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

Skip to comments.

Obama fundraising a flop? (The Billion Dollar Bust)
Hotair ^ | 03/18/2012 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 03/19/2012 7:11:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Remember when the Obama campaign hinted that they could raise a billion dollars to keep Barack Obama in the White House? Good times, good times. In February, Obama raised $45 million, but that was in partnership with the DNC, which has claim on some of that cash:

President Obama‘s reelection effort added $45 million to its coffers in February, a boost in fundraising as the campaign builds up its national infrastructure.

The $45 million haul was raised jointly by the Democratic National Committee, Obama for America and two joint fundraising committees — the Obama Victory Fund and the Swing State Victory Fund.

According to the campaign, 105,000 of the more than 1.5 million donors last month were giving for the first time. The average donation was $59.04, and 97.7% of donations were in increments of $250 or less.

Obama got $29 million all to himself in January, and February probably won’t be much different; for some reason, the LA Times doesn’t report on how the $45 million in February got split. Even the joint number is down $12 million from the comparable number in 2008, and the Obama campaign still trails the George W. Bush re-election effort in 2004. It’s getting so bad that Team Obama leader Jim Messina is acknowledging that Mitt Romney would beat Obama in an election today in an attempt to frighten Democrats into contributing.

So far, the prospect of Obama losing this election doesn’t appear to be too frightening, even to Democrats.

The Washington Post takes notice of the fundraising flop:

President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations, with half as many people writing large checks to his campaign than at this point four years ago.

Obama is outpacing his Republican rivals in fundraising overall, and his advisers have concentrated on amassing small-dollar backers, part of a strategy to get more people invested in the reelection effort. At the end of January, 1.4 million people had donated to the Obama campaign, responding to appeals for contributions as small as $2.

But Obama lags behind Republican front-runner Mitt Romney in finding donors willing to give $2,000 or more — a surprising development for a sitting president, and one that could signal more worrisome financial problems heading into the general election. At this point in the last election cycle, Obama had received such large donations from more than 23,000 supporters, more than double the 11,000 who have given him that much this time. President George W. Bush had more than four times that number of big donations at this point in his reelection.

Democrats attempt to explain this as a natural reaction to a weak field of potential opponents:

Democrats see a variety of possible explanations for such a dramatic drop in big-dollar contributions. The ailing economy has dampened fundraising overall. Some wealthy liberals and Wall Street executives alike have grown disaffected with the president over time. And the extended Republican primary has shined a spotlight on a field of potential rivals that many Democrats believe Obama will easily beat.

“Some people think these Republicans are easy marks, and they aren’t taking it as seriously as they need to yet,” said Judy Wise, one of Obama’s “bundlers,” the campaign term for people who host events and gather checks from other donors.

Er … riiiiiiiight. And the use of the economy as a reason for depressed donations is especially telling. Obama insists that the economic recovery is gaining strength. If that’s the case, then why would the economy mean fewer donations than in 2008, when the economy was in free fall?

The real problem for Obama is that only the true believers are buying the Hopenchange routine this time around. Obama has had three years to demonstrate his competence for the job, and he’s failed. Even his own campaign subtly acknowledges that reality; they’re making campaign ads about 2008, not 2010 and 2011. Their biggest attack ad so far this cycle was aimed at Sarah Palin, who ran as the VP nominee on the 2008 ticket and isn’t running for office at all this year. The Obama campaign can’t win a referendum on Obama’s term in office, and they know it — and they can’t effectively raise funds off of it, either.

Update: Jim Geraghty notes that Obama himself attended six separate fundraisers on Friday, a new record.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fundraising; obama; obamacampaigncash; onetermobama

1 posted on 03/19/2012 7:11:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I would not under estimate the cash this administration can extort remember you are playing with the kings of Chicago politics. Also in the past election all ways to verify the money was coming from legal citizens were shutdown and if he wins there will be no investigation. Another thing there is still a lot of money not accounted for in those stimulus packages I think they used a lot in the last election cycle but you I think they have a ton stashed away for this.
2 posted on 03/19/2012 7:20:52 AM PDT by THE_RAIDER (Somewhere in Kenya a village is missing their idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve said this for a while now, the electorate wants this doofus gone, every piece of polling and evidence backs this up.

This election is the republicans to lose.

However that doesn’t mean they can’t lose it. Voters want this guy gone, but they don’t want someone who is viewed as extreme or dangerous or moreso than the current occupant of the White House.

As long as the Republicans do not nominate someone who can be painted as an extremist, the electorate will end the failed and flawed experiment that was the Obama Administration this year. If however they put up someone who can be painted as too extreme, the electorate may well decide, the devil you know is better than the one you don’t.

Paul and Santorum are the two Republicans who in my mind could indeed be painted with that brush successfully and give us another 4 years of this fool.


3 posted on 03/19/2012 7:27:59 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Wall Street Bundlers - po’ed at the class warfare rhetoric

Hollywood Bundlers - po’ed at his flip-flop on SOPA

Time for Daddy Warbucks/Dr. Evil to step up to the plate


4 posted on 03/19/2012 7:32:42 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: THE_RAIDER; SeekAndFind; Condor51; stephenjohnbanker; Grampa Dave
FREEPER "THE RAIDER" POSTED: Do not underestimate the cash the Ohahas can come up with......remember, these are the kingpins of Chicago politics. At one time, conscientious FEC investigators verified money was coming from legal citizens....but if Obama wins there will be no investigations. Remember, there are billions unaccounted for in Obama's stimulus packages (probably used in the last election cycle).....you can be sure the Ohaha kingpins have tons of money stashed away for 2012.

POINTS TO PONDER

<><> author Dean Koontz estimates there's about $90 billion missing from the US treasury.

<><> Ohaha's ex-COS Chi/Mayor Rahm Emanuel is running the reelection campaign----b/c this Wall Street turd knows where all the money is hidden. Rahm also controlled all US Treasury assets (at Obama's behest) when he was COS.

<><>The Ohahas took control of the census upon taking office----they have all the necessary CV to phony up contribution reports for the FEC.

=========================================

FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS Behind The Real Size of Obama's Wall Street Bailout; A guide to the abbreviations, acronyms, and obscure programs that make up the $14 trillion federal bailout.
SOURCE motherjones.com
Mon Dec. 21, 2009 12:23 PM PST

The price tag for the Wall Street bailout is often put at $700 billion—the size of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. But TARP is just the best known program in an array of more than 30 overseen by Treasury Department and Federal Reserve that have paid out or put aside money to bail out financial firms and inject money into the markets.

To get a sense of the size of the real $14 trillion bailout, see our chart at web site. Below, a guide to the pieces of the puzzle:

Treasury Department bailout programs
(Remember that Obama's Treasury Dept was controlled by his then-COS Rahm Emanuel---a savvy, connected G/S lobbyist in the WH)

Money Market Mutual Fund: In September 2008, the Treasury announced that it would insure the holdings of publicly offered money market mutual funds. According to the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), these guarantees could have potentially cost the federal government more than $3 trillion [PDF].

Public-Private Investment Fund: This joint Treasury-Federal Reserve program bought toxic assets from banks and brokerages—as much as $5 billion of assets per firm. According to SIGTARP, the government's potential exposure from the PPIF is between $500 million and $1 trillion [PDF].

TARP: As part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Treasury has made loans to or investments more than 750 banks and financial institutions. $650 billion has been paid out (not including HAMP; see below). As of December 21, 2009, $117.5 billion of that has been repaid.

Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) stock purchase: The Treasury has bought $200 million in preferred stock from Fannie Mae and another $200 million from Freddie Mac [PDF] to show that they "will remain viable entities critical to the functioning of the housing and mortgage markets."

GSE mortgage-backed securities purchase: Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the Treasury may buy mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to SIGTARP, these purchases could cost as much as $314 billion ---SNIP---.

LONG READ---go to web site to read more and checkout the shocking financial charts.

SOURCE http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/12/behind-real-size-bailout

=======================================

WATCH FOR THESE PHONY REPORTS Obama's reelection coffers added $45 million to its coffers in February.....raised jointly by the DNC, "Obama for America" and two other joint fundraising committees — the "Obama Victory Fund" and the "Swing State Victory Fund."

5 posted on 03/19/2012 7:43:56 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
The Stimulus Bombshell
MyGovCost.org ^ | 1/24/12 | Craig Eyermann
FR Posted January 31, 2012 by GSWarrior

Stunning.

That’s really the only word we can use to describe the release of a “sensitive and confidential” 57 page memo, written by then soon-to-be U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in December 2008, about what became President Obama’s signature economic program in the first year of his presidency: the “stimulus package”.

James Pethokoukis has summarized some of the most significant aspects of the memo, which we’ve excerpted below, and which reveals the Obama administration’s thinking behind what became an over 821 billion dollar boondoggle. The bold text represents Pethokoukis’ summary of that thinking, which is directly followed by a supporting quotation from Larry Summers’ memo:

1. The stimulus was about implementing the Obama agenda. The short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign promises or high priority items that would spend out quickly and be inherently temporary.... The stimulus package is a key tool for advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.

2. Team Obama knows these deficits are dangerous (although it has offered no long-term plan to deal with them). Closing the gap between what the campaign proposed and the estimates of the campaign offsets would require scaling back proposals by about $100 billion annually or adding new offsets totaling the same. Even this, however, would leave an average deficit over the next decade that would be worse than any post-World War II decade. This would be entirely unsustainable and could cause serious economic problems in the both the short run and the long run.

3. Obamanomics was pricier than advertised. Your campaign proposals add about $100 billion per year to the deficit largely because rescoring indicates that some of your revenue raisers do not raise as much as the campaign assumed and some of your proposals cost more than the campaign assumed.... Treasury estimates that repealing the tax cuts above $250,000 would raise about $40 billion less than the campaign assumed.... The health plan is about $10 billion more costly than the campaign estimated and the health savings are about $25 billion lower than the campaign estimated.

4. Even Washington can only spend so much money so fast. Constructing a package of this size, or even in the $500 billion range, is a major challenge. While the most effective stimulus is government investment, it is difficult to identify feasible spending projects on the scale that is needed to stabilize the macroeconomy. Moreover, there is a tension between the need to spend the money quickly and the desire to spend the money wisely. To get the package to the requisite size, and also to address other problems, we recommend combining it with substantial state fiscal relief and tax cuts for individuals and businesses.

5. Liberals can complain about the stimulus having too many tax cuts, but even Team Obama thought more spending was unrealistic.

As noted above, it is not possible to spend out much more than $225 billion in the next two years with high-priority investments and protections for the most vulnerable. This total, however, falls well short of what economists believe is needed for the economy, both in total and especially in 2009. As a result, to achieve our macroeconomic objectives—minimally the 2.5 million job goal—will require other sources of stimulus including state fiscal relief, tax cuts for individuals, or tax cuts for businesses.

6. Team Obama thought a stimulus plan of more than $1 trillion would spook financial markets and send interest rates climbing. To accomplish a more significant reduction in the output gap would require stimulus of well over $1 trillion based on purely mechanical assumptions—which would likely not accomplish the goal because of the impact it would have on markets.

6 posted on 03/19/2012 7:45:49 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
2008 Candidate Barack Obama told us on the campaign trail: " The problem is, that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, # 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome so that now we have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back, $30,000 for every man woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

REALITY CHECK Obama presided over the biggest political heist in US history. The Obamanations (insiders and politicians) sucked up trillions under the guise of inheriting the "Bush financial crisis."

THIS MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD Obama COS Rahm Emanuel "suddenly" discovered he wanted to be Chicago's mayor---the little turn went before the mics and announced his campaign "raised $10 million in just a few weeks." Rahm also controlled the US Treasury as COS.

======================================

In a fair accounting, President Obama is responsible (along with the then-Democratic Congress) for the $1.3 trillion in deficit spending in 2010 and the estimated $1.6 trillion in deficit spending in 2011. He [Obama] should not get credit, moreover, for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year—loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally.

The Treasury Department says that all but $5 billion of the TARP bank loans has now been repaid. The portion of repayments that was for loans issued in 2009 should be deducted from Bush’s deficit tally, not credited to Obama as deficit savings. There is some astounding number crunching in this article, and a chart of modern day president’s “average annual deficit spending” ........a frightening conclusion of what happens if Obama has an 8 year term.

7 posted on 03/19/2012 7:47:23 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All
2008 Candidate Barack Obama told us on the campaign trail: " The problem is, that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, # 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome so that now we have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back, $30,000 for every man woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic."

REALITY CHECK Obama presided over the biggest political heist in US history. The Obamanations (insiders and politicians) sucked up trillions under the guise of inheriting the "Bush financial crisis."

THIS MADE ME LAUGH OUT LOUD Obama COS Rahm Emanuel "suddenly" discovered he wanted to be Chicago's mayor---the little turn went before the mics and announced his campaign "raised $10 million in just a few weeks." Rahm also controlled the US Treasury as COS.

======================================

In a fair accounting, President Obama is responsible (along with the then-Democratic Congress) for the $1.3 trillion in deficit spending in 2010 and the estimated $1.6 trillion in deficit spending in 2011. He [Obama] should not get credit, moreover, for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year—loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally.

The Treasury Department says that all but $5 billion of the TARP bank loans has now been repaid. The portion of repayments that was for loans issued in 2009 should be deducted from Bush’s deficit tally, not credited to Obama as deficit savings. There is some astounding number crunching in this article, and a chart of modern day president’s “average annual deficit spending” ........a frightening conclusion of what happens if Obama has an 8 year term.

8 posted on 03/19/2012 7:47:34 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Thanks for the breakdown!


9 posted on 03/19/2012 7:53:34 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 8 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Obama has his money. It’s hidden everywhere!


10 posted on 03/19/2012 7:55:50 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 5 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay; All
Paul and Santorum are the two Republicans who in my mind could indeed be painted with that brush successfully and give us another 4 years of this fool.

I don't think you have to worry about either of them being the nominee. Rick Santorum can't keep his foot out of his mouth. He's had big leads in 3 States before the Primary and ended up losing to RINO-Rom. He was leading in Illinois, which has a Primary tomorrow, but, once again RINO-Rom has overtaken him in the latest polls. Rick can't do two things:
#1. He can't keep his mouth shut when he should.
#2. He can't seem to win the really big, important states.

The best we can hope for is a Brokered Convention and leave Tampa with a Ticket of Palin/Ryan, Palin/Rubio or Ryan/Rubio. And please, all of you "Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen" people, please don't reply to me with that crap.
11 posted on 03/19/2012 8:02:52 AM PDT by no dems (Take it to Tampa: Palin / Ryan or Palin / Rubio in 2012 or Ryan/Rubio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Hollywood Bundlers - po’ed at his flip-flop on SOPA
______________________________________________________________

Forgive my ignorance, but, what is SOPA?


12 posted on 03/19/2012 8:09:16 AM PDT by no dems (Take it to Tampa: Palin / Ryan or Palin / Rubio in 2012 or Ryan/Rubio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker; miss marmelstein; Grampa Dave; ken5050; Condor51; rintense; PAConservative1; ...
Obama has money hidden everywhere.

You got that right. But can Ohaha's billions, and his obsessive sucking up to illegals, really help him get reelected? (snix)

CASE IN POINT: NJ Gov Corzine's humiliating 2009 reelection defeat at the hands of a conservative Republican with virtually no war chest to match Corzine's.....

<><>Obama directed the WH take over Corzine’s campaign.

<><>Obama campaigned in NJ three times, Biden was there twice.

<><>Obama put the power of the WH political machine behind Corzine.

<><>Obama TV ads ran relentlessly on costly NY media.

The NY Times reported:

(a) every TV ad Corzine put on the air was being screened by Obama’s WH “geniuses.”

(b) Corzine’s aides gave the WH daily briefings.

(c) Obama’s pollsters took over for Corzine’s polling team, and,

(d) White House operatives were on the ground for internal strategy sessions.

(e) Obama sent NJ $17.2 billion "stimulus" to NJ which promptly disappeared.

(f) secret strategy sessions were held with latinos;

(g) a Peruvian PAC endorsed Corzine;

(h) candidate Corzine bragged he had 20,000 paid (union) operatives on the street getting out the states largely registered Dem voters.

And the kicker was a Repub Lt gov got elected----hated by latinos for coming down hard on illegals when she was a county sheriff.

Obama's help was a millstone around the neck of former Goldman-Sachs exec Jon Corzine---who lost handily. Corzine was once being considered for Obama's US treasury Secy---he is now under investigation in the MF Global missing billions theft.

13 posted on 03/19/2012 8:19:19 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: THE_RAIDER

Obama will get his billion.

Remember the fundraising from the Gaza strip? That’ll happen again, with a ton of small donor numbers coming from suspicious credit card donations.

And don’t forget the millions of dollars of “in kind” donations from the media. Local media, national tv media, all bow in worship to Obama and his ilk. That is worth millions in free advertising.


14 posted on 03/19/2012 8:24:19 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am seeing lots of banner ads encouraging me to donate to Obama’s campaign on yahoo and other pages...I don’t think they are all pay-per-click, so perhaps they are spending a lot of bucks to try to get those smaller donations?


15 posted on 03/19/2012 8:29:55 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Paul and Santorum are the two Republicans who in my mind could indeed be painted with that brush successfully and give us another 4 years of this fool.

So you would be OK with Romney as the nominee, then?

16 posted on 03/19/2012 9:17:44 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I don’t want Romney as the nominee, but at the end of the day if he winds up the nominee, I am not going to sit out the election, and give the world 4 more years of the current idiot.

Santorum to me can’t win a general election, period. Newt could win, but doesn’t look like he’s going to get a chance, so that leaves like it or not Romney.

As I have said from day one I will vote for whoever the nominee is at the end of the day.. even if I know that they can’t win. However, my main goal has always been to get rid of Obama so putting up someone who can’t win is self destructive.

Gingrich is the only person who has consistently shown in my mind that he has a plan and understands that government is too big, too intrusive and doing too much beyond what the founders intended.

Time will tell how this all plays out, though honestly, and I know people here don’t want to hear it, but as someone who actually has voted for Santorum 3 times, I can tell you that there isn’t as much of a difference between Romney and Santorum as folks backing Santorum want others to believe. On Social Issues, yes, Santorum is more conservative than Romney, no doubt, but in terms of his overall view of the roll of government, they really aren’t all that far apart. Santorum is not small/limited government/fiscal conservative and never has been.


17 posted on 03/19/2012 9:40:27 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

too bad they don’t fundraise to actually help the state of this nation.


18 posted on 03/19/2012 10:01:32 AM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Although I voted for Christie - and I have been mightily disappointed in him - I was outraged by Corzine’s “brilliant” strategy of campaigning against Christie's weight issues. Every damn campaign commercial was an ugly jab at Christie's physical appearance (very Alinsky). This in a state where most of the citizens are built exactly like him!!! I wonder if this was cooked up by the anoxeric-in-chief at the White House.
19 posted on 03/20/2012 5:09:12 AM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Sometimes races are lost and won on the littlle things——some observers say the way Christie handled Corzine’s weight putdowns helped CC win the race.

Christie issued a statement telling Corzine to “man-up-—I’m fat-—why dont you just tell it like it is” (words to that effect).

B/c there are so many overweight people-—that could have added many votes to CC’s winning totals.


20 posted on 03/20/2012 6:21:51 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Liz

I remember at the time having a conversation with a friend of mine - an antique dealer in NJ - and he was furious at the stupid fat commercials. Even the Trenton reporters got annoyed at Corzine. I can remember one badgering him on the issue and Corzine whined: “Well, he can call me BALD.”

These are our leaders, folks!


21 posted on 03/20/2012 9:33:57 AM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

(snix) I guess even the stupid Dems who voted for him know now what a crook Corzine is-—after MF Global.....AND after he left Jersy w/ massive debt.

Some wonder what bombs Corzine planted in the pension system that will go off later-—that line his and Abelow’s pockets with billions.


22 posted on 03/20/2012 1:04:35 PM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Liz

He’s a truly terrible person. He should be in jail for life but in America: guilty as hell, free as a bird.


23 posted on 03/21/2012 6:38:13 AM PDT by miss marmelstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

miss marmelstein wrote:

He’s a truly terrible person. He should be in jail for life but in America: guilty as hell, free as a bird.

You can fathom how evil he is when you know crooks like G/S threw him out of the company.


24 posted on 03/21/2012 6:55:59 AM PDT by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | 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