Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Presidential Debate #1: Why the analysts are wrong!
The Virginian ^ | 10/6/2012 | Moneyrunner

Posted on 10/06/2012 6:37:22 PM PDT by moneyrunner

There is an accepted wisdom about the first Presidential debate between Obama and Romney. I didn’t watch it live. I rarely watch debates or conventions because I find these events almost painful to watch. I don’t need to watch two people debate to find out who’s the candidate that most closely reflects my values. There are other, better ways of doing that. I don’t need to hear dozens of people give carefully scripted speeches to form an opinion of parties and candidates. It’s like watching non-stop commercials. Who wants to subject themselves to that?

The morning after the debate I went to the Internet and found out that Romney had wiped the floor with Obama who, according to many both Right and Left, mostly wasn’t there. The Left was so shocked that they created theories … from drugs, to altitude to secret handkerchiefs to explain their champion’s loss. Romney partisans applauded him for finally coming out of his shell, for his energy, for his enthusiasm, for his good natured attitude, for a taking the fight to Obama, for finally showing us what he could do.

Wow!!! I thought to myself, I have to see this. My wife recorded the debate and so I was able to view it in its entirety. I clicked the "play" button and prepared to be entertained. As time went on I wondered what people were seeing that I was not. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Romney supporter. I intend to vote for him. I look forward to an economic recovery unhampered by the job killing, economy destroying, crony-socialist policies of the Obama administration. I think Romney is honest, smart, clean and able to allow America to escape from the mire we’re in.

But … and here’s a BIG but ... the people I saw on that stage were the same people I had seen any number of times leading up to the debate. The same people acting pretty much the same way and saying many of the same things they have been saying all this election cycle. Except now they were saying them to each other’s faces.

I didn’t get it. Obama was not on drugs or suffering from altitude sickness, he was the same Obama we had seen many times before. Obama is a declaimer, not a debater. Give him a speechwriter and a TelePrompTer and he’ll rabble rouse with the best of them. Speaking improvisationally, he gaffe prone ("You didn't build that") and literally gets lost in his sentences. This is evident in his press conferences in which he filibusters the compliant White House press corps in order to run out the clock from even the puff ball questions he gets asked. He has a supply of talking points and he repeats them during his public appearances. His comfort zone is limited to those talking points and he will not get beyond them. His debate demeanor is amused contempt, an expression he showed during the debate with Romney.

Perhaps the commentators have been watching too much of the press coverage of this campaign. The typical TV news coverage starts by telling us that the polls show the race is over and the election is superfluous. This is followed by a clip, a few seconds in length, typically of Obama giving a speech to students at East Cupcake Junior College promising them all free education and top executive positions after graduation, even the Theater Arts majors. This is followed by Andrea Mitchell telling us that Romney’s war on women intensified as he refused to denounce Rush Limbaugh as the anti-Christ, and that martyred Sandra Fluke still has to pay for her own birth control. In a related development Romney ignored a demand by the increasingly influential Nuns for Choice that priests perform abortions on their altars after the Mass. And did you know Romney was a Mormon?

For some reason, I thought that the talking heads had a better, more realistic view of the candidates than the farmer in Kansas or this guy analyzing the candidates via a computer screen. I thought that because they have the opportunity to see them up close and personal they knew their strengths and weaknesses. I thought that was their job. Apparently I was wrong.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012debates; debates; obama

1 posted on 10/06/2012 6:37:24 PM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Not getting the analysis from someone who didn’t bother to watch it?

Pray for America


2 posted on 10/06/2012 6:41:11 PM PDT by bray (If you vote for a communist what does that make you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

He watched it, just not real time.

And I pretty much agree with his position which I will summarize as follows:

Obama did not have a bad night. He did as good as would be expected in a debate where notes and teleprompters are banned. He isn’t very good and never has been when he has to write his own script on the fly.

Bottom line, IMHO, we will see the same thing in debates 2 and 3.


3 posted on 10/06/2012 6:53:53 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
… and here’s a BIG but ...

Here is a big but.

Apropos of nothing...

obama, Biden, and Holder are in Cairo when their car breaks down. They go to a used car dealer, but all the have is $200. The dealer says for $200 all I have is this camel. But he is completely trained. He stops at red lights and goes on green. So they ride off on the camel and sure enough, he stops at the first red light. At the next red light a car full of Egyptians pulls up. One of them says "Look at the 3 a$$holes on that camel". obama, Biden, and Holder got off to look, the light changed to green, the camel took off, and they never saw that camel again.

4 posted on 10/06/2012 6:57:54 PM PDT by bigheadfred (wowza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live.

I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.


5 posted on 10/06/2012 6:58:28 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I think that is a pretty good summary. If Obama is off the prompter you have to drink plenty of the Kool-aid to believe he is articulate. The talking heads believe their own propoganda; if he had been up against McCain again he probably wouldn’t have looked so bad.


6 posted on 10/06/2012 6:58:46 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I find these events almost painful to watch.

I find them excruciating. I can only watch the recap the next day, and the talking-head analysis.
7 posted on 10/06/2012 7:02:21 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I agree with him to an extent.

I think the Obama team walked Romney.

This is a media narrative setup from the beginning. Obama is weakest on the economy, and they knew that it would be nearly impossible for Obama to do well in this debate. It's no accident that Obama didn't mention the 47% comment, Bain, or tax returns. They're saving those for the town hall.

Obama is going to draw an imaginary line with him arm down the middle of the audience, and say that that half of the room represents the people who Romney considers victims and doesn't care about. Then he'll bring up Bain and Cayman tax shelters, and go right at the live audience with every attack he's got.

8 posted on 10/06/2012 7:02:21 PM PDT by GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions anonymus by the ATF***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
Obama did not have a bad night. He did as good as would be expected in a debate where notes and teleprompters are banned.

Correct. That was the genuine Obama of which conservatives have been aware for years.
9 posted on 10/06/2012 7:10:48 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
"I wondered what people were seeing that I was not. ...the people I saw on that stage were the same people I had seen any number of times leading up to the debate. I didn’t get it."

I actually understand where this guy's coming from.

I initially listened to the debate live on radio while I followed the FR thread. As I listened, it was abundantly clear to me that Romney was wiping the floor with Obama. I finally watched a replay of the debate on C-SPAN.com today, and I was actually less impressed with Romney's beat down, than I was just listening to it.

I think it had a lot to do with simple visuals. Obama didn't come off nearly as bad visually, as he did in pure audio. Yeah, he looked like he was tired, worn out, or something, but I honestly thought it was an acceptable performance, visually speaking.

If you want to really get the full impact of what Romney did to Obama in the first debate, I highly suggest listening to the full 90 minutes with audio only. It was devastating.

10 posted on 10/06/2012 7:11:36 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I find these events almost painful to watch.

I felt the same way but something told me to stick around and watch it. I'm glad I did because when I saw Obama shush Lerher with his forefinger I knew BJ was a goner.

11 posted on 10/06/2012 7:12:11 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Exactly the read I got from it too.

Pray for America


12 posted on 10/06/2012 7:17:00 PM PDT by bray (If you vote for a communist what does that make you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bray

I stopped reading after “Who wants to subject themselves to that?” The answer was me.


13 posted on 10/06/2012 7:21:01 PM PDT by FryingPan101 (2016 looms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bray

bray, I watched it. In fact I watched it twice. The point I’m making, in case you missed it, is that Obama was doing his best in an unscripted environment. It’s just that his best isn’t very good. Romney was good, but Romney is always good. You don’t head a company Like Bain and not be smart, and a good presenter. I tried to think why people thought Romney was better than they expected and Obama was worse. The only reason I could come up with is that they got their information from the MSM because Obama is presented as “almost Godlike” and Romney is depicted as stiff and unappealing. So when you see them side-by-side and neither one lives up (or down) to expectations, you get the reaction that we see to the first debate.
The problem for Obama is that he’s not going to get any smarter in the next few weeks.


14 posted on 10/06/2012 7:39:39 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I agree. Obama is not going to get any smarter in the next few weeks. Watch out for some kind of scandal to erupt to distract the people from the debates.


15 posted on 10/06/2012 7:42:04 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

>> I didn’t get it.

And I don’t “get” your self-absorbed drivel.

We’re even, then.


16 posted on 10/06/2012 7:43:22 PM PDT by Nervous Tick ("You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
For some reason, I thought that the talking heads had a better, more realistic view of the candidates than the farmer in Kansas or this guy analyzing the candidates via a computer screen.

THAT statement should have been the very first sentence.

It shows the nonsensical starting point and everything that followed.

It would have saved me and everyone else a lot of time.

17 posted on 10/06/2012 7:48:28 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I tried to think why people thought Romney was better than they expected and Obama was worse.

I'm one of them. I figured Romney would try to be a "gentleman" and Obama would aggressively lie his ass off, resulting in a tie more or less. Thankfully, I was wrong.

18 posted on 10/06/2012 7:48:57 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Jed said, And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live. I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.

The fact is that I don't need to watch a debate or a convention to decide who to vote for. There are a whole lot of sources these days so I don't need to listen to people pander to me. Same reason I don't take robocalls. If you think it's your patriotic duty to do so, knock yourself out. I knew I was going to vote for Romney before he was nominated because I was going to vote for anyone but Obama. I wrote this simply to point out that neither Romney nor Obama surprised me, and was surprised that so many others were surprised.

19 posted on 10/06/2012 7:51:28 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Jed said, And when he finally did watch it belatedly, he had the benefit of having read and watched the opinions of those who formed their opinions the hard way, in real time, live. I don’t have much respect for those who think they’re above the fray, too cool to be bothered.

The fact is that I don't need to watch a debate or a convention to decide who to vote for. There are a whole lot of sources these days so I don't need to listen to people pander to me. Same reason I don't take robocalls. If you think it's your patriotic duty to do so, knock yourself out. I knew I was going to vote for Romney before he was nominated because I was going to vote for anyone but Obama. I wrote this simply to point out that neither Romney nor Obama surprised me, and was surprised that so many others were surprised.

20 posted on 10/06/2012 7:52:43 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
If you want to really get the full impact of what Romney did to Obama in the first debate, I highly suggest listening to the full 90 minutes with audio only. It was devastating.

Interesting point.

21 posted on 10/06/2012 7:54:39 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick
And I don’t “get” your self-absorbed drivel.

I didn't invite your comment. Get off my thread.

22 posted on 10/06/2012 8:00:30 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FryingPan101
The answer was me.

Well, you were joined by 60 million others so you had a lot of company. I Tivo this sort of thing just in case there is something I want to catch afterward.

23 posted on 10/06/2012 8:04:38 PM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
"I didn't invite your comment." I you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"Get off my thread." Your thread? Who in the Hell do you think you are to order someone off Jim Robinson's forum?

24 posted on 10/06/2012 8:44:08 PM PDT by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
I watched the debate in a very similar manner. Likewise, i did not watch in real time. Only I started reading about it an hour after it was over. Then I watched the recorded speech.

The debates are not a sports event for me, they are deadly serious. We must win this election or we may never have another chance. So I find them painful to watch.

I had the same reaction as money runner. Obama didn't seem any worse than the "stupidly" guy, the "corpseman" guy, or the guy who mocked Ryan for bringing a copy of Obamacare legislation to a meeting about Obamacare. Obama was Obama.

The only thing that was perplexed me was the truly odd mannerism he had, looking down and sort of leaning away from Romney. It reminded me of a little girl who is trying to avoid the advances of a little boy. Sort of coy. Weird. "Importune me no more."

25 posted on 10/06/2012 8:47:29 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner; Jedidah; bray
On returning from church late one Sunday morning president Calvin Coolidge was accosted by a newspaper reporter who asked, "what was the sermon about?" "Sin," replied the notoriously laconic president. The reporter persisted, "what did he say about it?" "He was against it."

When I read,

"I don’t need to watch two people debate to find out who’s the candidate that most closely reflects my values"

I thought, Calvin Coolidge did not need to actually go to the church and sit through the sermon to learn the preacher's values about sin. That is not the entire point of attending a sermon, that is not the point of worshiping, or, for that matter, the point of viewing a presidential debate in real time.

I felt a little bit put off by the insinuation that I have a shallow apprehension of the issues and the parties for which I must compensate by watching the debates. That is a little bit like saying that I am naïve about sin. I watch the debates for many reasons.

I admit that the first reason is a horserace reason, I want to handicap the candidates and make a judgment about how their performance will affect the race. I want to do this by watching television not by being in the hall because it is television which will shape the national consensus. I want to do this because I believe as a conservative that my views are moral, because I too am against sin, and I believe that for the other side to prevail would be the moral equivalent of a political sin.

Call me a hobbyist if you like, but I care passionately about the country and I believe passionately that the results of this election could be fatal for the country with all that implies for my children and grandchildren. If I were on MSNBC they probably would call me a "Republican Strategist", which means a talking head with virtually no other credentials than that I support the Republican.

Having seen the debate, I want to contribute something to the advancement of my cause if I can and, since I am here in Germany and cannot knock on doors, I choose to do it by writing on Free Republic. Sometimes, one feels that what one writes on Free Republic is picked up by talk radio personalities and the effect of one's efforts are leveraged. Sometimes, real discussion is stimulated on these threads. Anyway, unlike Calvin Coolidge it satisfies me declare to the world that I am against sin.

In this respect I applaud your blog piece because I agree with virtually all of the sentiments in it except the sort of backhanded put down for those of us who get more excited over presidential debates than the Super Bowl. Politics in many ways is like preaching, one must be against sin, of course, but one must also convince. John Kennedy said, "first, you gotta win."

We gotta win.


26 posted on 10/07/2012 1:19:00 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
I think the Obama team walked Romney.

They're smart, but not that smart.

27 posted on 10/07/2012 1:28:52 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
If you want to really get the full impact of what Romney did to Obama in the first debate, I highly suggest listening to the full 90 minutes with audio only. It was devastating.

It was said that those who read the transcript of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 thought Nixon won. As did those who heard it on the radio. However, those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbrcRKqLSRw

28 posted on 10/07/2012 1:35:24 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Somehow I ended up on a left wing mailing list of Move On. This is an email re how the left wing progressives feel about the debate:

Dear MoveOn member,

That was infuriating.

During last night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney smirked his way through dozens of mischaracterizations, distortions, and outright lies. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, never cut him off. And now the mainstream media is saying that Mitt won the debate.

We can’t let Romney “win” the debate on a boatload of lies.

He lied about his tax plan, his deficit plan, and Medicare. He lied about what “Obamacare” would do. He lied, baldly and convincingly, about Obama’s entire presidency.1

We need to move quickly to set the record straight. Our online team worked overnight preparing a media blitz—including online ads targeted at swing-state voters—correcting the worst lies in an easy-to-share format.

Chip in $5 to get the truth out—countering Mitt’s lies.

If we don’t fight back now with the truth, some of those lies will stick, and Romney could pull ahead.

Already, Romney and his Super PAC friends have spent millions on blatantly false ads attacking President Obama for gutting work requirements for welfare and cutting $700 million from Medicare.

Last night was more of the same.

And research shows that when lies get repeated enough times people will believe them—no matter how outlandish they might seem. The only way to keep Romney honest is to make sure the facts get corrected on the spot.

We’re now in the moment when millions of undecided voters who don’t usually pay attention to politics start to focus.

This is it. This is what MoveOn’s massive online network is for. Let’s use it.

Please chip in $5.

Thanks for all you do.

–Angie, Mark, Lenore, Tate, and the rest of the team

1. “Presidential Debate Fact-Check and Updates,” The New York Times, October 3, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=281980&id=53824-21930683-_smjiTx&t=4

Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from


29 posted on 10/07/2012 7:37:34 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (We are the 53%, who pay taxes and keep this country going inspite of the 47% rat moochers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

Somehow I ended up on a left wing mailing list of Move On. This is an email re how the left wing progressives feel about the debate:

Dear MoveOn member,

That was infuriating.

During last night’s presidential debate, Mitt Romney smirked his way through dozens of mischaracterizations, distortions, and outright lies. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, never cut him off. And now the mainstream media is saying that Mitt won the debate.

We can’t let Romney “win” the debate on a boatload of lies.

He lied about his tax plan, his deficit plan, and Medicare. He lied about what “Obamacare” would do. He lied, baldly and convincingly, about Obama’s entire presidency.1

We need to move quickly to set the record straight. Our online team worked overnight preparing a media blitz—including online ads targeted at swing-state voters—correcting the worst lies in an easy-to-share format.

Chip in $5 to get the truth out—countering Mitt’s lies.

If we don’t fight back now with the truth, some of those lies will stick, and Romney could pull ahead.

Already, Romney and his Super PAC friends have spent millions on blatantly false ads attacking President Obama for gutting work requirements for welfare and cutting $700 million from Medicare.

Last night was more of the same.

And research shows that when lies get repeated enough times people will believe them—no matter how outlandish they might seem. The only way to keep Romney honest is to make sure the facts get corrected on the spot.

We’re now in the moment when millions of undecided voters who don’t usually pay attention to politics start to focus.

This is it. This is what MoveOn’s massive online network is for. Let’s use it.

Please chip in $5.

Thanks for all you do.

–Angie, Mark, Lenore, Tate, and the rest of the team

1. “Presidential Debate Fact-Check and Updates,” The New York Times, October 3, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=281980&id=53824-21930683-_smjiTx&t=4

Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from


30 posted on 10/07/2012 7:38:39 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (We are the 53%, who pay taxes and keep this country going inspite of the 47% rat moochers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: cynwoody
It was said that those who read the transcript of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 thought Nixon won.

It's very interesting what the visual element adds to ones perception of these debates. As you noted, the Nixon-Kennedy debate was decided by that very factor.

What's more stunning about the first Romney-Obama debate, is that Romney is perceived to be the winner whether one views it with captions only, reads the transcript, listens to the audio only, or watches it with audio/video. His victory was that decisive.

32 posted on 10/07/2012 10:31:10 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I felt a little bit put off by the insinuation that I have a shallow apprehension of the issues and the parties for which I must compensate by watching the debates.

I did not mean to imply that people who watch these debates are all shallow and I did not imply that the 60 million who watched it were wrong to do so. I’m very glad that it got a huge audience. I was trying to make two points: the first one is a personal one; I find that watching these presentations “live” is painful to me so I don’t do it. Second, I am not among the “undecided” that will be swayed by a superior debate performance. From your response that is also true of you.

My main point is that the Barack Obama and the Mitt Romney people saw in the debate are the real deal. This is as good as either one is going to get (remember the Jack Nicholson movie). The Obama you saw is the one making economic decisions and foreign policy decisions. If that doesn’t scare the heck out of you I don’t know what does.

33 posted on 10/07/2012 10:41:18 AM PDT by moneyrunner (I have not flattered its rank breath, nor bowed to its idolatries a patient knee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner

>> I did not mean to imply that people who watch these debates are all shallow and I did not imply that the 60 million who watched it were wrong to do so.

Then you should learn to watch your arrogant mouth, because that’s certainly the way it came off.

Hope you don’t mind if I post that on YOUR thread, “sir”. I see you’re thin-skinned and I wouldn’t want to upset you.


34 posted on 10/08/2012 10:54:37 AM PDT by Nervous Tick ("You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson