For many years, Peter Bronson was the Editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer’s Editorial Page, and he’s won numerous awards for his journalistic excellence. He also authored a number of books, including Behind the Lines, which was the most comprehensive and thorough work dealing with the Cincinnati Riots. He now does a blog known as Always Right, and in his 2009 wrap-up edition called “10 more reasons to distrust the media” he includes as one of those reasons the following:
“Democrats are running for their lives as they face re-election in 2010. So where’s the story about Rep. Steve Driehaus, who belongs in the Political Yearbook under ‘most Likely to be One and Done’? Driehaus represents a conservative, frugal, Westside district that is so tight with a dollar, the most popular bank is a mattress with a zipper. The district is famously Republican and rebellious against big government. And look who represents them now, thanks to Obama’s coattails: A guy who voted for socialist health care and still defends a Stimulus Bill that put us nearly a trillion deeper in debt, with no visible benefit to anyone who is not a union public employee. If the phrase ‘deer in the headlights’ had not existed, it would have to be invented to describe him at his first town hall, faced by angry voters. Driehaus is toast. If he were a Republican, we’d be reading about it.”
Peter Bronson is local; what do the political pundits in Washington think? Well, Roll Call, which covers Capitol Hill, last month listed Steve Driehaus as “one of the top 10 most vulnerable incumbents.” Stuart Rothenberg in Real Clear Politics includes our race in “Rothenberg’s Dangerous Dozen House Seats For 2010.” And since fundraising is important in politics (being the mother’s milk and all that) Open Secrets Capital Eye Blog compared how much Congressional challengers (like me) had cash-on-hand compared with incumbents (like Driehaus) in the top twelve House races in the country. Six of the twelve challengers had 20-40% as compared to the incumbent, two had 40-60%, three had 61%, and we had 90.5%! Pretty good I’d say.
And just two days ago (Monday, January 4th), Congressional Quarterly Politics upgraded our race from “leans Democrat” to “Toss-up.” (I’d like to think that our odds are much better than that, but the election is ten months away, and a lot can happen over that length of time, both good and bad, so I guess being considered a “Toss-up”, at least as a challenger, is good.)
In the final analysis, the political pundits here at home, and in Washington, won’t decide who represents our Congressional District next time around, the voters will. And I believe they will make that decision based upon who best represents their point of view on the major issues facing our country. Can we best get our economy moving again by expanding government, raising taxes and redistributing wealth, or should we trust the hard-working taxpayers to keep more of their own money (by lowering taxes) and spending and investing that money more wisely and efficiently than the government, thus energizing the economy and creating jobs? Should the government essentially take over 1/6th of the economy (healthcare) or should common-sense, market-based reforms be made to provide more Americans with quality, affordable healthcare? Are Americans safer by closing Guantanamo Bay, bringing dangerous terrorists to America to be held or tried in American civilian courts (with Miranda rights and all the rest) and inconveniencing more and more innocent Americans at airports while refusing (because of political correctness) to even name our enemy, or should we be serious about fighting Jihadist Terrorism.
These are serious times, and the people of this district deserve better representation on these issues than they have been receiving – for the last year.