway, I think, you know, Republicans in 2010 were seeking control of one branch of government.  In 2012, they’ll be seeking two.  That’s a harder sell.  That requires more victories in the battle of ideas than have yet been won.  And Michele Bachmann, I thought, spoke very eloquently and wisely about that.

I think many voters will be reluctant, for reasons understandable in light of our history, to reject the first African-American President.  That is simply a factor in the election that is something that’s there.  And I think in addition, Barack Obama doesn’t have the kind of personal characteristics that made so many people on the other side of the political and cultural divide absolutely loathe Bill Clinton on the one hand, George W. Bush on the other.

But I do think we have evidence from this election that this is a pretty clear rejection of this vast expansion of the size and scope of government.  The Tea Party people are talking about numbers that are real.  Just go look at those CBO reports — this is not a figment of their imagination.  And I think that voters have in 2010, as they did in 1946, basically rejected an attempt to create a hugely larger welfare state in this country.

I have no idea who will win the Republican nomination for President.  I think that if you gave me a list of candidates I could give you a reason why each one of them cannot win the nomination.  You know, zero-sum game — all but one player must lose, but then one player has to win.  So somebody’s going to win that nomination.

But I think the feelings I’ve heard expressed by Michele Bachmann and by other people here are pretty sound, which is that if we are seeking to affect the style and substance of governance in this country, and seeking to influence the culture, winning the battle of ideas is at least as important as electing a specific individual as President.

People say, you know, we want to elect another Ronald Reagan.  Well, you know, there was only one Michelangelo, there was only one Mozart, there’s only one Ronald Reagan.  You don’t get seconds on something like that.  And I think it’s unwise to look for salvation in just one leader.  I think the kind of advances that we’ve made in the battles of ideas are heartening.  But they are not the end of the road, and they are not full victories.

So with that attempt to dodge predictions on 2012, I’ll conclude my comments.

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.

  • http://www.shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/index.html 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.