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

Skip to comments.

Last Recourse of Failed Presidents
Townhall.com ^ | September 4, 2012 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 09/04/2012 4:37:54 AM PDT by Kaslin

Both the 20th and 21st centuries have seen failed presidencies.

William Howard Taft lost in 1912, though he might have retained office had not his old friend and former leader Theodore Roosevelt run as a third party Bull Moose candidate and won more votes than Taft.

Herbert Hoover failed through no fault of his own. The Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were beyond his control, and every remedy he tried failed adequately to work.

Had the popular Cal Coolidge sought a second full term in 1928 instead of declaring, "I do not choose to run," he would have been in the White House when the crash came and cast by history in the role assigned to Hoover.

But, as one wag said, Silent Cal's career seems to have been a product of repeated celestial interventions.

By 1952, Harry Truman was a failed president. His approval rating was below 25 percent. Chiang Kai-shek's China had fallen to communism. Josef Stalin had stolen the secret of the atom bomb through espionage against the United States. Truman had fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur and was in the third year of a Korean War he could neither win nor end.

The administration had been exposed as shot through with corruption and treason in the persons of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the Rosenberg atomic spy ring, among others.

Rejected in New Hampshire, Harry wisely chose to pack it in.

Lyndon Johnson, his 44-state landslide in 1964 and Great Society notwithstanding, was by 1968 a failed president being repudiated in the primaries of his own party.

Truman and Johnson quit rather than run again and risk defeat.

But Jimmy Carter, whose poll numbers fell as low as Truman's and who was widely seen as a failed president, chose to fight Teddy Kennedy in the primaries and Ronald Reagan in the general election.

Carter had one signal achievement: the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

But by 1980, he was presiding over an economy with 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and zero growth. The Soviet Empire had annexed Afghanistan and was on the move in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. Iran had fallen to the mullahs. Fifty American embassy personnel were being held hostage in Tehran.

What makes that 1980 election relevant is that it was the last national election and the only postwar election where a Democratic president widely perceived to have failed chose to run for re-election.

And what strategy did the Carter campaign adopt?

They sought to demonize Reagan as a tool of the rich, a cold-hearted wretch who would savage the safety net, a crazed anti-communist Cold Warrior whom it would be dangerous to entrust with nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan was Barry Goldwater redux.

Yet, looking back, what else could Carter do? Looking forward, what else can Barack Obama do?

By 1984, Reagan could credibly run for re-election on the slogan, "Stay the Course." Let us continue on this path that is leading us to the sunny uplands of a new prosperity and a stronger, more respected America.

Carter could not do that in 1980. Hoover could not do that in 1932. And Obama cannot do that today.

With the nation believing Carter had failed by the fall of 1980, and prepared to remove and replace him, Carter had one lane left to victory. He and the liberal media had to define Reagan for the electorate as an uncaring extremist and dangerous man.

Lest we forget, this Carter strategy was working.

Not until the late debate with Carter did the electorate take a closer look at Reagan and decide that this genial, principled conservative was no threat, but an acceptable alternative and far preferable to four more years of Carter.

After that debate, the undecideds came down hard for Reagan, millions of Democrats switched to him, and he buried Carter.

Again, that election is relevant because it is the election most similar to this one. We have a Democratic president who has presided over a huge loss of jobs, four straight trillion-dollar deficits and 42 months of unemployment over 8 percent. With Obama's approval in the 40s, it is clear that America is ready for a change.

One difference between 2012 and 1980? President Obama retains a reservoir of goodwill President Carter never acquired.

If this analysis is correct, the Democratic convention and the next nine weeks will witness one sustained slander of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as Ayn Randian agents of a plutocracy hell-bent on seeing its taxes reduced and the tax cuts paid for by eviscerating programs on which America's poor and the working and middle class depend for survival.

The one sure way Obama can win is to convince a nation ready for change -- to fear, loathe and recoil from the proposed agents of change.

Obama aides and media auxiliary have already painted the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., as permeated with lies and dog whistles to racists.

Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; americanhistory; barackobama; campaigns; presidents

1 posted on 09/04/2012 4:37:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One difference between 2012 and 1980? President Obama retains a reservoir of goodwill President Carter never acquired.


Goodwill ACQUIRED? Goodwill bought with our tax dollars!


2 posted on 09/04/2012 4:58:57 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.

Obama, he’s a leader not a uniter.
It will be toe the line or be crushed.


3 posted on 09/04/2012 5:09:26 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Another small difference is that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan!


4 posted on 09/04/2012 5:13:42 AM PDT by ImpBill ("America, where are you now?" - Little "r" republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ImpBill

Exactly! He’s far from a Ronald Reagan, and that’s worth a few worry wrinkles IMO.


5 posted on 09/04/2012 5:20:23 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Pissin and moaning about Romney is not going to get us through this election.


6 posted on 09/04/2012 5:42:19 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Herbert Hoover failed through no fault of his own. The Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were beyond his control, and every remedy he tried failed adequately to work.

Perhaps the problem was that with "every remedy he tried", he tried too much.

There was another economic collapse in 1920; President Harding essentially did nothing but cut tax rates, and that depression ended quickly.

7 posted on 09/04/2012 5:44:24 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.

Pat, you're smarter than that.

It should be obvious to you that The Wøn does not want to unite the country; he wants to balkanize it and then lead it down the road into a third-world socialist hell-hole.

8 posted on 09/04/2012 5:47:00 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

You have a problem with a statement of fact?


9 posted on 09/04/2012 5:49:35 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

You are right, Duncan.

Romney can look to Hoover for what not to do. Hoover’s progressive policies were little different from FDR’s crap.


10 posted on 09/04/2012 5:56:40 AM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Harding’s VP did even more after Harding’s death.....

Coolidge’s taxation policy was that of his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon: taxes should be lower and fewer people should have to pay them.[115] Congress agreed, and the taxes were reduced in Coolidge’s term.[115] In addition to these tax cuts, Coolidge proposed reductions in federal expenditures and retiring some of the federal debt.[115] Coolidge’s ideas were shared by the Republicans in Congress, and in 1924 Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1924, which reduced income tax rates and eliminated all income taxation for some two million people.[115] They reduced taxes again by passing the Revenue Acts of 1926 and 1928, all the while continuing to keep spending down so as to reduce the overall federal debt.[116] By 1927, only the richest 2% of taxpayers paid any federal income tax.[116] Although federal spending remained flat during Coolidge’s administration, allowing one-fourth of the federal debt to be retired, state and local governments saw considerable growth, surpassing the federal budget in 1927.[117]

Wikipedia


11 posted on 09/04/2012 5:58:01 AM PDT by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is why Obama is not going to debate Romney.

He might appear on the stage with Romney, but the “moderators” are going to cover for him. It won’t be a debate. It will not be a debate - it will be a “roast” of Romney with Obama an the MSM working together.


12 posted on 09/04/2012 6:17:16 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

13 posted on 09/04/2012 6:23:41 AM PDT by lowbridge (Joe Biden: "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

It will not be a debate - it will be a “roast” of Romney with Obama and the MSM working together.

IMHO this is why Romney should refuse to debate unless he can name half of the moderators.


14 posted on 09/04/2012 6:38:56 AM PDT by chainsaw ("Two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A lot of Northern Democrats never warmed up to Carter because he was a Southerner and openly religious. Liberals had an alternative to voting for Carter in 1980—John Anderson. Obama doesn’t have to worry about a third-party candidate dividing his vote. I don’t remember in detail the media coverage of the 1980 election but I’m sure the mainstream media is much more committed to Obama than they were to Carter.


15 posted on 09/04/2012 7:02:12 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw

“IMHO this is why Romney should refuse to debate unless he can name half of the moderators.”

Well ... You just read how Reagan won by debunking the Carter lies by merely getting on a stage and being his genial self.

Romney will do the same. No matter who moderates it, just having the chance to challenge obama’s lies face to face will bring dividends.


16 posted on 09/04/2012 8:02:06 AM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale; ...
Herbert Hoover failed through no fault of his own.

BS. His statist response severely exacerbated the problem.

Had Coolidge been in there and behaved sensibly we might remember the event as the Panic of 1929.

17 posted on 09/04/2012 8:09:09 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy

bump!!


18 posted on 09/04/2012 8:16:41 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

Thus gave us the roaring 20’s. Tax and spending cuts.


19 posted on 09/04/2012 8:19:30 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

[ This is why Obama is not going to debate Romney.

He might appear on the stage with Romney, but the “moderators” are going to cover for him. It won’t be a debate. It will not be a debate - it will be a “roast” of Romney with Obama an the MSM working together. ]

exacrly. I hope Romney is prepared to call the moderators out. I hope enough Americans eyes have been opened to the hyper-partisan, lying media.


20 posted on 09/04/2012 8:35:28 AM PDT by KansasGirl ("If you have a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."--B. Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Obama has failed at everything he promised to accomplish...


21 posted on 09/04/2012 8:36:44 AM PDT by GOPJ (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Have you seen this? Obama and his promises:

http://www.conservativenationnews.com/2012/09/powerful-new-romney-campaign-ad-hits.html


22 posted on 09/04/2012 8:38:55 AM PDT by GOPJ (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

. I hope enough Americans eyes have been opened to the hyper-partisan, lying media.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Romney could ‘debate’ an empty chair but with some of the hand picked ‘moderators’ and MSM, he would probably still be declared the loser.


23 posted on 09/04/2012 8:41:09 AM PDT by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

***Lyndon Johnson, his 44-state landslide in 1964 and Great Society notwithstanding,***

Remember 1964? Johnson won by proclaiming “I will not send American boys to fight in a war Asian boys should be fighting!”

Whereas Goldwater stated he would send troops if necessary.

Back in 1970, PLAYBOY magazine had an interview with JOHN WAYNE.

In the interview Wayne mentioned that after the politicians had made their statements about sending troops to VN, Goldwater talked with Johnson and said to him...”You know we will have to send troops to Vietnam!”

Johnson replied...”I know, but I am trying to win an election.”

Since that day,I have NEVER believed anything that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat.


24 posted on 09/04/2012 8:48:31 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Tyrannies demand immense sacrifices of their people to produce trifles.-Marquis de Custine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

I was told that if I voted for Goldwater, that we would have riots in the streets and get into a long unwinnable war, well I voted for Goldwater, and darned if they weren’t right.


25 posted on 09/04/2012 8:49:56 AM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

FACT: ObamaCrimes.com http://obamacrimes.com
Poorly FORGED: Federal Document Dump Policy Changes After Obama Probe Begins.


26 posted on 09/04/2012 9:57:55 AM PDT by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!Jesus is Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OPS4

Let’s go back to the post I responded to in the first place.

This is the comment at post #4 I responded to: “Another small difference is that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan!”

I responded with this post: “Exactly! He’s far from a Ronald Reagan, and that’s worth a few worry wrinkles IMO.”

Later I responded to Post #6 which was nonsense about pissin’, and moanin’ not going to get us through the election, as though that was the discussion with this post: “You have a problem with a statement of fact?”

So, now that you know what the original discussion was all about perhaps you could clue me in as to what your comment means relative to that.


27 posted on 09/04/2012 10:31:01 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

This is what I am pretty sure of what will happen, it won’t be a debate.

What I also don’t like is that I don’t see that killer instinct in Romney’s campaign, he’s playing nice like McCain.

I hope I am wrong, but I think that if this keeps up, the Marxist kenyan wins again.


28 posted on 09/04/2012 10:36:25 AM PDT by AmericanSamurai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
There is no way to be sure how Coolidge would have handled the Depression--my guess is that he would have done better than Hoover because he would have done less federal intervention.

Coolidge died on Jan. 5, 1933, so if he had been re-elected in 1928 he would have died in office. (He died of a coronary thrombosis--perhaps the stress of office would have killed him sooner if he had still been President.)

If Coolidge had run again in 1928 with the same running mate, at his death Charles Curtis would have become President. Curtis was part Indian.

29 posted on 09/04/2012 11:03:33 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Scratch that last sentence. Charles Curtis was Hoover’s Vice President. The man who would have become President if Coolidge had died in office was Charles Dawes.


30 posted on 09/04/2012 11:05:17 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Scratch that last sentence. Charles Curtis was Hoover’s Vice President. The man who would have become President if Coolidge had died in office was Charles Dawes.


31 posted on 09/04/2012 11:07:08 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Since that day,I have NEVER believed anything that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat.

The term "credibility gap" was first heard then, in relation to the Johnson administration.

It was as close as the already liberal media dared come to calling a Democrat politician "liar". But that's what it meant all the same.

32 posted on 09/04/2012 7:31:43 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Pissin and moaning about Romney is not going to get us through this election.

Is that how the RNC taught you to tell conservatives "STFU"?

Very mannerly. Also very otiose: Mitt Romney is a wet noodle of a candidate. Supporting him is like standing up wet spaghetti. He's way too cool for you, for openers. He's all about the infamous 350,000 women in 10 battleground States. No time for you. No time for me. No time for anyone but the 350,000 women.

33 posted on 09/04/2012 11:58:36 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
It will not be a debate - it will be a “roast” of Romney with Obama an the MSM working together.

Bump. Yeah, it'll be a tag-team match: Triple H and The Undertaker versus the coxswain of the Harvard Fours.

34 posted on 09/05/2012 12:00:40 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

Read it is self explanatory, Choice, Romney over Obama is all we need to make sure of, unless you would rather vote for a corrupt President like Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftvbxSEFJM8


35 posted on 09/05/2012 8:51:37 AM PDT by OPS4 (Ops4 God Bless America!Jesus is Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OPS4

NOT what my post was addressing. Stick to the point. Don’t waste my time.

Romney isn’t my first choice, but I’m not stupid, and not voting for Obama, or taking other actions in Obama’s favor. I don’t understand what makes you, and other FReepers think anybody that doesn’t kiss Romney’s butt, and praise his coiffure isn’t going to vote for the SOB.

We who don’t kiss Romney’s butt, because we don’t like the mans Liberal track record don’t want Obama anymore than you do, so get off our butts, and go play with your toys.


36 posted on 09/05/2012 9:34:59 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Impy

BUMP


37 posted on 09/05/2012 9:45:37 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The suggestion that either candidate can unite and lead the country if they should win is naive. The acrimony is too deep. If Romney is elected then the Democrats will do exactly what the GOP has done; try and make sure Romney is a one term president. They will go to any lengths to block, filibuster, delay, and defeat anything Romney proposes. And should Obama get re-elected, then I don’t expect the GOP to do any different.


38 posted on 09/05/2012 9:53:39 AM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
Coolidge proposed reductions in federal expenditures...

There in lies the difference. Congress will not reduce federal spending. Federal expenditures went down during two of Coolidge's budgets. That won't happen now.

39 posted on 09/05/2012 10:02:52 AM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; stephenjohnbanker; Verginius Rufus; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican

I failed to notice the author of this piece, shock of shocks it’s Pat Buchanan. Guy is sure no fiscal conservative (or intelligent political commentator).

I wish Former Governor Frank Lowden of Ill. had excepted Coolidge’s VP offer in 1924 (he was nominated and declined, possibly the only time that has happened). Hoover was popular (he won the nomination easily over Lowden and others) but he might have stood a chance against him in 1928 as the sitting VP.

I don’t know what kind of Prez he would have been (he sounds good) but it could not possibly have turned out any worse.

It would have even been preferable to have Al Smith as President. At the least that would have meant no FDR in 1932. Possibly no anti-GOP backlash at all.


40 posted on 09/06/2012 1:57:50 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; stephenjohnbanker; Verginius Rufus; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican

Excepted=Accepted. ;)


41 posted on 09/06/2012 2:01:12 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Hoover’s progressive policies were little different from FDR’s crap.

Maybe, but it was the tax and tariff increases that killed recovery.

If he'd gotten tax and trade policy right, Hoover might have brought back the economy and survived politically.

42 posted on 09/06/2012 2:09:43 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Impy

” Had Coolidge been in there and behaved sensibly we might remember the event as the Panic of 1929. “

Yep.


43 posted on 09/06/2012 2:23:33 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.

He didn't bother with that after he won a first term. Why would he bother after a second term?

44 posted on 09/06/2012 2:28:05 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

Agreed. I was referring to tariff — wssn’t it Smoot-Hawley?


45 posted on 09/06/2012 3:05:48 PM PDT by KC Burke (Plain Conservative opinions and common sense correction for thirteen years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke

” Agreed. I was referring to tariff — wssn’t it Smoot-Hawley?”

Yep, 1930. It soon caused American exports to drop by some 50%.


46 posted on 09/06/2012 3:22:03 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Had Smith won and had he presumably followed a similar course as Hoover, it still may have resulted in the GOP moving leftward for 1932 and perhaps nominating Hoover for a rematch (for which Smith would’ve almost assuredly lost). Hoover, of course, would’ve proceeded to exacerbate the problem (as FDR did), and we might’ve faced an even more frightening scenario for 1936... Governor/Senator Huey Long as the Democrat nominee.


47 posted on 09/07/2012 12:08:02 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Long.


48 posted on 09/10/2012 11:47:27 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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