Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Elizabeth Warren Face Ted Cruz In 2016?
RedState ^ | July 18th, 2014 at 03:37 PM | Dan McLaughlin

Posted on 07/19/2014 10:20:56 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

Should the Democrats nominate Elizabeth Warren for President in 2016, as a draft-Warren movement, some liberal pundits and enthusiasts at this week’s Netroots Nation convention believe?

Should Republicans nominate Ted Cruz, who has kept his options open with frequent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire? In some ways, Cruz and Warren are mirror images, and the cases for and against them are surprisingly similar. But there are also some critical differences.

Before 2008, the idea of a presidential contest between two first-term Senators in their (by then) fourth year in Washington would have seemed ridiculous; in 1988, Dan Quayle was roundly mocked for his youth and inexperience after twelve years in Congress, including eight in the Senate. But just as the defeat of Robert Bork and the subsequent confirmation of David Souter led to the rise of the conventional wisdom that a Supreme Court nominee should be a “stealth” candidate with a minimal paper trail, the election of Barack Obama in his fourth year in the Senate suggested the electoral advantages of running a candidate with as thin a record as possible, who could serve as an empty vessel into which voters could pour their aspirations.

While partisans on both sides would gag at the comparison, in some ways, Cruz and Warren are a lot alike. Both ran their first campaign for public office in 2012 (although Cruz had begun mounting a campaign to run for Texas Attorney General in 2010 before Greg Abbott decided to run for re-election), and won in the state that best emblemizes their party’s ideological base. Both seem at times like walking regional/ideologiocal stereotypes, Warren a professorial type from Boston academia, Cruz with his Texas cowboy boots and swagger, despite the fact that Warren is from Oklahoma, Cruz was born in Canada, and both pursued their higher education in New Jersey.

Both are obviously highly intelligent and Harvard Law pedigreed – Cruz was on the Law Review, clerked on the Supreme Court and had been a national debate champion in college, and has argued nine Supreme Court cases; Warren was a nationally respected bankruptcy law professor at HLS and was herself a statewide high school debate champion. Yet, both rely heavily on populist appeal rather than Paul Ryan-style wonkery. Both have one of the surest signs of intellect and one of the most useful skills in politics and lawyering, the ability to boil down complex issues to explain them in simple terms. Warren, of course, can be fantastically misleading when doing this, most famously when comparing the interest rates paid by banks on loans that are repaid overnight and rarely default to the rates paid by college students on loans that may extend 10 to 30 years and default frequently, an analogy no honest adult could defend. But then, Cruz’s critics have their own list of favorite soundbites they don’t like; both are seen by their party’s grassroots base as rare principled truth-tellers, and by the opposing party as dangerous charlatans or worse. Both have proven to be successful grassroots fundraisers, although Cruz has been less consistent at political moneymaking than Warren. Both are much in demand by campaigns looking to fire up their party’s base, and would run fiery campaigns that grow their party’s base at the risk of turning off moderates. Both are eloquent and forceful speakers, but neither is particularly warm, charming or likeable in the way that we usually associate with winning national candidates. Both broke the usual mode of cautious and deferential new Senators, making an immediate splash in Washington. Both would be history-making candidates – Warren the first woman to be a national party presidential nominee, Cruz the first Hispanic nominee.

For all the similarities, however, there are some important distinctions between how Cruz and Warren are situated.

1. Cruz has a stronger electoral record. Both Warren and Cruz have yet to prove they could win anything outside the most favorable possible conditions – a polarizing national election deep in favorable territory, Warren in Massachusetts, Cruz in Texas. But there’s two difference. First, Cruz ran a lot closer to the national ticket. Mitt Romney carried Texas by 15.8 points, earning 57.13% of the vote; Cruz also won by 15.8 points, with 56.46% of the vote. For all intents and purposes, Cruz ran even with Romney in Texas. But (while we do not have exit polls) he may have had a somewhat different coalition: a Latino Decisions pre-election poll found Cruz drawing 35% of the Hispanic vote against 65% for his opponent Paul Sadler, compared to 29% for Romney and 70% for Obama. By contrast, while Obama won Massachusetts by a whopping 23.2 points, with 60.67% of the vote, Warren won only by 7.6 points, with 53.74% of the vote. There are too few Hispanics in Massachusetts to be picked up in the exit poll (4% according to the exits), but the Latino Decisions poll (which, I should note, had Hispanics as 5.9% of the vote) showed Warren running only a little behind Obama, winning them 86-14 to Obama’s 89-9. But other demographic groups were a different story. Obama won men in Massachusetts 55-43, Warren lost them 53-47. Obama won 73% of voters under 30, Warren 61%; Obama also won 56% of voters age 30-44, Warren lost them 55-45. Obama won 92% of the black vote, Warren 86%. Obama, who was routed with white voters nationally, won them in Massachusetts 57-42, including white men 50-48 and white women 63-37. Warren lost white voters 51-49, losing white men 50-42 and winning white women 55-45. Obama won self-described moderates 55-43 and independents (another group he lost nationally) 52-45; Warren lost both, moderates 55-45 and independents by a lopsided 59-41. Obama won suburbanites 57-42, Warren lost them 51-49. While maps can be misleading due to the urban concentration of Democratic voters, you can see that Cruz carried a much broader cross-section of his own, much larger and more diverse state (Cruz got 4.4 million votes compared to Warren’s 1.7):

Now, there are extenuating circumstances here. Warren was running against a moderate, well-funded, personally popular incumbent, Scott Brown, a famously talented retail politician; Cruz’s opponent, former State Rep. Paul Sadler, was basically an underfunded punching bag. So Warren’s race was much more contested than Cruz’s or than the presidential race in either state. That is reflected in voter turnout: 72.9% of registered voters voted in Massachusetts in 2012, compared to an average of 70.5% over the prior three general elections, whereas only 58.6% of registered voters voted in Texas in 2012 compared to an average of 66.4% over the prior three general elections.

And while Mitt Romney was a hometown candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts, politically and culturally much closer to the typical Massachusetts Republican than Obama to the typical Texas Democrat (in 2008, Obama lost the primaries in both Massachusetts and Texas), Romney’s popularity in the state was pretty bad by 2012 (the exit poll had his favorability at 40-59) after the national campaign and the acrimonious New Hampshire primaries of 2008 and 2012. That helps explain why Obama beat Romney with demographic groups in Massachusetts (white men, white women, independents, suburbanites) that Obama was losing, badly, in most of the battleground states and nationally.

We do, however, have one piece of additional evidence of Cruz’s ability that we don’t have with Warren: his record in a hotly contested primary. Warren cruised to the nomination, which is a show of her strength in scaring off challengers but also means her ability to win a primary race is untested. Cruz, by contrast, won a major upset against a deeply entrenched member of the Texas GOP establishment, longtime Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (Cruz finished second in a crowded primary, 44% to 34%, but won 56.8% against Dewhurst in the runoff).

In the final analysis, neither Cruz nor Warren has proven they could appeal to anything like the swing voters of Ohio, Florida, and other purple states. But Cruz has at least shown that he can win a hard-fought primary and run even with his party’s national ticket on friendly turf. Warren has yet to do even that much.

2. Warren has to beat Hillary. The proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the 2016 presidential race is Hillary Clinton. Hillary is beatable, in theory, in a primary; after all, she lost to Obama in 2008. But in reality, her massive name recognition and fundraising prowess starts her off in a much stronger polling position than in 2008, and her presence alone may deter Warren from running (and already influenced Warren to sign a letter encouraging Hillary to run). Moreover, Warren would face a serious demographic challenge. Obama’s 2008 victory over Hillary required a two-pronged assault on her coalition: one prong was anti-war white liberals who carried Obama to wins in the caucuses and states in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, and the other was an overwhelming, 90%+ majority among black voters (see, e.g., here, here, and here), who allowed Obama to sweep the South (in most Southern states, black voters are a majority of the Democratic primary electorate, and Obama swept Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, DC and Delaware).

Warren, running more on economic populism (e.g., Hillary’s six years on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart) than Hillary’s support for the Iraq War or Hillary’s opposition before 2013 to same-sex marriage, is one of the few Democrats with the fundraising ability and ideological footprint to replicate the first part of Obama’s primary coalition, and her gender neutralizes Hillary’s most potent weapon. But there is no reason to believe that she could reconstruct the monolithic black support that was decisive for Obama. That would leave Warren needing to make a frontal assault on Hillary’s existing base, a much tougher challenge than consolidating the support of people who are not already locked in.

By contrast, Cruz faces an open field, the most open Republican field in the modern primary system and really comparable only to prior Democratic fields (1976, 1988, 1992, to some extent 2004) that lacked any kind of frontrunner. Few national polls these days put anybody above 15% support, much less 20%, and the leaders are often people with big name recognition who are not that likely to run (Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney) or face a natural ceiling on their appeal (Rand Paul). The moderate/”Establishment” wing of the party has yet to consolidate behind one candidate, having gotten the jitters over Chris Christie after Bridgegate. That hardly guarantees victory for Cruz, as the GOP has an embarrassment of riches in terms of Governors and Senators who could run and be appealing candidates in different ways. But it’s precisely the kind of open field in which a strong ideological figure could emerge victorious despite a lack of the traditional resume Republicans ordinarily expect.

3. Cruz is much younger. Warren, like Hillary and Romney, is a child of the 1940s; Cruz is a child of the 1970s. If you compare them to the roster of Republicans who might be in the Presidential or Vice Presidential mix (by design, this is an overinclusive list), both Warren and Hillary stick out as an older crowd:

2016 GOP Dem Field Ages

Even in the primaries, that means yet another way in which Warren will struggle to distinguish herself from Hillary to win the favor of the Democrats’ youth-obsessed electorate, which fell for Obama partly because of his relative youth and ‘coolness.’ It also means there’s a greater urgency to Warren’s decision – if she doesn’t run in 2016, she probably never will (we’ve never elected a non-incumbent who was over 70, and the two over-70 nominees, John McCain and Bob Dole, were constantly dogged by the age issue), whereas Cruz could easily stay in the Senate and run a decade or two from now.

In a general election, age may not be a disabling factor but it is likely to play in a way that provides a favorable contrast for the Republican nominee (if it’s Cruz or one of the other fortysomethings) against Warren, just as it would against Hillary. Only two Presidents were over 65 when they entered office (Reagan and William Henry Harrison, and Harrison died a month into his term), and the dependence of the Democrats on younger voters will be tested if their candidate is 20-25 years older than the Republican.

4. Cruz is building a foreign policy profile. Americans are focused on domestic policy issues these days, and the 2014 election, like 2012 and 2010, will be dominated by domestic issues. But Americans still expect their President to be up to the role of Commander-in-Chief, and in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world beset with regional crises, foreign policy may be harder to avoid in 2016.

Cruz, the son of a Cuban immigrant, has put a lot of effort into building a profile on foreign policy. His most famous Supreme Court fight as Texas Solicitor General was over the International Court of Justice’s treaty authority to reopen U.S. death sentences handed down to Mexican nationals, a subject he returned to earlier this year with an essay in the Harvard Law Review on the limits of the treaty power. He joined with Rand Paul in early 2013 in a high-profile fight against drone strikes against U.S. citizens, but has subsequently broken with Senator Paul over the future direction of U.S. foreign policy, and made a point of giving foreign policy speeches at conservative events. Cruz has traveled extensively – to South Africa for the Mandela memorial service, to Israel to show support for a key U.S. ally, to Ukraine, to Poland and Estonia to criticize Vladimir Putin. Cruz’s list of Senate committee assignments includes a who’s who of committees focused on national security, border security, public safety, technology and American power:

Committee on Armed Services (Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Subcommittee on Seapower)

Committee on the Judiciary (Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights (Ranking Member), Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security)

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, Subcommittee on Science and Space (Ranking Member))

Warren, by contrast, serves on the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Special Committee on Aging (on which Cruz also sits; Cruz is also on the Rules Committee). The Washington Post noted in December that Warren “has done nothing, for example, to curry favor in early primary states or to build her foreign policy credentials by traveling abroad.” This stands in stark contrast to Obama, who built his campaign around opposition to the Iraq War. Her statement of “Eleven Commandments” that progressives stand for in today’s Netroots Nation speech is conspicuously silent on foreign affairs or national security; the closest she comes to the border is the bland assertion that ” immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.” Warren often evades foreign policy questions; witness this video from yesterday of her literally running away from a question about Israel and Gaza:

5. The Fauxohontas Factor: Warren and Cruz will each give the other party huge amounts of ideological ammunition, but comparatively little biographical ammunition. The one exception is the furor over whether the pasty-white Warren – who claims to have some small amount of Cherokee blood and on this basis was touted by Harvard Law School as a “diverse” faculty member – improperly took advantage of affirmative action preferences not meant for white people. Pundits generally assume that this controversy was beaten to death because it didn’t stop Warren from winning in 2012, but as noted above, that race left Warren running far behind the national Democratic ticket, and as Mike Dukakis, John Kerry and Mitt Romney can tell you, what works in Massachusetts may not always work nationally. And the fake-Indian issue could be surprisingly potent in a campaign against an actual son of a Cuban immigrant.

6. Warren has to play ball with Obama: The final factor here is structural. Cruz can more or less draw up his own path right now: his party doesn’t control the White House, it doesn’t (for now, at least) control the Senate, and Cruz is so often at loggerheads with party leadership that there is no real concern that he will be locked into votes he doesn’t want just out of being a loyal soldier. That’s not all good – he also carries the baggage of a lot of people blaming him for the 2013 government shutdown – but it means his mistakes will be his own.

Warren, by contrast, would inevitably have to run with eight years of Obama’s foreign policy and economic baggage, and the early signs are that she lacks Cruz’s stomach to buck party leadership. One of the signature anti-corporate-welfare fights Cruz has been leading lately is his crusade against the Export-Import Bank; Warren just came out in support of the Obama Administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in favor of re-authorizing the Ex-Im Bank. That may well be a decision popular with major donors, and even a decision publicly defensible as a pro-business, pro-growth posture (the grounds cited by Warren), but it inevitably muddies her populist message whenever she sides with the current power structure out of party loyalty. It is always hard to square populist revolt with “four more years of the same” and not discomfiting the comfortable on your own side.

So…will Cruz run in 2016? Will Warren? Should they? Certainly both can have an impact on the policy debate within their own party by running, and Warren in particular could have a much larger impact if she runs than if she tries to play kingmaker/queenmaker in an effectively uncontested race. And it would be foolhardy to count either of them out, as a potential nominee or a potential President. That said, for all her weaknesses, it is still hard to argue with the idea that if Hillary Clinton wants the nomination, she will get it and should get it as the strongest Democratic candidate in 2016 – not Warren. The case for Republicans running someone other than Cruz is more arguable, given the large number of other options (personally, while I like Cruz a lot and admire his principled and pugnacious conservatism, I prefer a Governor like Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker, for a lot of reasons), and that is what primaries are for – but there is little question that Cruz would be, like Warren, the most polarizing candidate the party could choose.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts; US: Michigan; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 2014election; 2016election; 2016gopprimary; cruz; cruz2016; detroit; election2014; election2016; elizabethwarren; fauxohontas; lieawatha; massachusetts; michigan; netroots; nutroots; tedcruz; texas; warren2016
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan


"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792


"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams


"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams


1 posted on 07/19/2014 10:20:56 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Jarhead9297; COUNTrecount; notaliberal; DoughtyOne; RitaOK; MountainDad; ...
Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
2 posted on 07/19/2014 10:21:26 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; All
 photo Scarylady.gif

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

3 posted on 07/19/2014 10:22:18 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I am betting on Warren as the RAT candidate - she spouts AND BELIEVES all the right Alinsky stuff, which seems to be what the RAT party is all about in the 2010s.

4 posted on 07/19/2014 10:24:23 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I think a clear contrast between opposing political philosophies would be a very healthy thing. But I’m very afraid of what side the crony corporatists and their paid for politicians would support.

5 posted on 07/19/2014 10:25:34 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I’d prefer to see Cruz on the USSC, appointed by Walker or Perry. Personally, I keep looking for a Reagan on the horizon and I don’t see one.

6 posted on 07/19/2014 10:25:58 AM PDT by MSF BU (Support the troops: Join Them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Mr. Obama was in his third year in the United States Senate when he was elected president. Can Eric read?

7 posted on 07/19/2014 10:28:51 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I’d prefer to see Cruz on the USSC, appointed by Walker or Perry. Personally, I keep looking for a Reagan on the horizon and I don’t see one.

Then you are purposefully looking past Ted Cruz and are blind to the truth.
8 posted on 07/19/2014 10:28:57 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Pretty amazing that this peculiar woman is even being considered as a possible Dim presidentail nominee.

9 posted on 07/19/2014 10:31:24 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Cruz has no chance and neither does that old scowl from Massachusetts.

I like Ted Cruz but being photogenic is everything in modern politics and he looks like he is a genetic cross between John Belushi and Pat Buchanan.

If you don't look good on TV, you won't win Period. There are way too many shallow people who will vote against you. Smilin' Mitt might just do it again.

10 posted on 07/19/2014 10:32:33 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The Fauxohontas Factor should have ended her political career before it even started.

11 posted on 07/19/2014 10:33:30 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Cruz has no chance and neither does that old scowl from Massachusetts.

That's funny, that's exactly what the Party faithful were saying about Reagan in both 1976 and 1980. Look how that worked out.

Sorry, I'm not about who can win as my primary objective.

I'm about WHO SHOULD WIN, and that would be the most conservative, most intelligent, most principled candidate available.

There are currently three in that category, Cruz, Lee, and Palin.

While Walker is good on most things, he is an open-border failure.
12 posted on 07/19/2014 10:34:54 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Hillary may become the Hubert Humphrey of this generation.

By that, I mean someone who is a party regular, someone supposedly having great support in the party, someone who seems destined for the White House, but never gets there.

13 posted on 07/19/2014 10:35:48 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76’re hitting on something that worries me, too. He cannot change his looks (after all, Nixon wasn’t a beauty) but he can lower his speaking voice and avoid the adenoidal twang. That takes a really good voice teacher and I’m sure he has the money to find one. Margaret Thatcher’s voice was high and strident and she brought it way, way down over the years. Hillary ought to try it too but she’s too self-satisfied to even notice there is a problem.

14 posted on 07/19/2014 10:36:46 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
The Fauxohontas Factor

That will be the name of her show on MSNBC after she loses.
15 posted on 07/19/2014 10:38:10 AM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

And the theme song will be “Running Bear loved little White Dove.”

16 posted on 07/19/2014 10:41:43 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Will88

Elizabeth Warren sounds like an organizer for the OWS, the Black Bloc and the Anarchists. She’s dangerous because she is so radical but looks like an old maid school teacher.

The best way to defeat her is to tie her tightly to Obama and his policies.

17 posted on 07/19/2014 10:45:30 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
That's funny, that's exactly what the Party faithful were saying about Reagan in both 1976 and 1980. Look how that worked out. Yes, but for an entirely different reason. The Party faithful felt that Reagan was "too extreme" in his conservative views to get elected.

However, Ronald Reagan was EXTREMELY photogenic and very presidential looking and that's what helped him overcome all of that. Even lunchpail Democrats voted for him.

Ted Cruz simply does not have that going for him. I wish I could say that our society was not that shallow but they are. How you present yourself on TV is pretty much everything. If we could reprogram photogenic Mitt Romney's brain with that of Ted Cruz, we'd have a winner.

I hate having to say this by the way.

18 posted on 07/19/2014 10:45:51 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The GOP will never accept Cruz. Warren (who is almost certainly the nominee) will beat Bush, Christie, or Romney easily.

19 posted on 07/19/2014 10:49:00 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
She's on the warpath, folks, have no doubt...

20 posted on 07/19/2014 10:49:28 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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
Topics · Post Article

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