Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History Shows: Odds Against Obama's Second Term
Townhall.com ^ | March 28, 2012 | Michael Medved

Posted on 03/28/2012 6:05:09 AM PDT by Kaslin

A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST.

As he campaigns for re-election, Barack Obama pursues a profound and uncommon honor denied to nearly two-thirds of his predecessors. Contrary to a widely held popular belief, political history doesn’t anoint incumbent presidents as automatic winners or even presumptive favorites. The numbers show that most presidents fail in their efforts to maintain a long-term hold on the affections of the fickle public and that Obama will face an uphill struggle in attempting to reprise his epic victory of 2008.

Of the 42 men who served as president before the current incumbent, only 15 won two consecutive elections.

Among the others, 5 died during their first terms, 7 incumbents declined to run, 5 tried but failed to win their party’s nomination, and 10 won the nomination but lost their bids for re-election. What’s more, three former presidents (Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore and Theodore Roosevelt) attempted to make comebacks and roared out of retirement as third party candidates; all three of them failed miserably in November, winning between 10 and 27 percent of the popular vote.

The numbers look even worse for second terms if you remove the early “cocked hat” presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe) who easily won re-election before the emergence of the modern two-party system. Washington and Monroe, for instance, both eased into second terms without campaigning and without facing even token opposition. With these early chief executives withdrawn from the equation, 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms.

Some of these one-termers counted as obvious failures, rejected by big majorities of their contemporaries and winning scant respect from historians. Even at the time, no one expected John Tyler, James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson to renew their leases on the White House. But other presidents who lost bids for a second term played big roles in history and have earned many admirers throughout the generations. If Barack Obama fails in his bid for re-election, he will join such estimable predecessors as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland (who came back from his second-term loss to win a non-consecutive victory), William Howard Taft (who returned to Washington as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) and George Herbert Walker Bush.

Moreover, two powerful presidents generally labeled “great” or “near great” by historians found themselves nonetheless thwarted in their ambitions to win re-election. Both Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served as Vice Presidents who succeeded to the presidency upon the death of wildly popular incumbents (Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy), then won a full term in their own right. Widely expected to seek re-election, both men fared poorly in early primaries (Truman actually lost in New Hampshire to the little known Tennessee Senator Estes Keefauver) before withdrawing as candidates—and insisting that they’d intended to withdraw all along.

Of the fifteen presidents who prevailed in winning two consecutive terms (or four, in the case of FDR) nearly all of them count as historical giants and successful, significant chief executives. The only two arguable exceptions would be Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and George W. Bush (2001-09), and prominent academics have recently led a major resurgence in Grant’s historical reputation while Bush admirers await a similar re-evaluation for that undeservedly reviled war leader.

In considering the chances for Obama’s re-election, it’s obvious that he doesn’t count as either a sure loser with a thin or non-existent list of accomplishments, nor does he qualify as an obvious winner with a Rushmore-ready profile and a resume of immortal achievements. In other words, President Obama won’t experience the resounding rejection that doomed the re-election hopes of Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, nor will he register the inspiring vote of confidence that gave Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Ike and Reagan back-to-back victories.

Despite the attempt at apotheosis by the glowing new, Tom Hanks-narrated documentary “The Road We Have Traveled,” Barack Obama can’t run as that sort of triumphant titan; nor need he hide as the feckless, dreary disgrace of conservative propaganda. He clearly occupies some middle ground among first termers, suggesting a fierce, closely contested battle against his all-but-certain opponent, Mitt Romney.

The long, sour, discouraging GOP primary battle has produced soaring Democratic hopes that the public will overcome all doubts and embrace Obama due to fear and loathing of the Republican alternative. But the inevitable course of the re-election struggle will make the race a referendum on whether the public wants another four years like those they’ve just experienced. Clearly, this particular race could go either way, but history shows that whenever once-elected presidents seek a second chance, more often than not the people say no.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: loserromney; medved4romney; romney4sureloss; saboteurromney

1 posted on 03/28/2012 6:05:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Romney helped Obama before. He will do it again.

FLASHBACK:

The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++4 to 10 pts
in some polls, days prior to Election 2008.
So rather than helping the GOP, Romney and
TeamROMNEY and the RNME (Republican National Media Establishment)
decided …to attack Gov. Palin to throw Election2008.

Romney, and the Van der Sloot RNME RINOs for Obama in 2008

Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers…
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide…
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."


The Palmetto Scoop reported: "One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was
the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin."
"I’m told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palin’s people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides."
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
… aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.


"These staffers are now out trying to finish her off ….hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."


"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the “Diva” leak was Nicolle Wallace’s husband."


"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"



2 posted on 03/28/2012 6:07:00 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Mitt Romney Sends Leftover Pizza to Obama Chicago HQ
After spending the day in Chicago fundraising, Mitt Romney
sat down with small business owners at Gino's East,
a pizza joint famous for their deep-dish pizza.
In fact, Romney himself tweeted a photo of a
delivery boy heading out with the loot, writing,
"Great deep dish at @ginoseast.
Sending the extra slices to @barackobama and his Chicago HQ team."

3 posted on 03/28/2012 6:08:46 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I hope history is right about Obama’s second term and wrong about Romney.


4 posted on 03/28/2012 6:09:06 AM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yes, but odds were against his first term too. Don’t sell him short.


5 posted on 03/28/2012 6:09:54 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The only thing that can put Obama back in the White House is the total ineptness of the Republican party in picking a qualified candidate.

So far Republicans are shining at that.

We have a liberal from Massachusetts
A nut case
A boy with his foot in his mouth
A brilliant man who couldn’t keep it in his pants.

I go for Newt, but it looks bad for him right now.


6 posted on 03/28/2012 6:10:40 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

55% to 45%, President Obama in 2013.

The fix might be in comrades.

IMHO


7 posted on 03/28/2012 6:20:07 AM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

I think prominent Democrats are shiite-ing themselves over their polling internals, and are desperately fishing about for some way to kick Barry to the curb.

Michal Savage may be right. The Korean Open Mic incident may be the opening salvo in a backstabbing campaign.


8 posted on 03/28/2012 6:20:37 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

More nanny state voters now than 4 years ago. Obama’s plan is working perfectly.


9 posted on 03/28/2012 6:24:11 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
"Poll: Obama leads Romney, Santorum in key swing states including Florida" - Quinnipiac

Not sure how nervous they are...

10 posted on 03/28/2012 6:26:16 AM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If he were a white man, there is ZERO chance he would win a second term, but Obama has racism in his deck of cards.


11 posted on 03/28/2012 6:26:50 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The only thing that can put Obama back in the White House is the total ineptness of the Republican party in picking a qualified candidate.

The Republican party headquartered in Washington, D.C. has a long record of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but let's not overlook the looter class. When half of American adults have been excused from paying federal taxes and millions of Americans get government "freebies," lots of people believe they have a vested interest in another win by the Big Government party and another loss by America.

12 posted on 03/28/2012 6:28:25 AM PDT by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What history does not take into account is today’s rampant voter fraud.


13 posted on 03/28/2012 6:30:39 AM PDT by NCjim (Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Я считаю, что совершенно неважно, кто и как будет в партии голосовать; но вот что чрезвычайно важно, это - кто и как будет считать голоса.

I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how. - Stalin, 1923

http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.txt

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

With the media complicit and Holder running Injustice, he will need to lose by a wide margin.

14 posted on 03/28/2012 6:30:56 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
Given the present economic and social status of the US... I don't know how much of former statistics really apply.

So much is so different and unique to the present.... that I don't know if we can look to former situations as any kind of indicator.

It's all going to be a real crap shoot... I don't think that Conservative candidates have taken enough advantage of how different our current situation is or of what an abjectly poor showing “O” has made.... either by default, omission of mismanagement!! There is a gold mine in reminding America just how badly "O" has done in his first 'term'

15 posted on 03/28/2012 6:32:38 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

” - - - and 10 won the nomination but lost their bids for re-election. “

” - - - only 15 won two consecutive elections.”

________

The sum of those incumbents who won their party’s nomination according to the above quotes is then 25.

In other words, 15 out of 25 incumbents won two consecutive terms, or 60 % of the incumbents got re-elected.

Dictator Baby-Doc Barack then has a 60 % chance of being re-annointed as High Poo-Bah of Obamanation - - -

BTW, I haven’t taken my shoes and socks off to check the math, so if any of my FRiends can prove me wrong, I would be DELIGHTED that you did so.


16 posted on 03/28/2012 6:36:37 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley
The fix might be in comrades...

Didn't zer0 effectively blurt this to Medvedev the other day? Something to the effect of he'll do this and that 'after he wins re-election'?

17 posted on 03/28/2012 6:36:57 AM PDT by C210N (Mitt "Severe Etch-a-Sketch" Romney is the front-runner? Seriously??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The only thing that can put Obama back in the White House is the total ineptness of the Republican party in picking a qualified candidate.

Exactly. I agree 100%. Obama is a virtual 'shoo-in' for a second term.

18 posted on 03/28/2012 6:41:17 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Of the fifteen presidents who prevailed in winning two consecutive terms (or four, in the case of FDR) nearly all of them count as historical giants and successful, significant chief executives. The only two arguable exceptions would be Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and George W. Bush (2001-09), and prominent academics have recently led a major resurgence in Grant’s historical reputation while Bush admirers await a similar re-evaluation for that undeservedly reviled war leader.

Absurd comment. Clinton is a historical giant? He is a midget.

19 posted on 03/28/2012 6:42:20 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Carter incompetent Obama worse, one tern to ruin country Carter canned Obama on the way out.
20 posted on 03/28/2012 6:54:50 AM PDT by boomop1 (term limits is the only way to save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yeah, right. Lessee.

We (the GOP) have the former Governor of the Bluest State in the Union, who has more baggage than a full jumbo jet headed overseas, and is a member of a weird religion (no, I’m not an anti-Mormon bigot - face the facts, by most standards, Mormonism IS weird).

Obama has the MSM pulling for him, along with ACORN and the Unions and most major urban area governments, all of whom are prepared to commit massive vote fraud in his favor. He has enormous sums of money (so what if his fund raising falling off a bit - he still has tons of money) and didn’t have to spend any of it a primary. He has the support of the parasite classes and the illegal aliens. He has a sizable minority that will vote for him, no matter what.

The only thing holding him back is his record or lack thereof. His major accomplishment, ObamaCare, is incredibly unpopular with the general populace, and may, possibly, be nullified by the SCOTUS. Of course, Romney has the same issue with RomneyCare, in the People’s Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.

Add to that, the fact that the ‘Pubbies are too gutless to hit Obama hard where it counts, and you can see a crippled GOP campaign.

Folks, get real. It ain’t lookin’ good. Unpopular or not, Obama has a lot of edges and will be hard to beat.

And even if Romney wins, we’re probably not going to like him much.


21 posted on 03/28/2012 6:54:50 AM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
...he doesn’t count as either a sure loser with a thin or non-existent list of accomplishments...

In my book he is a loser (about the nicest thing I could say about him) and he has a list of accomplishments - all, 100% bad. I cannot think of any President, going all the way back to Nixon, that has such a completely negative track record. Consider:

I'm sure I could go google "obama failures" and come up with a list of hundreds. These are just the ones off the top of my head (BC - before coffee). You all get the idea. hussein is the most accomplished (negatively) President ever. If he wasn't a textbook narcissist he wouldn't even try for re-election. Has to be counting on trying to steal/manipulate his way back into office.

22 posted on 03/28/2012 6:57:07 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf

I agree, What the Looter class does not understand is that a cow has to be bred once in a while or they go dry.

Our cow is starting to go dry.

It is time to ease off on the milking and start thinking of getting her bred or there will be no milk for anyone, and she will end up as a McDonalds hamburger.


23 posted on 03/28/2012 6:57:50 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I don’t think the GOP intends to take the white house this time. We need to get rid of the GOP leadership as badly as we need to get rid of Obama.

I’d happily make a deal to vote for Romney in return for the resignations of McCain, Graham, Boehner and about a dozen others.


24 posted on 03/28/2012 6:59:56 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Obama will win, and by a landslide. We are living in a country whose people are no longer guided by wisdom, and who, in fact, disdain it. The population has been intentionally dumbed-down, as evidenced by the fact that it elected Obama to office. There is no opposition to his rule; if there were, there would be legitimate candidates being offered up from the Republican “side”, which I am beginning to doubt exists any longer.


25 posted on 03/28/2012 7:08:27 AM PDT by drwoof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
With these early chief executives withdrawn from the equation, 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms.

BTW, I haven’t taken my shoes and socks off to check the math, so if any of my FRiends can prove me wrong, I would be DELIGHTED that you did so.

You are using selective math.

Be choosing the subset that you picked, the numbers are correct, but the choice skews the results.

Did you know that zero percent of black pResidents have ever been re-elected?

26 posted on 03/28/2012 7:11:06 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

” - - - the numbers are correct, - - - “

Whew! Thanks! I was going to take my shoes and socks off right after my second cup of coffee, but you have saved me the trouble! Thanks!!!!!

______

My point was that there are a lot of factors in calculating predictability from such a small set of numbers, and I chose one subset to show that it is probable BY THE NUMBERS that The Obamanator will be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

_________

BTW, send some rain our way, as Texas is still in a drought!


27 posted on 03/28/2012 7:27:47 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

If he were a white man, there is ZERO chance he would win a second term, but Obama has racism in his deck of cards.

If he were a white man, there is ZERO chance he would have won 1 term, but Obama has racism in his deck of cards.


28 posted on 03/28/2012 7:52:43 AM PDT by birdsman (NAAWP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
BTW, send some rain our way, as Texas is still in a drought!

I'd love to.

In W PA it is now raining like a Texas longhorn pissing on a flat rock.

We have had so much rain this winter, that even my multiple french drains are passed helping.

Algore is correct, weather changes and obama is also correct, we all are hoping for change.

Hey brother, can you spare a dime?

29 posted on 03/28/2012 8:06:21 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorists savages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I like Medved, but he's too much of a "both sides" do it type of guy. "fickle public" is an example of this. Who's been "fickle" since Obama's election? The public or Obama? Obama campaigned as a centrist, who would cut the deficit, have a sensible foreign policy and be President of ALL Americans, not Red State or Blue State.

All of these items and many more were lies. Obama's ruled against the will of the American People, against the Constitution and against the law. The public is innocent of all of this.

Who's fickle again?

30 posted on 03/28/2012 8:28:05 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jabba the Nutt

Bump


31 posted on 03/28/2012 8:37:50 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bad enough Medved is a RINO, but tripe like this is worthless.

I can sum up his entire atricle in 5 words: Presidents usaully don’t win re-election.

So, why did Reagan and Clinton and Baby Bush get re-elected. The economy.

Why did Carter and Daddy Bush get unelected. The economy.

It’s the economy, stupid. That is why this idiot article from RINO Medved, and his “this could go either way but odds are against re-election” is worthless.

This is Carter II. We don’t have the massive inflation, but unemployment is worse as is real GDP growth. Everything they are calling GDP growth is the FED buying it’s own debt and wartime deficit spending. There is no genuine GDP growth. GDP should be shrinking.

No, Obama has no chance against this Carter II economy. A RINO like Medved isn’t capable of seeing that.


32 posted on 03/28/2012 11:14:53 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Obama will win, and by a landslide. We are living in a country whose people are no longer guided by wisdom, and who, in fact, disdain it. The population has been intentionally dumbed-down, as evidenced by the fact that it elected Obama to office. There is no opposition to his rule; if there were, there would be legitimate candidates being offered up from the Republican “side”, which I am beginning to doubt exists any longer.


33 posted on 03/28/2012 11:57:36 AM PDT by drwoof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: C210N

“Didn’t ZerO effectively blurt this to Medvedev the other day?”

He sure sounded awfully confident that he was going to win.

(One wonders what will happen to this big ball of wax.)


34 posted on 03/28/2012 12:04:49 PM PDT by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
You didn't read the article did you? Two points: In the second paragraph Medved writes Of the 42 men who served as president before the current incumbent, only 15 won two consecutive elections. The other one: In the last sentence of the last paragraph he writes Clearly, this particular race could go either way, but history shows that whenever once-elected presidents seek a second chance, more often than not the people say no.

BTW I don't listen to Medved, but just because you call him a RINO, doesn't make him one.

35 posted on 03/28/2012 1:03:17 PM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yes, I scanned the entire article. Scanned as in, quickly read the entire article. In your points, you even left out the point he made that the trend of 2 termers was much stronger early in US history and not so strong now.

My response was not that he was wrong, but that he was right for the wrong reason - hence the worthlessness of this article.

I fully explained my position that the recent 2 termers from Reagan to Clinton, got credit for strong economies, while the recent one termers got blame for weak economies.

We are in a weak economy. That is all you need to know. Medved acts like the 2nd term presidential election is just some random coin flip with the incumbent losing more than 50% of the time. If I didn’t know better, the article reads like it is giving cover to Obama for losing re-election. I realize that is not the jist of the article.

But the article treats this election like a coin flip, when it is not. Obama will lose because the economy stinks. That is the point I made in my response, against Medved’s coin flip.

Hence my conclusion the article is worthless. It doesn’t take into account the economies and circumstances of those who won and lost re-election.

Calling him a RINO was just a thtow-away comment. You are right that saying it doesn’t make it true. Looks like I’m far from the only one who knows this.

“Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America’ (RINO op-ed)”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2673459/posts

“Vanity Radio [Rebuttal to Medved’s RINO love-letter]”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782832/posts

Don’t Pin Your Hopes On Palin (Michael Medved Demands Moderate Candidates, GOP Nominee In 2012)

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2639738/posts

RINO Michael Medved rips Rush Limbaugh for ripping Obama

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2011/02/20/rino-michael-medved-rips-rush-limbaugh-for-ripping-obama/

RINO Michael Medved Supports Open Primaries

http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=1488

Michael Medved Rejects Conservatives and Embraces Romney

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/23/michael-medved-rejects-conservatives-and-embraces-romney/

Six Big Lies About John McCain

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain/page/full/


36 posted on 03/28/2012 6:39:36 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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