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

Skip to comments.

Failure to appeal to middle class doomed GOP ticket [not in the way it's usually spun]
Philly.com ^ | 11/10/2012 | Robert W. Patterson

Posted on 11/11/2012 10:00:15 AM PST by dirtboy

President Obama may have scored a narrow victory Tuesday night ... Yet his squeaker of a triumph not only represents a bigger loss for the Party of Lincoln, but also offers a critically important lesson.

[snip]

In contrast, 21st-century Republicans have traded a devotion to "average Americans" for a love affair with free-market and limited-government abstractions. Consequently, the Romney-Ryan ticket invested heavily in the notion that naked market forces, especially fiscal austerity and tax cuts for investors, would magically lift all boats.

The anxious electorate didn't buy this pitch, especially in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, where free-trade and outsourcing policies have drained away millions of manufacturing jobs. Appealing primarily to educated small-business owners - so-called "job creators" - the GOP lost the votes of the vastly more numerous but less educated "job holders" worried about not holding a job. Exit polls revealed that the electorate trusted Obama - running on the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since FDR - to create more jobs than the heralded entrepreneur Romney.

If that weren't enough, the top of the ticket showed no awareness of how laissez-faire economics has dovetailed with the sexual-liberation agenda of the left in undermining prospects for millions of Americans, especially those without college degrees. It is no coincidence that globalization has undermined the economic security of Middle America at the very time that Democratic policies have destabilized the family through legalized abortion, distortions of marriage through no-fault divorce and same-sex union laws, federal birth-control mandates, subsidized day care, and gender-based affirmative action.

This may explain why Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, remained mum on social issues, as a robust defense of natural marriage, motherhood, and family life would have forced them to rethink their economic platform...

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Not your typical either/or debate.
1 posted on 11/11/2012 10:00:19 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Everybody knows the answer and most of them are full of Shiite.


2 posted on 11/11/2012 10:02:42 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Limited government and free markets are indeed the answer. leading to increased prosperity when ever tried. Massive vote fraud was necessary to beat Romney.

Next time the SEIU unions at the DMV will create new motor voters out of nothing but a lust for power. Voter fraud works until it is stopped.


3 posted on 11/11/2012 10:06:03 AM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

ping relating to your vanity


4 posted on 11/11/2012 10:08:58 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Food for thought. But theres not one successful candidate to point to. How to emphasize social issues without appearing radical? Mrs Gingrich, Santorum, Ryan are all political animals, not your typical neighbor you identify with.


5 posted on 11/11/2012 10:11:12 AM PST by kenavi (Lost the country? Win your state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Food for thought. But theres not one successful candidate to point to. How to emphasize social issues without appearing radical? Mrs Gingrich, Santorum, Ryan are all political animals, not your typical neighbor you identify with.


6 posted on 11/11/2012 10:11:21 AM PST by kenavi (Lost the country? Win your state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

There is an entire school of conservatism (Russell Kirk, etc.) that is as distrustful of laissez faire as they are of socialism. Some even describing these two theories as two sides of the same materialist coin.


7 posted on 11/11/2012 10:11:33 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

What they now call the “Middle class” is really the working poor. The real middle class are now called “The Evil Rich”.
The truly rich are above all this and are pulling the strings to their advantage.


8 posted on 11/11/2012 10:12:03 AM PST by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

You can’t run a campaign devoid of social issues.

I don’t know about anyone else but not a day passes when I don’t give a fair amount of thought to education, immigration, regulation, defense, troops overseas etc.

As my neighbor said “I’ll vote for Romney but he seems to think that the only thing I ever think about is my paycheck.”


9 posted on 11/11/2012 10:15:17 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Usually a politician loses when he doesn't get out as many voters as his opponent.

There's a long list of GOP-e candidates who fell into that category ~ I believe 10 of them since Hoover.

That's entirely too many.

Landon, Willkie, Dewey, Nixon, Goldwater, Ford, Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney. Democrat losers were Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.

10 posted on 11/11/2012 10:18:18 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
There is a wide group of voters who are skeptical of 'free- trade'. Global wage arbritage will only create more skeptics.

There was no appeal to 'populist' or Perot type individuals from the GOP.


11 posted on 11/11/2012 10:21:46 AM PST by Theoria (Romney is a Pyrrhic victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
From an economic standpoint these guys didn't have the wrong message. They simply didn't package the message correctly and sell it to the public.

The first time the subject of "tax hikes for the rich" came up in a debate, the Republican response should have been: "If Barack Obama thinks raising taxes on the rich is so effective and the 'Bush tax cuts' need to be eliminated, then why are we sitting here in 2012 with these Bush tax cuts still in place -- four years after he took office and seven years after Mr. Obama began railing against them when he was a U.S. Senator from Illinois?"

12 posted on 11/11/2012 10:24:48 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
the top of the ticket showed no awareness of how laissez-faire economics has dovetailed with the sexual-liberation agenda of the left in undermining prospects for millions of Americans, especially those without college degrees. It is no coincidence that globalization has undermined the economic security of Middle America at the very time that Democratic policies have destabilized the family through legalized abortion, distortions of marriage through no-fault divorce and same-sex union laws, federal birth-control mandates, subsidized day care, and gender-based affirmative action.

The best analysis so far.

13 posted on 11/11/2012 10:26:10 AM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
I think Mitt really was a hard sell to much of the middle class. At a time when a majority of Americans are distrustful of Wall Street, and Dems were vulnerable because of all the donations from Wall Street last cycle, the GOP nominates ... was a Wall Streeter. And even worse, a Wall Streeter who tried to pretend he was just like the Middle Americans he was wooing.

And at a time when a majority of Americans stood opposed to Obamacare, the GOP nominates ... Romney, the signer of Romneycare who never backed away from his support for such.

And for all the talk of wooing the Hispanic vote, the GOP has yet to present a coherent vision to the Middle Class about how the wave of illegal immigration has driven away working-class jobs capable of supporting a family - IMO that has been just as destructive to the middle class as globalization.

Throw in the GOP's long support of policies that help erode jobs at all levels (such as H1-B visas) and it's a pretty hard sell that Romney truly cared about the Middle Class. And it showed. For all the talk of Obama winning by vote fraud (and I do not dismiss that argument), the more compelling point is that, in a bad year for Dems, Romney could not beat McCain's vote totals, with McCain running in a very bad year for the GOP. That alone shows just how much of a lemon Romney was - as well as the establishment corporatist GOP sect.

14 posted on 11/11/2012 10:26:59 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

>How to emphasize social issues without appearing radical?

How about first winning on logical and fiscal issues and then work on the social issues after you get in a position of power.

We need to convince the “stay at home voters” that preventing democrat scum from winning is better than punishing Republicans that don’t “act” socially exactly like they do.


15 posted on 11/11/2012 10:30:27 AM PST by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Yep. Most potential swing voters already believe by default the GOP is the party of the rich and has been for decades. We need to try extra hard to work against that stereotype by nominating someone who can relate to the common man. Why do you think Bush Jr. won? Instead the elite establishment blue bloods showed their absolute blindness to how the party is perceived by people in flyover country by nominating the poster boy for wealthy, connected, corporate, high finance businessmen, who the working class considers a natural enemy. They look for politicians to defend them against the abuses of people like Romney and would never elect one of them.

There’s also the weakness of his campaign to point to. Obama made the argument that not only Bush’s but even Reagan’s policies, going back 30 years, were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. Romney never once argued against that. He just changed the subject. Which makes you think he agreed with Obama on that. Not a shock since he railed against “Reagan/Bush” himself in the ‘90s.


16 posted on 11/11/2012 10:35:40 AM PST by JediJones (Newt Gingrich warned us that the "King of Bain" was unelectable. Did you listen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
It's kind of remarkable that the GOP would spend a fortune in a presidential election even while making one of the biggest blunders you can imagine.

Forget Romney's political baggage. Why the hell would any political party nominate a presidential candidate who didn't even have a chance in Hades of carrying his own state? Romney's Election Night campaign headquarters was in Boston, folks. ROFL!

17 posted on 11/11/2012 10:50:26 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I am the master of my fate ... I am the captain of my soul.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

the author misses the point and the fact that using free markets as the guide and barometer to taxes and regualtion is not just a federal issue, and that the economy of this country IS doing better in the states where the state government does better with their companies when it comes to taxes and regulation - in spite of whatever the federal government is doing

and what is missing in the national communication is that the federal government would help the economy if ITS policies on taxes and regulation were more following the best performing states than the worst ones

HOWEVER, the more difficult communication issue is one that provides no real selling point for federal candidates - they cannot help your state if your state continues with its own bad policies, because the federal policies, even better federal policies will only do so much for a state whose government does its own worst for the business climate


18 posted on 11/11/2012 10:53:16 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

No matter how you slice the pie; it’s big time fraud.


19 posted on 11/11/2012 10:58:25 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Exit polls revealed that the electorate trusted Obama - running on the highest unemployment rate of any incumbent since FDR - to create more jobs than the heralded entrepreneur Romney.

Which proves the electorate is either insane or bone stupid!

20 posted on 11/11/2012 11:09:50 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

This from The Special Assistant to The Secretary of Public Welfare. Man. They have absolutely no shame. Another grifter.


21 posted on 11/11/2012 11:10:31 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

The reason why Americans are skeptical of “free trade” is that they have seen no beneficial results in their pockets as a result of “free trade.”

They’ve seen hundreds of thousands of jobs leave. We were told in Silicon Valley (because CEO’s sent out emails to entire companies telling us to help them campaign for “free trade” during NAFTA and GATT) that it would result in more jobs, more exports, etc.

We were told that the “dirty” jobs would move off shore. We were never told that, oh, by the way, the engineering jobs would move off-shore, the electronics assembly jobs would move off-shore, that entire product development and manufacturing shops would move off-shore. Nope, we weren’t told any of that.

Then the the majority of US citizens saw their household incomes decline, after peaking in the late 90’s. For most everyone but the very top income earners, there has been no benefit of “free trade” visible in their paycheck at the end of the week. None. The median US household income has been declining for over 10 years now.

And still, the wankers and propagandists who peddle “free trade” with a straight face won’t address this issue. We’re told that cheaper prices offset lower wages. But that doesn’t do anything about increasing food, medical and retirement costs, now does it. Being able to buy cheap consumer crap at Walmart doesn’t offset the fact that you’re not making enough to send your kids to college, because colleges costs (like medical costs) have been increasing in excess of the rate of inflation for decades now. So a flat-lining household income doesn’t cut it.

Conservatives need to get their heads out of their rumps and start going through the Census, BLS, Fed and BEA datasets (as I have) and you will change your mind on free trade (as I have). It’s been more than 10 years, it’s time to declare it to be a a farce and a sham. The data is there for everyone to see, if they’ll just quit chanting this “free trade” pablum long enough to actually *read* and analyze the data.

A picture is worth thousands of words and reams of data:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2011.PNG


22 posted on 11/11/2012 11:18:07 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Democratic policies have destabilized the family through legalized abortion, distortions of marriage through no-fault divorce and same-sex union laws, federal birth-control mandates, subsidized day care, and gender-based affirmative action.

Americans, by their voting record, show their approval.

23 posted on 11/11/2012 11:20:18 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

All of that is true, and let’s start with some really basic stuff:

It’s real difficult to peddle someone who has two degrees from Haaaahhhhvaaaaddd as “one of the common folk.” It’s even more difficult to make that sale when he made his money on Wall Street, using clever “financial engineering” and leverage that he’s “one of the common folk.”

The last person who ran for POTUS on the GOP ticket who could convince the common man that he was “one of them” was Reagan. Want to know why?

He was the last guy who went to a non-Ivy college or (in McCain’s case) not a military academy.


24 posted on 11/11/2012 11:32:32 AM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The economic strategy -- cut taxes, get government out of the way of productive forces -- may have worked.

The political strategy didn't.

A lot of it had to do with timing and maybe somebody could work out an equation.

"Are you sick of those 8 years of Bush?" trumped "Are you sick of those 4 years of Obama?" for many voters.

There are ways that Republicans could have turned the equation to their advantage -- "Are you sick of 4 years of Carter?" included "Are you sick of 15 years of liberalism, 30 years of Democratic control of the Congress, 50 years of Democrats as the top party?" -- but I guess 2012 was too soon to get voters giving answers we would have liked to hear to questions like that.

25 posted on 11/11/2012 11:36:22 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

“There is an entire school of conservatism (Russell Kirk, etc.) that is as distrustful of laissez faire as they are of socialism. Some even describing these two theories as two sides of the same materialist coin.”

Good call, fardels. Russell Kirk, the economist Wilhelm Roepke, and maybe Robert Nisbet represent a branch of conservatism pushed aside by the GOP at their own peril. Pat Buchanan is maybe the only current conservative writer who sounds anything like them.

People with limited means have a funny habit of not voting for ideologically pure policies that threaten their own survival. Kirk and Roepke would not have been surprised at how the voting turned out in sections of the country affected by outsourcing and globalism.


26 posted on 11/11/2012 11:36:52 AM PST by Pelham (America, 1775-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: x
"Are you sick of those 8 years of Bush?"

I was sick of the last 2 years of Bush, with TARP and the bailouts, set the GOP back 20 years at least.

27 posted on 11/11/2012 11:37:39 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: donna; dirtboy

“The best analysis so far.”

Except that it left out the impact of Third World immigration, legal as well as illegal, on those same non-college degree Americans. They face unnecessary competition for their jobs and downward pressure on their wages.

The 1965 Immigration bill has been a disaster for blue collar America, their wages have remained essentially flat since 1970. And it has given us the army of Obama voters who see white America as “other” and Obama as one of their own.


28 posted on 11/11/2012 11:46:07 AM PST by Pelham (America, 1775-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Thank you. We NEED to see “Made in USA” MUCH more often!!!!


29 posted on 11/11/2012 11:53:43 AM PST by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

Excellent post.


30 posted on 11/11/2012 12:00:11 PM PST by Pelham (America, 1775-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

How do you explain Bush 2, Clinton and Obama?


31 posted on 11/11/2012 12:05:55 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

All of them were promising “free stuff,” which appeals to the low classes. They’ve got jack, their household incomes have been stagnant even longer, and they’ll pull the lever for whomever promises them free crap. Bush 2 was peddling the “compassionate conservative” trope - eg, Medicare Part D, which we couldn’t afford and just made our economic situation worse.

Romney was the first guy to come along in a while and say “You know, we can’t afford free crap forever.” That’s true. But he suffers from the problem of his background while saying that.

Want to win the middle class while preaching a story of self-reliance? Then run a guy who made his money honestly, with real sweat, and who didn’t attend the colleges of the inbred political class.


32 posted on 11/11/2012 12:11:54 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Want to win the middle class while preaching a story of self-reliance? Then run a guy who made his money honestly, with real sweat, and who didn’t attend the colleges of the inbred political class.

Got any suggestions? Look at what some so called conservatives did to Palin, Cain and Bachmann.

33 posted on 11/11/2012 12:21:08 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
What many fail to get is that 'Free Trade' as currently practiced is not Free Market. It is crony capitalism / fascism and global labor arbitrage. Being against 'Free Trade' does not= being against trade.

The Case against Free Trade:
"Trade agreements sign away democratic control over our health, safety, labor law, immigration law, fiscal policy, financial stability, national security, environmental policy, and other things. And—not to indulge in WTO conspiracy theory but in the interests of calling a spade a spade—they are also a possible back door to eventual world government, or at least global governance intrusive enough to cripple national sovereignty."


34 posted on 11/11/2012 2:07:30 PM PST by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NVDave; dirtboy; freekitty

If you haven’t read it, you might like Ian Fletcher’s analysis:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2958289/posts?page=34#34


35 posted on 11/11/2012 2:13:05 PM PST by khelus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

“No, the party simply needs to recover the Eisenhower-Reagan vision and stand with the broad middle class, the trump card of the electorate, against the collusion of the libertarian right and the social-liberation left.”


36 posted on 11/11/2012 3:00:36 PM PST by NoLibZone ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

Nominate for post of the year.


37 posted on 11/11/2012 3:59:34 PM PST by gibsosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

“How to emphasize social issues without appearing radical? Mrs Gingrich, Santorum, Ryan are all political animals, not your typical neighbor you identify with.”

There is a blog called Heartiste. It covers using psychology to pick up women, but it covers all aspects of human interactions.

One of the aspects of interaction he talks bout is frame. Frame is how you subconsciously broadcast your interpretation of the relationship between you and others. It affects how those around you approach what you say. ie, if I argue with you like I need your approal, and like I am desperate to make my case, becasue it might not be beleivable, you will get suspicious, and cautious. I want something from you (approval), and you will be careful in giving it out.

But if I subconsciously give off the vibe that I’m not invested in what you think, and my case is so airtight I don’t care if you grasp it completely, you view our interaction differently. Done right, you will at least think I beleive what I am saying, and you may even view me as an expert, and file away what I am saying as authoritative.

On socially Conservative issues, you need a frame where social Conservatism is a normal, considerate psychology, and a mark of the loyalty and decency needed to be a part of the group. The truth is, it is. Promiscuous girls are untrustworthy, and only an idiot would marry one. SIngle moms are screwing over their kids with low-investment single-parenting - the only people they should be loyal to, and they raise them in an inferior manner. Gay parents? Really?

Bringing up religion is actually counter productive to reaching the non-religious, and it just gives a Lib the ability to out-group you, by making your religion into a social wedge between you and the non-religious.

But we all value social Conservatism, deep down, because it is necessary to a functioning, decent society, and becasue it arises for the deeper K-selected nature of our species’ psychology. You just have to make the Liberal’s opposition to it a mark of their abberance, and a measure of how they don’t belong to our group (America).

It’s all the frame you approach it with.


38 posted on 11/11/2012 7:56:24 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative
A lot of wisdom here.

Take abortion for example. It has a horrific physical and mental toll on the mother. The way we humans are made, the mother will carry guilt her whole life, maybe the only similar life-long burden is having caused another's death through recklessness or spite. Given that, abortion can hardly be considered a "choice", it is a dire consequence that bears disproportionately on the female.

The Fluke-Rosin solution is birth control, as if there's no other physical and emotional fall-outs from sexual coupling, a "Brave New World" scene.

I think the underlying message of this thread is right: we cannot mobilize a majority on the basis of free economic precepts, or for that matter constitutional ones. Too abstract and not manifestly in one's self-interest. We need a core message to which people will feel an emotional attachment. Guns and Bible don't attract enough and can repel those who could be on the side of a modest and decent society.

As you intimate, we need candidates who are comfortable in their own skin, who live their lives in a comfortable way that they don't seem to have the need to preach to others, but rather set an example.

Andrew Breitbart to me exemplified this type of leader. Rather than covering up his wild past, he used it as an object lesson why to change. We need people like he to use the media to project an entertaining picture of conservatism. I think that conservatism has never been shown to such good effect, as when Breitbart, avuncular and grounded, would stand up to and withstand the most shrill, whacked-out, and hostile gatherings of purported responsible liberal organizations, and put them to shame with his composure and self-mastery.

We need menschen such as Breitbart, both male and female.
39 posted on 11/12/2012 9:11:13 AM PST by kenavi (Lost the country? Win your state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

I agree wholeheartedly, especially about Breitbart. The thing is, our ideology is based on the psychology of our species. I’m spending a huge chunk of my free time now trying to explain this in simple terms (see my profile).

If a candidate understands r/K theory, he has, right in front of him, a simple means to guide him in pointing out the aberrance of the Liberal position, as well as to see the exact reason it is aberrant. Moreover, humans, as overall K-selected psychologies are programmed to respond to this by turning on the aberrant and selfish.

And the thing with Liberal psychologies is, they are all dedicated to social maneuvering. So if you have an easy way to make embracing Liberalism socially demoting (as r/K Theory does innately), then Liberals will retreat from the discourse. It’s how they are programmed.

It’s easy to program the masses to reject Liberalism, if you just understand the reason Conservatism and Liberalism exist in the first place. Liberalism is unnatural for us.


40 posted on 11/15/2012 8:58:49 AM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | 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