90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Monday, October 1, 2012

Mickey Edwards Calls On Lawmakers To ‘Stop Fighting, Start Fixing’

Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. (Photo: Gia Regan)

Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards is trying to do what never seems to happen in Washington: work with the opposite party to get things done.

He founded the organization, No Labels, to urge lawmakers to “Stop Fighting, Start Fixing.”

Edwards represented an Oklahoma district for 16 years and partisanship has only intensified since then.

“It’s as though you went to see a shrink because you were having trouble at home,” he told Here & Now‘s Robin Young, “And the shrink said, ‘Why don’t the two of you sit in seperate couches facing in different directions watching different TVs and never talk to each other.”

He says it’s time to take away the power the political parties hold over primaries, redistricting and what bills get voted on and how lawmakers vote on those bill.

Edwards is author of “The Parties Versus The People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans,” excerpted below.

Former Congressman Mickey Edwards offers some fixes to partisanship in his new book “The Parties Versus The People.” One of them would drastically reduce the role of money in politics. One is overturning the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision but beyond that he has some other ideas.

Book Excerpt: ‘The Parties Versus The People’

By: Mickey Edwards


Year after year, through nearly two decades and ten national elections, American voters have grown angrier and more frustrated with a government that they theoretically control. After all, they are citizens, not subjects, and they live in a democracy. The presidents and the members of Congress with whom they are so disappointed are the very men and women they themselves have chosen. Yet when national elections are held, these voters go to the polls and repeatedly cast their votes for “something different,” for “change,” for what golfers call a “mulligan,” a do-over. A government that once met, and solved, enormous challenges, overcoming the inevitable disagreements between competing philosophies, no longer does so. Differences have hardened into polarization, and simple party identification has been overtaken by a rigid partisanship. Presidents, governors, and state legislators engage actively in partisan combat, but the Congress, where the problem is worst and the effects most damaging, has become utterly dysfunctional, unable to come together on almost any issue of national importance. There are many causes for this evolution, but at its root the problem is systemic. As I will show in these pages, we have been unable to overcome the effects of these changes because we conduct our elections, and our leaders attempt to govern, in a political system that makes common effort almost impossible to achieve.

Voters are resilient: like Charlie Brown, determined to kick his football knowing full well that Lucy will probably once again pull it away, they persist in trying to fix a government that seems to now be intractably, and dangerously, unable to come to agreement on almost anything. Some years voters hand power to Democrats and some years they elect Republicans; they try candidates who have long and impressive business or government resumes, or they may choose candidates who substitute youth, dynamism, or “new ideas” for the experience they lack. But whichever choice the voters make, our government no longer seems to work as it once did. One group of elected leaders may adopt policies that another group might not have enacted, federal spending may go up or down, taxes may rise or fall, and our national budget priorities may change, but beneath it all American government today functions not as a collective enterprise of citizens working together to solve our common problems, but as a never-ending battle between two warring tribes.

The damage is greatest in the Congress, which, with 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate, requires a degree of good faith cooperation and compromise that no longer exists. But it is also true in the White House where, no matter who is president, teams of legislative and political advisers map political strategies to attack opponents rather than seek common ground across party lines. And it is true as well among the governors and legislators in the states, with minority party members sometimes fleeing their states altogether to prevent legislative action because neither party is able or willing to hammer out necessary compromise. This is not a problem that can be laid at the feet of one political party or one set of public officials; it is the result of a fundamental flaw in the way we conduct our elections and in the way those who are elected must subsequently govern. That flaw — the attempt to govern a diverse nation with a system based on a partisan war for control — has grown steadily worse in recent decades. In the world of the twenty-first century, it has worsened to a degree that seriously threatens our system of self-government.

I first presented the argument I will make here in an annual “big ideas” issue of the Atlantic; it was the magazine’s editors who gave that article the title “How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans.” Too often our elected leaders seem to think of themselves not as trustees for America’s future but as members of a political club whose principal obligation is to defeat other Americans who do not share an allegiance to the same club. As a result, after every election we discover yet again that our political “leaders” don’t lead; they quarrel, slinging verbal and legislative missiles at each other and threatening to punish any deserters who cross over to the other side. What we thought was a democratic government made up of leaders committed to the national good has turned into a new form of contact sport, an attempt to score more points than the other team by any means possible. Meanwhile, our bridges grow old and collapse, our banks and investment houses pursue policies that cripple our economy, and we become ever more dependent on Chinese money and Middle Eastern oil.

This persistent partisan dysfunction has been analyzed, dissected, hashed, and rehashed for more than a decade, and countless books, articles, blogs, and broadcasts have assessed blame and offered prescriptions. All of them are wrong. They blame the people we elect

(“Where are all the leaders?”) or the people who elect them (too apathetic, too profligate, too penurious), the money that is spent on political campaigns (which is, in fact, a significant part of the problem but not the root of it), the media, the appalling lack of civics education in our public and private primary and secondary schools and in our universities, and the failure to teach critical thinking. Each of those things is a contributing factor, but each one ignores the cancer at the heart of our democracy.

Most political commentators today (except those who themselves fuel the partisan wars) complain endlessly about the polarization that has become evident in the American political system, and there is considerable evidence that Americans have tended in recent years to sort themselves into communities of like-minded souls. Conservatives dominate some regions of the country, liberals others. In many cases, we and our friends tend to read the same opinion articles, vote similarly, and seldom engage in serious conversation with people whose political views differ from our own. But it is not this political segregation that is driving the dysfunction in Washington. For one thing, it is wrong to conclude that those politically segregated groups are necessarily extreme. Even a separateness that inhibits serious consideration of divergent viewpoints does not mean that the voters within these camps are mindlessly hostile to alternatives or compromise. As University of Chicago professor Geoffrey Stone has pointed out, 40 to 45 percent of Americans “are more or less moderate in their views.” The nation’s leading political pollster, Andy Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, has made a similar point, noting that while both major parties contain significant numbers of philosophical hard-liners, the vast majority of voters are more moderate (and thus, one might suppose, amenable to compromises that might break through the partisan gridlock).

As Stone told the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2011, “Understanding polarization requires a closer look at how Congress is constituted. In 1970, 47 percent of the members of the U.S. Senate were regarded as moderate. Today, that figure is 5 percent, and it is even lower in the House of Representatives. The decline of moderate views in Congress suggests a kind of dysfunction: a dramatic gap between the views and attitudes of the American people and the commonalities and differences that exist among our citizens, on the one hand, and what we wind up with in our elected representatives, on the other. Something is going wrong in our politics.”

Precisely. The dysfunction that has almost paralyzed our federal government has its roots not in the people, not in any fundamental flaw in our constitutional processes, but in the political party framework through which our elected officials gain their offices and within which they govern.

It is not my goal, therefore, to take the easy path of simply blaming “polarization,” the most common description of the problems that plague our political life. To the extent that to be polarized is to inhabit the extreme reaches of a viewpoint, it is clear that the greater the degree of polarization — the more voters there are on the far right and the far left — the harder it will be to come together in the national interest. Zealots do not compromise. But most experts agree with Kohut and Stone that while a number of Americans reside on the political fringe, a great many more do not. It should be relatively simple to say to those who do, “Howl at the moon if you wish … but in the meantime the rest of us will govern the country.” But if such a large voting population is amenable to a search for common ground, why is that common ground so hard to reach? It’s because the problem is not the extent of polarization but the extent of partisanship, and the two are not the same thing. As I will argue in this book, it is the party system — Democrats against Republicans, not liberals against conservatives — that is at the heart of our political mess.

Consider the important issues with which the nation has grappled just since the beginning of the Obama presidency. When the Obama administration proposed to address deteriorating conditions in the economy by an infusion of federal spending, virtually no Democrats found the proposal unacceptable and virtually no Republicans found it acceptable. When Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts drafted a plan to increase oversight of financial institutions, Republicans were united on one side, Democrats on the other. Plans to reframe the government’s role in health care pitted a solid phalanx of Republicans against an equally cohesive army of Democrats. Budget deliberations fell apart because Democrats were almost uniformly lined up in supporting higher tax rates for citizens who earn more than $250,000 annually per couple and Republicans were equally unified on the other side. The same thing happened with consideration of the president’s nominations for seats on the Supreme Court. In a sane world, in which the men and women we elect to Congress apply their own research and intelligence to the important decisions that confront them, we would expect some number of Republicans to vote with Democrats and some Democrats to line up with Republicans. But on the big issues, the ones that matter most, solid blocs face other solid blocs, unmovable, unflinching in their loyalty to the party “team.” And that is because of the framework within which our politics unfolds. As we will see, party leaders control important committee assignments, provide or withhold money for reelection campaigns, and advance or block team members’ legislative priorities; in our political system, one often pays a significant price for exercising independent judgment.

This book is not about the symptoms of our dysfunction but about the system in which our government functions. A brief analogy: baseball teams that play in extraspacious stadiums, with great distances between home plate and the outfield walls, consciously develop strategies to accommodate that reality. They forgo trying to build teams that are dependent on home-run hitters and instead develop lineups made up of players who are adept at hitting singles and stealing bases; these teams also don’t feel the need to find pitchers who are good at inducing opposing batters to hit ground balls because most fly balls are likely to remain in the ballpark. On the other hand, teams that play in smaller stadiums, where home runs are easier to hit, fill their lineups with power hitters; but because visiting teams likewise will find it easier to hit home runs, the small-stadium team will try to sign pitchers who are adept at inducing opposing batters to hit ground balls. In other words, the system within which one plays affects the outcome. That’s true in politics, too. If the game of government rewards intransigence and punishes compromise, we shouldn’t be surprised if we get a lot of intransigence and not much compromise. Incentives work: if the greatest incentives are to behave badly, we will get bad behavior. If our government continues to fail us — and it will — then we need to change the incentives, change the architecture of the field on which we play.

In the world of political science, many academics have argued that strong political parties, dominated by strong party leaders, are essential to democratic governance. As long ago as the 1950s, a number of prominent voices within the American Political Science Association were urging greater party homogeneity based on the belief that efficiency and accountability — the power to enact one’s preferences and the corresponding ability of voters to know who to blame if things didn’t work out — are the principal requirements of a governing system. This is, in fact, a transposition to America of European- style parliamentary systems, in which voters, in essence, elect ideologies, not representatives, and it is a convenient formula, subject to the easy measurements that the academic world requires. But it leaves little room for legislators to serve as the voice of those who have elected them (thus ignoring the Founders’ clear intention that members of Congress be familiar with the interests of the voters they represent and that the voters likewise be familiar with the candidates who seek their votes). The parliamentary model leaves little room for the fair interplay of competing interests. In parliamentary systems, voters choose to hand great power to a single political faction, with the voters’ only recourse being the periodic ability to remove that faction from power; the American model of representative democracy, which is very different, is designed to give voice to a multiplicity of factions and to allow for competing views to be weighed, often resulting in compromises designed to balance interests. It is precisely for that reason that the rigid partisanship which today inhibits compromise is so destructive.

In one sense the party solidarity that has developed in recent years differs from the model that many political scientists advocated: they equated party strength with strong party leaders who would dictate to their followers what was expected of them and use various carrot-and-stick tools to ensure compliance. Today’s party strength is bottom-up: although during the Newt Gingrich Speakership — the one that most closely followed the blueprint the academics desired — the Speaker was a bully and called the shots, in today’s Congress, considerably more power rests with the party caucus. Party leaders may or may not prevail in determining who will run under the party label; instead, party activists will make that decision. Many academics argue that parties today are weak, but that is because they equate “party” with “party leader.” These are different things. Party leaders may be strong (Gingrich) or constrained (current Speaker John Boehner), but the ability of party primaries, party-controlled redistricting, and caucus-enforced party solidarity to shape the political landscape is indisputable.

What follows in this book is a different way of looking at things. It’s about etiology, not observable effect. I will not shock anybody with my assertion that our political system is broken, at times seemingly beyond repair. That the system is annoyingly unresponsive to our frustrations, and that our leaders often seem unwilling to try very hard to address the nation’s problems (and appear incapable of doing so even when they do try), seem self-evident. Political columnist Mary Curtis has written that the people want their representatives “to grow up … they wish leaders would spend as much time figuring out how to solve the country’s problems as they do plotting to be king of the playground.” Except in times of national emergency — and not always then — common effort seems beyond us. The essentials of a pluralistic democracy — reasoned debate and a probing examination of policy options — have been replaced by unreasoned and uncivil squabbles.

In this book I intend to look at why the people we elect spend so much time “plotting to be king of the playground.” It’s not because they’re stupid or uncaring — it’s because of the field on which they play and the rules that govern the game. We have engendered a political system in which the necessary and inevitable “interest-based factions” the Founders anticipated, understood, and worried about have been supplanted by permanent factions whose primary focus is on gaining and retaining political power.

In the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued for ratification of the Constitution largely on the grounds that it would provide a bulwark against the fractious spirit that had “tainted” the previous workings of government. He described the evil against which he hoped to inoculate the new government as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest” who would be adverse to “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” It is a perfect description of the political parties that have come to dominate the politics of the twenty-first century.

It is my aim in this book to describe how to end the parties’ control over the process by which we govern ourselves. My goal is not necessarily to create a more moderate or more centrist Congress, though that might be one of the end results of the reforms I propose, and this might actually be a more accurate reflection of the electorate. At the same time, changing our system to guarantee that neither women nor African-Americans would be denied the right to participate in the election process was not the work of centrists; it was a radical reform. So were the efforts to mandate that workers be paid a living wage. I am not proposing a system that would drive serious reform out of the discussion.

Nor is this book about increasing voter turnout, though that, too, might result from the reforms I propose. Professor Alan Abramowitz of Emory University convincingly argues, with the support of considerable research, that among “engaged” voters — voters who pay attention and participate — those who prefer Republicans are farther to the right than they used to be, and those who favor Democrats are farther to the left than in the past. Abramowitz also finds that among those who are most engaged, more than half identify

strongly with a specific political party. Although he does not make this point, clearly it is those “engaged” voters who participate in our current system of closed party primaries; and if those primaries determine our available choices in the November elections, we will thus likely have more conservative, or more liberal, elected officials than if we can increase the number of choices available to the voters — and thereby make participation more attractive to voters who prefer neither extreme. That, not a mere increase in the number of voters, should be the goal.

Finally, I am not objecting to the fact that the Congress does not move more swiftly than it does nor that it does not pass more legislation. Peter Baker of the New York Times, referring to what he called a “standstill nation,” wrote that “it’s useful to remember that the founders devised the system to be difficult, dividing power between states and the federal government, then further dividing the federal government into three branches, then further dividing the legislative branch into two houses. The idea, James Madison wrote, was to keep factions from gaining too much power … and to be sure, gridlock is in the eyes of the beholder … one person’s obstructionism is another’s principled opposition.” When a government is contemplating taking more from its citizens in taxes, or eliminating its support for the suffering, or sending its citizens to war, or permitting police to track a citizen’s every movement without a search warrant or an assertion of “probable cause,” moving too speedily or doing too much can pose a great danger; taking time for thoughtful deliberation is an indispensable virtue. Vigorous conflict over competing values, principles, and policies is a strength, not a weakness, of democracy. This book is not about avoiding dissent but about avoiding conflict that is based on party rather than principle.

My aim is to open up the process to give American voters more choice and more voice, and to eliminate the partisan forces that limit options and dilute representation. I wish to restore democracy to our democracy. That is not as hard a task as it may seem: a few simple changes are all that’s required. In these pages I will describe what those changes are and how to make them happen.

Author’s original footnotes have been omitted from this excerpt.

Excerpted from The Parties Versus the People by Mickey Edwards. Copyright 2012 by Mickey Edwards. Excerpted by permission of Yale University Press.

Guest:


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Nathan Paul

    Another Former Senator SUDDENLY non-partisan and level-headed. Thanks, but not thanks. You “found God in Prison.” Great.

    ~ paul

  • Sean

    Refreshing thoughts and opinions.  I agree wholeheartedly, but how do we get these changes in place rather than just discussing them.  

  • Dawn

    Open primaries should be a law for ALL states–not just a few.  I was a long time Democrat who is now an Indepdent from PA.  We have a closed primary here and it is frustrtating that Independents cannot vote in a primary without belonging to a party.  I’m not very enthused on either of the major parties, and with this closed primary, there is a less likely chance of any third party candidates are on the ballots.

  • Stford1

    here is my suggetstion for the redistricting.
    draw a line from the dome of the state house in each state due north then go around clock wise till you hit the number for the district  so if each district has 800000 people then that  when you stop and start the next district.
    it is fair and non partisan.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ezknight Ephriam Zachary Knight

      That seems like a strange way of implementing the “shortest line” redistricting process. In that process, you evenly divide the state in two. Then continue to evenly divide each segment until you get the necessary number of districts. 

  • Sarah Thorm

    The Senator talks about insulting the voters.  Well anyone who has lost an election to a “name” will tell you that voters are insulting.  I ran against the cousin of a local judge and after I lost we ran a poll and 20% of the voters “thought” they were voting for the sitting judge. 

  • Kathy

    Isn’t this all really a function of how extreme the Republican party has become? Both in terms of its rejection of any role for government in anything other than defense, but also in its firm belief that “The Democrat Party” (sic) is un-American?

    • Bi0008

       It’s both parties

      • Kathy

        That’s a great meme, but it’s just enabling the Republicans. If Obama has a single great flaw it’s been trying to compromise with them. How much of the stimulus was frittered away on tax cuts? How many compromises did he make on the health care bill? And in the end he got nothing.

        • Gus G.

          You are part of the problem; unyielding blind loyalty to your party. 

  • Wmjbaierl

    Framers debated outlawing “factions” but thought they wouldn’t survive beyond puriant interests. Guess they weren’t perfect. Now these cliques undermine separation of powers and make sure ‘good of the people’ takes a backseat to ‘good of the party’. Bill in Pittsburgh

  • Carol Morton

    Best suggestions I’ve heard in years!  Let’s get started implementing right now!!
     

  • Rick

    Voting for the “person not the party” is the WORST way to vote. It is like trying to buy a car a piece at a time from among all the manufacturers. The party sets the policies, the platform, the direction and the tone and supplies the infrastructure. The candidate is only the steering wheel. 

    • Jordan Riak

      So if a car is an obvious lemon, you’d buy it based on the particular manufacturer it came from?

  • GKoenig

    I agree that what we face is a systemic problem, not necessarily one of personalities.  But I think the causes lie much deeper that what the author proposes.  In 1790 if you take the census and divide by members of congress (just the House, at the moment), each representative represented about 60,000 people.  Of course only white male property owners could vote at the time, so running for re-election and communicating with your district involved communicating with vastly fewer people.  Granted, the telegraph and typewriter hadn’t even been invented yet, so hand written letters were the only form of communication.
    Fast forward to now.  The US has 314 million people.  There are 435 members in the House (same number as there were in 1911).  Divide that out (no math, just arithmetic) and you get just short of 3/4 of a million people per representative!  This creates an entirely different situation.  With that many constituents, no representative can run for re-election by knocking on doors.  No representative can even read his or her own mail!  Congressional offices are constantly flooded with masses of messages via Email, fax, phone calls, etc.  Staffers are employed to simply scan for 3 things:  Is the writer in the district, what’s the issue, and are they for or against it?  So you see, practically all nuances of communication with constituents have been extinguished.
    When running for re-election, campaign rhetoric is often reduced to simple ‘for and against’ statements, because there just isn’t time to go into the complexity that the issues truly deserve when you’re trying to reach hundreds of thousands of voters.  This black & white thinking pervades the entire system, helping to quash more reasoned debate.
    Meanwhile, we’ve built multi-national corporations, which we patronize for our goods and services.  The amount of money, we the public funnel into these institutions is beyond concept for most of us.  And yet as we make our purchasing decisions in this way, we are actually participating in a different kind of ‘democracy’ which has more of a ‘one dollar, one vote’ theme.  So, the more we spend on them, the more they have to take to Capitol Hill to push for government action in their favor.  Thus, we are working against ourselves, in a sense.
    Our representatives need those large sums of money (spent on them by PACs, etc., funded by large corporate interests) because that’s what it takes to campaign or communicate with the citizens in each district.  So-called “mass media” must be used because there simply isn’t time for anything else.  And these means have a very high price tag.
    Notice that I haven’t even mentioned political parties yet.  There could be 2 or 6 or whatever parties, and what I’ve said here wouldn’t change one bit.
    So, what’s the solution?  There is no one solution.  In the long run, we are too large a nation to run a democracy as spelled out in the constitution.  The principles are sound, ok.  But the structure is overwhelmed with population and complexity and it’s too late to put the genie back into the bottle.  As it is we are evolving in two directions.  One is decentralization.  As the federal government gets more and more gridlocked, the more other institutions, for better or worse, are taking over.  State governments are one, but that merely scratches the surface.  Then there is the issue of the increasing diversity of our population.  I don’t just mean white, hispanic, black, native peoples, etc.  I mean that within each of the major racial or religious categories, we live in an age of more and more options, choices, lifestyles.  An ‘one size fits all’ federal government is just not capable of doing the job.  Consider that disruptive innovation is already at work.  That means that very small, seemingly insignificant groups, non-profits, etc. are forming as we speak. They cannot completely replace the federal government, but they can (and they are) starting to take over some of the functions in our society that have previously been entrusted to that government.

  • DocTin

    I agree w/ Mr. Edwards.  I am an independent, former Okie and now a 27-year resident in Arizona.  I was politically active in both States.  I have know both Govern0r’s Edwards, Bellmon and Bartlett.  I believe it is time for a multi-party america, maybe even a Parlimentary system, where coaliations and mediation rule.

  • jefe68

    I agree with Mr. Edwards, on most points. However he’s not really fully being truthful about how the British parliament works. The party that has the most seats is the one in power, and the back bench members of the opposition do not have the same level of power. All the committees are pretty much staked by the winning party. So if Labor wins they call the shots.

    I doubt his ideas will ever come to see the light of day. The Newt Gingrich’s of the world have won, both parties are now dug in. The next crisis brought to by the corporatist government we now endure, will be these rubes driving our nation over the fiscal cliff. Which will drive this country into another deep recession. Which if Obama wins would be just what the GOP wants.

  • uknowbob

    Today I heard the show and found it fascinating and enlightening.  Good ideas and dicussion.  Here’s my 2 cents:

    Cent 1: I hear both parties want to maintain political power.  What if we voters dilute that “power” by imposing term limits.  The pres. has them but not congress.  Since congress is supposed to represent us locals, they should be limited in the number of years they can serve to encourage new ideas and represent the changing nature of their constituencies.  Citizens deserve to be represented by competent, thoughtful legislators, not career politicians.  Think about that; there is a difference.  And no snoozing on the job.

    Cent 2: Stop lobbying entirely.  Make it illegal for legislators to accept money from anyone promoting anything.  Contributions may be made to election campaigns but that’s all.  Cap election contributions at 1K$ per person or entity; that’s enough.  Raise salaries if we must to insure drawing the best minds to the positions.  Too many laws are passed to satisfy the highest bidders instead of creating law to promote the well being of the citizenry.

    Every election cycle we hear of the dissatisfaction of the citizens.  Until the vast majority of citizens educate themselves about the powers that we hold, and demand “real” change we will continue to be held at the mercy of special interests and big money by career politicians who only want to enrich themselves.

  • Alex Ashlock, Here and Now

    Thanks for all the comments on our interview with Mickey Edwards. It started a good healthy debate, which is one of things Mickey enjoys.  

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

April 22 Comment

What Do We Have To Teach Plato?

Philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein discusses her new book "Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away."

April 22 21 Comments

Children’s Literature: Apartheid Or Just A General Lack of Color?

African-American children's book authors Walter Dean Myers and his son Christopher Myers weigh in.

April 21 Comment

Remembering Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter

We remember the boxing champion, who was twice wrongly convicted of murder, with his longtime friend and defender.

April 21 2 Comments

‘Wait Wait’ Host Peter Sagal Runs Boston Marathon As Guide

For the second year in a row, the host of NPR's "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me" is running with a legally blind athlete.