Michael Barone


Uploaded by HooverInstitution on 24.10.2008

Transcript:
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson, joining me today, Michael Barone. Michael
is senior writer for U.S. News and World Report, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, the author of many books including most recently "Our First Revolution: The Remarkable
British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers" and he is the principal coauthor
of this Bible of American Politics, the "Almanac of American Politics," I'm holding up the
2006 edition. The 2008 edition will be available—
Is shipping.
Is shipping. Go to Amazon and order the 2008 edition of the "Almanac of America Politics."
Michael, I will put to you paradoxes from American politics.
Okay.
On the one hand this, on the other that, and you will draw upon your toque billion understanding
of American politics to describe to me the deeper meaning that explains these apparent
paradoxes.
With the proviso that I may prove to be more [inaudible] toque.
I doubt that. The utter collapse of the Republican Party and the near upset in Massachusetts.
On the one hand the jeopy appears in the state of collapse. Democratic presidential candidates
out fundraising republican candidates by 50 percent and more. Here's to me the most telling
fact, just 5 years ago, voter identification showed 43 percent republican, 43 percent democrat.
Today, 35 percent republican, 50 percent democrat, that's on the one hand. On the other, a republican
just was elected governor of Louisiana, happily democratic state, and you were the journalist
to cut through this to my attention, in another heavily democratic state, Massachusetts, the
democrat--in a special lecture, the House of Representatives, the democrat defeated
the republican by just 6 percentage points in a district in which John Carry defeated
George W. Bush by 16 percentage points. On the one hand this, on the other that.
Explain.
Yes, explain.
The explanation I think is this Peter, for about 10 years from 1995 to 2005 we were in
a period of what I call trenched warfare politics. The two parties constituencies were like two
armies in a culture war, raid against each other in the trenches trying to win over that
little bit of ground that met the difference between victory and defeat, equal size groups
as some of the party identification figures you put down suggest. And the election results
will be looking at President or House, pretty close throughout that whole period. And there
wasn't much party switching. I think since sometime in 2005, maybe the week of hurricane
Katrina, we've been in a period of open field politics, where voters are moving around,
politicians are moving around. It's like the period between '90 and '95 when you had the,
you know, the--an incumbent president's percentage goes down 17 points. The republicans win the
House for the first time in 40 years where third party candidates zoom to the top of
the polls in presidential elections. So as [inaudible] at one point, Colin Powell at
another, in which voters are moving around. So I think that that it's a moment of peril
for both parties. It's a moment of opportunity for both parties. So you see the republicans
doing better in Massachusetts 5, this is a district, 57 percent for Carry. The democratic
index for '06 would probably be about 61 percent. Their candidate gets only 51 percent. The
republican is now campaigning against the Congress which of course the republicans control
for 12 years but don't anymore. The republicans make fares parallel in some--in special elections
coming in the Ohio Fifth District. This was a 61 percent Bush district. I suspect the
republican candidate will not get 61 percent in that election.
For Ohio specific reasons. Ohio—
Well Ohio has been a particular collapse for the Republican Party. They held the governorship
and the legislature for 16 years that the length of control hasn't been seen in Ohio
since the 1840s which was just a little before my time when I wasn't covering that. And they
raised taxes. The state's economy is clearly in trouble. They haven't been gaining jobs.
So there's a reaction against the republicans there.
What's the pattern here in the American history, at least recent American history, between
the frozen politics, trenched warfare, bitter fighting for just inches, and suddenly the
situation or relatively suddenly, the situation becomes fluid. What enabled the republicans
to recapture the House in '94, what event? Is it Iraq now? What's going on?
Well I think what we saw in the earlier period, '90 to '95 of trenched warfare politics, is
that one thing that voters get tired of the reiteration of certain kinds of political
balance, particularly if they're attended with a certain amount of clash of inconclusive
results. You know starting in 1990 most Russian insiders said we were always gonna have a
republican president, we were always gonna have a democratic congress.
It was the staple of the American political science.
And within 40 years both of those rules had fallen, and we nearly got an independent president
at one point. So voters get tired of it, they get upset with conditions. We are accustom
to thinking political scientists have these formulas that are based on economic conditions.
I don't think that's the big moving thrust in politics today. People may complain about
the economy but the median voter in 2008 was born in 1966, that voter has lived 95 percent
of his or her adult life time in a period of low inflation economic growth. Yes, they
get irritated when even the mildest economic problems surfaces or you know things seem
somewhat uncertain. But they're not people that remember the great depression of the
1930's. They're not voting that way. They're voting more often in our period of trenched
warfare politics on cultural issues. Are you, you know, traditional culture, liberation
minded culture. It's a civil war of the baby boomers of the '60s and exemplified by our
two baby boomer presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Which brings me to the second one. It's a quagmire but we're winning Iraq. On the one
hand, all the polls indicate that the American people are just sick of this war. On the other
hand, listen to this from John Burns who of course until very recently was the Iraqi Bureau
Chief for the New York Times. "There's no doubt that those 30,000 extra American troops
are making a difference in the surge. Fewer car bombs, quite remarkably lower level of
civilian causalities, Al-Qaeda has taken a beating." Things are going well in Iraq, but
the politics are still substantially anti-Iraq.
Oh, well people, you know, this war has been covered our mainstream media as a quagmire,
as you know unending blood shed, you know by historical standards, of course causalities,
American casualties, causalities of all kinds are remarkably low. I mean if you compare,
you know, we lost more people in the first 48 hours of D-Day than we've lost in Iraq
since--in five, four or five years. I think people wanna see progress. I think in '06
elections, the choice before them seemed a choice between stalemate and withdraw. And
in that circumstance, I think people favored withdraw. Now they do this, the you reported
from John Burns, who's one of the great foreign correspondents of our time, that's percolating
slowly through the American politics. The guardians of the gates of the mainstream media
don't think progress in Iraq is news. They are on record where people like Robin Wright
of the Washington Post are on record. But the word--you see the polling evidence, you
see upticks in whether we're winning the war on terror in the last recent poll, whether
things are going better in Iraq and so forth. And I think—
Your formulation there though, that the American people are not anti-Iraq, they're anti-stalemate.
Yeah if the choice—
That has profound implications for the current political—
Well yes—
For example, John McCain may not be out of it at all, right?
Yeah if the choice is between stalemate and withdraw, Americans prefer withdraw. If the
choice is between success and withdraw, I think Americans prefer success.
Alright. Is there a realistic prospect of success within a period of time near enough
to us to affect the presidential elections?
I think the answer is yes. I think you know public opinion, we're sitting here, you know
approximately 52 weeks before the presidential election, we've got you know I think, you
know go back Peter to the 1979-80 cycle
Right.
You're old enough to remember that.
I can't remember that. I'm sorry to say.
At this time in the 1979-80 cycle, if you'd asked Washington insiders who was most likely
to be the next president. If you'd asked them then or a couple of weeks before they would
have said Edward Kennedy.
Right.
Number 2 would be Jimmy Carter. They wouldn't get to Ronald Reagan until number 4 or 5.
John Anderson. Actually, there were polls in the media at the time John Anderson came
in ahead of Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Regan and yet 12 months later Ronald Reagan carried 44 of 50 states. Between that
time we had some pretty big events, the seizure of our diplomats as hostages in Iran, the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and President Carter said his eyes were opened to the Soviet
menace. We don't know what events are gonna happen in the next 12 months. My belief is
that American opinion on Iraq is going to become more positive, and there's gonna be
an increasing apprehension that we're achieving something in the nature of success. And the
democrats don't stand strongly for withdraw. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama
have all said September 23rd, I believe, that they expect there would be U.S. troops in
Iraq at the end of a presidential term which they're seeking. So—
So they're already repositioning themselves.
So the question is, are you for success or stalemate. People prefer success.
Tax hikes and tax cuts. President Bush's tax cuts are said to expire in 2010. We now have
just, within the last couple of weeks, two proposals before us. Proposal 1, Democrat
Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed eliminating
the alternative minimum tax, but increasing taxes by 4 percent on every individual who
makes a 150,000 dollars a year or more, and all couples who make 200,000 dollars a year
or more which combined with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts means that the top rate
will go from 35 percent to 44 percent, proposal 1. Proposal 2, conservatives in the House,
republicans led by Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin have put together a package under
which tax payers will be offered a choice. Continue to be taxed under the current system
or give up all your deductions and find yourself taxed at a flat rate of 10 percent on the
first 100,000 and 25 percent on everything above that. So in the one hand you've got
Charlie Rangel is talking about simplicity and reform but as best I can make it out,
this is a tax increase and their system will remain complicated. On the other hand you've
got republicans, it feels like the Kemp-Roth Bill of 1981, genuine simplicity and overall,
a sharp cut in the overall tax burden. Are these two people, these two sets of people
inhabiting the same political universe?
Well I think taxes are reemerging as an issue. Taxes have not been a particularly big issue
since 1994 and 1996. George W. Bush advocated tax cuts, persuaded Congress to put them in
effect. It was never a big political plus for him. He may have hoped it would be, it
wasn't. But now we're faced with the situation where the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, the
state tax comes back in full force in 2011. And I think that puts the tax issue back on
the table because those things will happen unless the next Congress acts. And democrats
had made it pretty clear that they want some of the Bush tax cuts to expire. They say it's
only those on the rich. Republicans have said, hey when they're talking about taxing the
rich, they're really talking about taxing the ordinary middle class person.
Right.
That's an argument that I think we may see. Charlie Rangel's tax cut fascinatingly, basically,
is a redistribution of the tax burden, taking it off people who make between a 100 and 250,000
dollars, putting it on people that make 500,000 dollars or more. It's not exactly giving to
the poor. One of the things that's going on is this alternative minimum tax that was initially
intended to hit a 150 people in the whole country is now threatening to hit 21 percent
of taxpaying households. And those taxpaying households are concentrated in democratic
areas. They're in the high tax, high nominal income states, where the AMT causes you to
lose your deductibility of state and local taxes which are typically very high in those
states. So you're looking at Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland,
California, and so forth. Those states are overwhelmingly represented by democrats. If
21 percent of all taxpayers are gonna be subjected to AMT, it's gonna be more like 35 to 40 percent
in New Jersey. That's gonna get their attention, and the public employee unions don't want
this to happen because if people can't deduct their state and local taxes, they're gonna
increase their overall tax burden and there are gonna be pressure for cutting taxes and
spending at the state and local level. Those unions are huge constituency in the democratic
parties. So Charles Rangel is floating this proposal to get rid of the AMT which the democrats
have to do. The republicans want low rates. I think there's the possibility of a bipartisan
cut like the 1986 cut where you get rid of tax preferences and cut rates overall and
in this case ditch the AMT or to take some care of it. There's a bipart--possibility
of bipartisan action, and I think Rangel's bill which curiously gives most tax relief
to people over a 100,000 dollars, not historically the democratic constituency but they are now.
Right.
Is an indication that the ingredients for a bipartisan bill are there. It doesn't guarantee
it will pass.
Doesn't this strike you as odd or at least very interesting that these proposals are
originating in the House and not from any of the presidential campaigns?
Well, it strikes me as interesting that you know Mr. Rangel says he's 76 years old and
he can't wait around a few more terms for his chance to legislate. He was basically
shut out of the legislative process when he was ranking minority member by Chairman Bill
Thomas. You know the House is supposed to originally tax legislation. So I think you
can say Mr. Rangel's acting responsibly by bringing forward a proposal.
Here's my--I guess this is my point. Shouldn't a republican presidential candidate be much
more foursquarely in favor of some sort of tax reform than we've yet heard 'cause that
just—
I think, I think it kinda--I think the situation does cry out for that. And the Massachusetts
5 special election, that's--the republican called for tax cuts not raising the taxes.
That didn't win in vote as compared to Bush all four numbers in the richest parts of the
district, but it got him a lot of votes in the sort of middle income, above national,
median, average but not really rich sort of areas. He did better than Bush did by 6 to
9 percent of those districts, those towns.
So ordinary American households are starting to care about taxes again.
Well and look what happened in Britain over the last 6 weeks. The Prime Minister Gordon
Brown had the planning to call an election, general election in beginning of November.
He hoped to increase the Labor Party seat since he's become prime minister. In June,
in July, August and September, the polls showed the Labor Party ahead by 9 percent. That would
allow them to increase their parliamentary majority in the House of Commons and it would
be Mr. Brown's majority not Mr. Blair.
Locking in for 5 years.
He decided not to do it, why? The two party conferences, the conservatives who'd been
avoiding all talk of tax cuts, under the leader David Cameron for two years, suddenly said
they wanted to cut the inheritance tax. No more estate tax on estates under 1 million
pounds which is about 2 million dollars. Not you would think of populous proposal. But
the numbers have changed in the four polls that have been taken since the party conferences,
conservatives are actually ahead by 2 points. That's a big shift in the context of British
politics where for most of the time from 1992 to 2006 there wasn't much movement in the
polls at all. And it suggests that a tax issue when it's squarely post might be able to shake
a lot of votes up.
Well, especially this notion of fluid period in American politics, the open field politics.
That's right, I think, you know the evidence from Mass 5, the evidence from south east,
from Britain, from the affluent—
You telephoned just outside this door, after this taping you go out and called Rudy Giuliani,
would you please tell him to come up for a tax cut.
Well actually I just turned off my cellphone 'cause I don't wanna get a call from his wife.
Alright, healthcare, listen to this. In 1993, Clinton administration proposes healthcare
reform, Hillary care. The center piece of which is a mandate that would have required
employers to provide health insurance. Republicans denounced it, it's defeated. In 2006, Mitt
Romney enacts the healthcare reform in Massachusetts. He's then governor of Massachusetts that includes
a mandate more direct that anything Hillary Clinton would have dreamt of, a mandate directly,
not on employers but on citizens. Under Romney care, every adult in Massachusetts must purchase
health insurance or face steep penalties. So he brings the coercive power of the state
to bear directly on every adult citizen of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney is now campaigning
for president as a conservative republican. Please explain.
Well, I think the difference between the Clinton proposal on '93 with Romney proposed on '06
is evidence that we're moving away from employer mandates. I mean the hope of Clinton a lot
of--Hillary Clinton 15 years ago, a lot of people on the left was that we get every employer
to cover every employee. It's become increasingly clear people changed jobs, small employers
can't afford it. They can't get large enough pull. And that it's not a progressive policy.
I mean President Bush proposed in the state of the union that we equalized the treatment
of employer provided a non-employer provided health insurance by giving people a tax credit
when they buy their own insurance. Ron Wyden, democratic senator from Oregon has come forward
with a proposal along with Bob Bennett, republican of Utah, which takes these steps farther,
which basically says that you--that we get rid of the advantage to employer providing
health insurance. And Senator Wyden points out that the people who get the biggest advantage
of this are high earner employees. And the people who get the most this advantage from
it are low earner, people who don't get employer provided healthcare insurance. In other words,
if you're concerned about the little guy and want to take away a subsidy from the person
who's quite comfortable, you want to get rid of the advantage for employer provided health
insurance. So my sense is that that's one of the things that was behind Mitt Romney's
proposal and I think that's an idea that's out there ready to be taken up.
For years and years, if not at least a couple of decades, all the polls indicate that Americans
believe the Democratic Party is better equipped to deal with healthcare. And it is certainly
the case that if you simply say I want healthcare for all Americans, there's a direct and immediate
appeal of that formulation which tends to be the democratic formulation. However, do
you think Mitt Romney who incidentally now that is running for President has put forward
a proposal that calls for just this kind of thing tax advantaging individuals who don't
get employer provided healthcare. Is there some way republicans--are the dynamic, are
there kind of structural underlying dynamics of this issue permanently in favor of the
democrats? Or is there is a way republicans can play healthcare, this issue, to their
advantage?
Well, I think there's one dynamic that's permanently to the advantage of the democrats. The sense
that they're going to spend more of somebody else's money to help you out.
Right, okay.
The dynamic that works for the republicans is the dynamic that says look, government
provided care doesn't work very well. Rudy Giuliani who has had prostate cancer points
out that 83 percent of people in United States with prostate cancer live whereas only the
figure in Britain with the National Health Service is 44 percent. You know if you have
to wait two years for your prostatectomy, the disease might advance during that period.
You know I think there's people out--people, historically in the last generation have understood
that government provision, government bureaucracy, government mandates don't work so well, that's
because they remember the stagflation and the gas lines of the 1970s. The bad news for
republicans side of that argument is that half the voters in 2008, the median age voter,
doesn't remember the 1970s. They have to make these arguments again. I think the arguments
are there to be made. I think that the Giuliani example is one way in which you can vividly
make the argument, but we can't take it for granted because the Clinton healthcare plan
was rejected in '93, '94, that voters feel the same way. The voters, you know this is
15 years later. The electorate is different and has had a different set of experiences.
Okay. Hillary and Rudy, two losers in first place. First Hillary, a story in the associated
press, "Democratic leaders spread that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton may be too polarizing
for much of the country. In more than 40 interviews, democratic candidates, consultants and party
chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable
ratings." That's on the one hand. On the other hand, Senator Clinton has built a commanding
lead after Barack Obama moving in on her some months ago. Her lead is now commanding, Fox
News, has her 17 points ahead of Barack Obama nationally, explain.
Well, if you look at Hillary Clinton's favorables, unfavorables there's a little bit of variation
but they tend to come out on the order of 49 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable.
To me—
And they're relatively static, aren't they?
Relatively static, you know she's been a nationally figure of importance for 15 years, you know
get two for the price of one we were told in the 1992 campaign. She was a leader on
the healthcare proposals. She's taken a [inaudible] issues for a long time. And she leads people
with that, you know 49, 47. What does that mean in practical terms? It means A, she can
win; B, she can lose, and you know—
For that I had to buy the Almanac of American Politics book.
Well, I think democrats would prefer to have a candidate that doesn't have attribute B.
Right.
But there isn't one really, because Barack--the alternatives on offer, Barack Obama, John
Edwards, Bill Richardson are not well enough known that you can guarantee they can't lose
Right.
You know there's a downside risk at each of their cases. You know Hillary Clinton polarizes
people the way her husband did and the way that George W. Bush does. It's a kind of,
call it a civil war in the baby boom generation. Presidents Bush and Clinton were both born
in 1946, the first year of the baby boom generation. They both graduated from high school in 1964,
the year of peak essay SAT scores. And they both happen to have personal characteristics
which people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loath. They are like scratching
your fingernails on the black board to people of the opposite political view. Hillary Clinton
inherits some of that. I think what she and her advisors are going to try and do is to
take you know take off the hard edge to try and raise those favorables, lower the unfavorables.
She's taken to—
Are they succeeding? Do you see any sense or do you see any data, let's put it that
way that people are beginning to warm to her?
Well I say data that says over the last six weeks, she's been running further and she's
been running ahead of the republican candidates in most of the polls against many of them
at least outside the margin of error, but running a little better than on the months
before. I don't think those changes are of huge significance but they at least suggest
that she might be making a little headway in that direction. You know it's tricky when
you've got such high negatives and you're a well known figure. The problem is you know
when people know a hundred things about, thing 101 doesn't change their view very much. When
they know three things about you, thing number four can change their view quite a lot.
Right, Rudy again on the one hand, on the other. On the one hand listen to Pat Buchanan.
"Pro-abortion, antigun, again and again Giuliani strutted up Fifth Avenue in the June Gay Pride
Parade. A Giuliani Presidency would represent repudiation by the Republican Party of the
moral, social and cultural content that once defined it as an institution." On the other
hand, once again the polls, "In the race for the republican presidential nomination, Rudy
Giuliani has taken first place virtually every national poll for two years."
Well, I think Rudy Giuliani enters this race which with a political asset that very few
presidential candidates in our history have ever had. One question you ask about a presidential
candidate is can he or she handle a crisis, can they stand up under the pressure. And
usually you don't know the answer. You look for clues. You ask people from their home
state. You try to find out more about them. With Rudy Giuliani, you don't have to ask
the question, you know the answer. And I think, as you look back at history of the last presidential
candidate that had that asset, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. I think Herbert Hoover had that asset
in 1928 because Americans knew how he had organized the relief after the Belgium, the
food effort in Russia and how he'd handle the Mississippi River floods in 1927, the
year before he run for president. So it's a rare political asset, Hoover and Eisenhower
both won even though they--the base of their parties thought they were a little too liberal,
a little too progressive. That asset served them in good stead in getting nominated and
getting elected. And I think with Rudy Giuliani, for some voters who disagree with his views
on cultural issues, it trumps those concerns. As one woman told the radio talk show host
Hugh Hewitt, "All that stuff doesn't matter if we're attacked. Rudy will keep us safe."
Alright, alright. Quick round here, I'll name a candidate in a word or two, a sentence or
two, you give me the greatest strength and the worst weakness, alright.
Okay.
This is a political password sort of. Hillary Clinton, strength.
Greatest strength, associated with the most successful demo--only successful democratic
president in the last 40 years.
Weakness.
Rubs people the--rubs many people the wrong way.
Alright, Barack Obama, strength.
Strength, an appeal to go beyond the baby boomers cultural civil war, let's be friends
together.
And his weakness?
His weakness is little experience particularly on foreign policy.
John Edwards, strength?
A certain sort of charming eloquence.
Charming eloquence, alright, and weakness?
The weakness is he's never really done anything except being a trial lawyer.
Michael, do you really want to be that vicious?
Yes.
Alright, you want to call a democratic nomination, is it obvious to you right now?
No I don't think it's obvious. Hillary Clinton obviously has a huge lead but if Barack Obama
wins Iowa, I think it's a two candidate race up to February 5th and I think it's possible
that Obama could make, have an upset win.
Alright, but it has to happen in Iowa.
I think, well, Iowa is where the race is closest and I think you know if Hillary wins Iowa
and New Hampshire and this has held out, you know she could clinch the democratic nomination
by January 29th which is about the time and cycle when John F. Kennedy announced he was
running.
Right. Okay, to the republicans, again, just a very brief assessment. Rudy Giuliani, greatest
strength?
Greatest strength, 911, we know that he can handle a crisis, that he keeps his cool and
that he can operate under the greatest pressure.
And worst weakness?
Worst weakness is a personal life that leaves him poorly equipped to be a royal sort of
president.
Mitt Romney, strength?
Strength, business success which I don't think he's explained fully to us. I'd like to learn
more about it.
And weakness?
He's come to some of his conservative positions rather recently.
Fred Thompson, strength?
Fred Thompson's strength is that he's capable of stating a kind of down home language, some
fairly profound political ideas.
And weakness?
Hasn't, got into it late. Does not seem to have good campaign organization.
Last one, John McCain, strength?
Strength courage, he wasn't at Woodstock as he reminds us. He was tied up elsewhere.
Alright. And his greatest weakness?
His greatest weakness I think is his temper. Is he going to lose his temper, go out of
control?
Last question, today the House of Representatives has 233 democrats, 200 republicans, there
are a couple of vacancies. The Senate, 51 democrats, 49 republicans, estimate the compositions
of these two houses after the 2008 election.
Well the republicans are going to lose some seats in the Senate, that's fairly clear from
the line up of seats at where they are. I think you could see, say 55, 45 democrats
in the senate, something on that order. The House elections, if they were held today,
I think the democrats would go up to--from 233 into the 240s which is kind of the sweet
spot in the House. You have enough members so that you can drop a few and still hold
your majority. You don't have too many so that everybody says, hey I don't have to vote
with the leadership, they can get lots of votes. But I'm not sure that the dynamic is
going to be the same in November 2008. I think if some issues like taxes and immigration
come forward as they did in the Massachusetts 5 special elections. Those results could be
different.
Even in the Senate?
Well that would affect Senate seats. I mean you've got, you know statistically, you don't
have enough Senate seats to really make statistical likelihood, you know you could have a situation
where the democrats wins six closest races in the last election and they win six seats.
But the presidency and the house could still go republican.
Yeah, I think—
Despite all the feeling that that everyone, the George W. Bush's approval ratings are
down in the 20s, in spite all of that.
I think the best chance for the republicans of the three is to win the presidency. I think
another factor that we haven't looked at is do voters want to give democrats total control
of the federal government. They weren't faced with that issue in 2006. They were faced with
the issue of do you want the democrats to be a check on George W. Bush.
Right.
They said yes to that question. It doesn't mean they'll necessarily say yes to the other
one. In the House we've got to see a change in dynamic on the issues because the institutional
factors, the money, the majority, K Street favor the democratic to keep their majority.
Right. Michael Barone, thank you very much.
Thank you.
I'm Peter Robinson, for Uncommon Knowledge, thanks for joining us.