GOP Debates - March Madness??

The GOP is starting to worry about how to have a series of televised debates with an estimated 16 contenders having announced or expected to in the next few weeks or so. How can you squeeze all these people in during, say, a 90 minute televised debate? Some are frankly hoping that more than a few drop out before the debates even begin. But perhaps there is another solution that Republicans haven’t considered: March Madness. Think about it. If the NCAA can handle 68 teams in a little over a month and keep a substantial portion of America fixated on the celebrated annual tourney, maybe they can hand a workable solution to the GOP.

Yes, basketball is far more important than politics to many voters, it has to be admitted. But we're dealing with a paltry 16 candidates and we have about 18 months to go. And the key to March Madness is precisely all that madness - mouth watering confrontations between far flung teams - in the confines of a few weeks. This means that the GOP needs to come up with a packed series of debates in a confining short period of time. Candidates can go at it - maybe we could have tag team nights; say Ted Cruz vs. Marco Rubio with Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina trying to butt in - in a series of round robin tournaments with the winners going to semi-finals and the grand final debate topping it all off. Or maybe not. The point being that the Republican Party does have a problem on its hands. How to organize the debates without the party itself being ridiculed over the number of candidates debating?

Will some candidates drop out? Undoubtedly, but these are uncharted waters and to have the GOP field drastically reduced in order to fit prime-time formats would be a shame. What it will mean, is that any candidate hoping to rise above the rest will have to be very good at communicating quickly and dramatically on one or two key points. It really is hard to say who will be best at that. There is a great deal of both political experience and campaign experience spread throughout the field, but there are also political novices. However the GOP structures them, it will be a lot of fun to watch the debates. Not as much as March Madness of course. But then again, the future of a party and a country are at stake. And that too matters. And maybe, what happens outside any televised debate, on the campaign trail in towns and cities around the country, will matter almost as much. Imagine that.

Posted by Keeley at May 15, 2015 7:30 PM
Comments
Comment #395554

It is a tough situation for the GOP. A few conservative columnists have already come right out and said it. Somehow, the GOP needs to prevent Carson and Fiorina and Trump off the debate stage.

It should be easier excluding Trump. He is a buffoon and shameless self-promoter, but he has not declared, so at least there is hope. If he were the only problem candidate, he could simply be excluded and snubbed. It might hurt the feelings of the Birther contingent, but Obama will be gone soon anyway, so that could be a risk the GOP would be willing to take.

The next biggest problem is Carson. He has no business even running, and yet, he ranks 5th or 6th in the polls or even higher, and he is the only black candidate. The GOP desperately needs an answer to its issue with the lack of diversity. The problem is the fear of what Carson might say on a nationally televised debate. He routinely spouts ridiculous platforms and commits gaffes. How can the GOP stop him?

Fiorina is a similar problem. While she has no traction in the polls, she is the only female candidate. She failed as a CEO and she failed as a Senate candidate and that is very public knowledge, but she was paid a fortune by HP to go away, and that enables her to run. She’s smarter than most of the other candidates. Maybe she could be convinced to go away in exchange for the promise of a cabinet seat in a GOP administration. Worth a try.

Well, the GOP has hoist itself on its own petard. FOX and others gave these people attention and air time and treated them seriously, and that was a terrible mistake, because now they won’t go away; and now it won’t just be a FOX audience- the whole country will see these people on stage debating. It’s a real nightmare.

Jeb Bush is turning out to be a terrible candidate- no surprise there- and that is only going to encourage the crazies to get even crazier in order to attract attention. I still think Cruz will win it all by being the most extreme.

Posted by: phx8 at May 15, 2015 10:34 PM
Comment #395557
I still think Cruz will win it all by being the most extreme.

In 2012, being “most extreme” yielded a revolving door of candidates 15 minutes of fame. There’s no reason to expect 2016 will be much different. My gut feeling is that Cruz will win the Iowa caucus assuming that Rand Paul is somehow disposed of, and perhaps he will win the South Carolina primary too. However, once he leaves the Bible belt, his candidacy will sink like a stone. Either Walker or Bush will win New Hampshire and whoever does will win the nomination.

I still think Walker’s flaws are overstated. For now, he’s the one I’d bet on to win it all.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2015 6:08 AM
Comment #395560

“The next biggest problem is Carson. He has no business even running,”

And I thought you made a type and should have said Hillary. She has no business running.

So what is the criteria for a candidate for president of these United States? Carson does not meet your criteria? What is it. He is a brilliant man. Just because he cannot lie like Hillary; is that the criteria? Hillary cannot be trusted by a vast number of people. That should contribute to the criteria used by the voters and not her obesity. Carson can out glow the integrity of Hillary which is non-existent.

Would love to see a debate between Hillary and Cruz with the moderator being quite neutral. Also with Walker_Hillary, or Rubio-Hillary, or even Huckabee-Hillary.

Any way you cut it Hillary is a terrible candidate. Someone with nothing to support her background. She has done nothing in public life to qualify as a viable candidate for any public office.

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2015 12:12 PM
Comment #395561

She has done nothing in public life to qualify as a viable candidate for any public office.
Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2015 12:12 PM

Now Tom, don’t forget she went to bed nearly every night with a sitting president. It’s called “sleep learning” I believe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 16, 2015 1:35 PM
Comment #395562

WP,
What makes 2016 different from 2012 is that more billionaires are backing candidates, and it only takes one to let a candidate stay in the race no matter how bad the results. This happened in 2012 with Gingrich (billionaire backer Shel Adelson) and Santorum (billionaire backer Foster Friess). Both were ridiculous candidates, although in their defense, it can at least be said they had some political experience. Maybe it was bad experience- Gingrich did so badly in the 1998 midterms, he lost his Speakership, and when Santorum ran for re-election in the Senate, he lost by the biggest margin in US history- like I said, maybe it was bad experience, but nevertheless, it was experience.

This time around there are several candidates with billionaire money behind them. Jeb Bush thought he could do a replay of W’s 2000 strategy and raise so much money at the outset that it would end the contest then and there. Jeb did raise a lot, but it only takes one billionaire to keep a candidate in the race, and Jeb is performing very poorly. Usually a poorly performing candidate will run out of money and be unable to raise more, but this time, some of these candidates will be able to keep running no matter how badly they do.

tom humes,
To run for president, a person needs to be an American citizen over the age of 35. That is it.

In order to winnow down the field there needs to be some kind of criteria. A debate stage will only hold so many people, and there are only so many minutes available. Barring some exceptional qualifications (think Eisenhower), political experience is a good jumping off point along with polling.

Carson has no political experience. Zero. He knows nothing about the constitutional powers of the president, he knows nothing about the law and legislating, he has never run a local or statewide campaign, never mind a national one. He became a favorite of the right for one reason- he was rude to the President at a breakfast. He commits gaffe after gaffe, but the right wing is so far out there, they don’t even think there is anything wrong with what he is saying. They don’t get it. They see nothing wrong when Carson compares Obamacare to slavery, or America under Obama to the nazis, or homosexuality to pedophilia. But everyone else does. And that is why the GOP is so desperate to keep Carson and Trump and other buffoons off the stage.

Posted by: phx8 at May 16, 2015 4:25 PM
Comment #395565

Gingrich & Santorum eventually dropped out of the race despite the backing of their sugar daddies. The same fate will ultimately befall Cruz and his ilk.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 16, 2015 8:53 PM
Comment #395566

Political experience is not a pre-requsite. Obama had nearly or practicaly none. Your claim about Carson is balderdash. You know it is a wrong thing to say even to the point that I think you are being less than honest in your mouthings. So what is new from your key board except thing you cannot backup. I am even going to call this discussion to a halt. Does not make any sense to discuss such non-sense.

Posted by: tom humes at May 16, 2015 9:27 PM
Comment #395567

Gingrich dropped out in late April 2012. By that time he no longer had any chance of even dreaming of winning the nomination. Santorum dropped out earlier, in mid-April (his daughter’s health problems probably affected his decision). By the time those two dropped out, Romney was certain to win.

WP, I think Jeb Bush is such a poor candidate that a divided field of relatively weak competitors could keep the process going much longer than anything we’ve seen in a long time. It took Obama most of the campaign season to defeat Hillary Clinton, but then, those were two very strong Democratic candidates running against one another.
In the most recent FOX poll of presidential contenders, Jeb Bush is tied with Carson at 13%, and there is whole host of weak candidates behind them. I don’t care how far off the election is- that is an astounding result, and I am sure the Republican establishment is pounding its collective head against on the desk. I’ve never seen a field this weak and spread so wide and shallow.

Posted by: phx8 at May 16, 2015 9:33 PM
Comment #395568

tom humes,
There is no legal prerequisite other than age and citizenship to be president, but practically speaking, it would be inconceivable to put a person with NO experience with foreign or domestic policy, NO experience legislating or running a large organization, NO political allies in D.C., and a bad habit of making ridiculous gaffes. None of those qualities prevents a person from being a neurosurgeon, but they sure do prevent one from being an effective politician.

Politicians should know law.

Obama taught constitutional law and served as a state and US senator, then created and staffed a nationwide organization for a successful political campaign.

Hillary Clinton was a lawyer, served as First Lady for a state and then the country, was a US Senator, ran a nationwide campaign for the party nomination that came within an eyelash of winning, and served as Secretary of State.

Not one Republican candidate has as much experience as Hillary Clinton with foreign policy. Only Rubio has any whatsoever, because he serves on a committee in the Senate. The rest of the field has zip.

And that is kind of funny, because the party establishment and FOX want to make the election about foreign policy! But what else are they supposed to do? The Democrats have done a superb job with the economy, so the GOP can’t talk about that. On virtually every social issue the Democrats outpoll the Republicans by wide margins, so they can’t talk about that either.

Posted by: phx8 at May 16, 2015 10:04 PM
Comment #395569
Gingrich dropped out in late April 2012. By that time he no longer had any chance of even dreaming of winning the nomination. Santorum dropped out earlier, in mid-April (his daughter’s health problems probably affected his decision). By the time those two dropped out, Romney was certain to win.

Romney was certain to win as soon as he won the New Hampshire primary. Everything after that was a postlude. Unlike the Iowa caucus, NH primary voters tend to be within the GOP establishment instead of movement conservatives. Bush is a weak candidate, which is why he will lose in Iowa. But if he wins in NH, I am pretty sure all the other candidates are doomed. Sure, they might limp onward with their billionaire sugar daddies, but Jeb’s machine will take them down eventually. Only exception I can see is if Scott Walker wins Iowa and all the other early states. Walker is the only TP conservative with a modicum of mainstream credibility. He will be dangerous if he can keep his mouth shut.

Only Rubio has any whatsoever, because he serves on a committee in the Senate. The rest of the field has zip.
It isn’t much, but Ted Cruz is on the Armed Services committee and Rand Paul is on the Homeland Security committee. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 9:39 AM
Comment #395571

WP,
It will be interesting to see if NH turns out to be the primary bellwether. IA can be safely ignored. The IA GOP is so disorganized, it made a total hash of the 2012 primary and it took weeks to even figure out who won. Extremists run the caucuses, and about the only practical outcome will be winnowing out a few of the bottom feeding far right candidates.

You might be right about Bush running the table if he can win in NH. He will have the money, and his main competitor there would have been Christie,, but at this point, Christie will do well just to stay out of jail, never mind run for higher office.

Walker has some serious ethical problems in the background. Six of his people have already been convicted because of the first John Doe investigation. The second one was stopped by a judge, but it can still come back into play within the WI legal system. when it comes to money and power, guys like Walker tiptoe as close to the line of what is legal and illegal as they can get. Eventually it comes back to bite them.

As for foreign policy experience, you’re right, it isn’t much, but the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees could be considered foreign policy experience. It’s weak, but something.

It’s kind of funny, because the GOP seems to think 2016 should be a foreign policy election, yet they just can’t get out from under the Iraq debacle. They want to blame Obama, but now information has become available on the history of ISIS and how it was formed.

Here is a detailed and abundantly linked article:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/17/1384913/-Sorry-Jeb-Your-brother-did-create-ISIS?showAll=yes

It’s an impossible situation for conservatives. They want to talk about foreign policy, but that brings up Iraq, and people are not going to accept the Neocon line.

Posted by: phx8 at May 17, 2015 1:20 PM
Comment #395573

” The Democrats have done a superb job with the economy…”

So silly coming from a lib.

Out of the left side of their mouth comes the breast-beating over the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting food stamps and ever more government subsidies.

Out of the right side of their mouth comes the brag of the run-up in the stock market.

Out of their butts comes no concern over the lower labor force participation rate, just hot smelly air. The LFPR has been dropping since January, 2009 and stands at 62.8 as of April 2015. Democrat policies are killing jobs and killing incentives to work.

The poor and the middle class have not fared well at all under the obama machine.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 2:09 PM
Comment #395574

It isn’t much, but Ted Cruz is on the Armed Services committee and Rand Paul is on the Homeland Security committee. Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 9:39 AM

Please share with us obama’s bonafides pre-president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 2:12 PM
Comment #395575

ISIS Overruns More Of Ramadi, In What Official Calls ‘Total Collapse’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/17/isis-ramadi-iraq_n_7300746.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost

And…obama goes golfing and stays busy planning his post presidential library.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #395576

Royal,

“The LFPR has been dropping since January, 2009…”

The LFPR has actually been in a steady decline since the late nineties, and, gee, weren’t at least some of those years controlled by Republican policies?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 2:34 PM
Comment #395577

Not true Rocky, check your data.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #395578

Royal,

http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1978-2014-5

If I read the graph correctly it peaked in ‘98. The graph is from May of last year.

And wow, a drop of .45 points since March down from 63.2.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 3:35 PM
Comment #395579

Rocky, go here for the official data.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Here is what I wrote; “The LFPR has been dropping since January, 2009 and stands at 62.8 as of April 2015. Democrat policies are killing jobs and killing incentives to work.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #395580

Royal,


And here’s your same graph extended back to 1997.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

I was off by a year.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #395581
Please share with us obama’s bonafides pre-president.

Unlike Cruz’s time as a firebrand, Obama spent his time in the Senate actually working with the other side of the aisle to get things done. With respect to foreign policy, his biggest accomplishment was his work with Dick Lugar that strengthened and renewed the Nunn-Lugar law in order to limit nuclear proliferation. Also, we cannot forget that he made the bold decision to publicly oppose the Iraq war in 2003. Having the guts to go against mainstream because of a sincerely held belief earned him lots of brownie points.

Oh, and most importantly: He isn’t Hilary Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 4:31 PM
Comment #395582

Rocky, you link is broken.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #395583

My link isn’t broken.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1997 67.0 66.9 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.1 67.2 67.2
1998 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.2 67.2 67.1 67.2
1999 67.2 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.1 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 67.1
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7
2015 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.8

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 4:51 PM
Comment #395584

Royal,

It’s the same link you used, when I checked back on it, it had expired.
All you have to do is go to the top of the graph, hit the down button with the date on the left, pick 1997, hit the go button, and there you go.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #395586

Why bother Rocky, I posted the data.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #395587

In Jan 2000 LFPR was 67.3

In Jan 2008 LFPR was 66.2

Six years of obama and the LFPR is 62.8

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 5:07 PM
Comment #395588

Congratulations Royal Flush, you have discovered that Baby Boomers tend to retire as they get older.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #395589

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 5:34 PM
Comment #395590




Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 5:35 PM
Comment #395591

Goodness Rocky. First you argue with my data, then provide your own data, and then spin like hell. Have you no honor? What’s next?

What I wrote stands correct. “The LFPR has been dropping since January, 2009 and stands at 62.8 as of April 2015. Democrat policies are killing jobs and killing incentives to work.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 5:35 PM
Comment #395592

“3rd Try”

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 5:38 PM
Comment #395593

Looks like my HTML skills need more work.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1992_2015_all_period_M04_data.gif

As you can see, the decline began in the late ’90s but accelerated once the Great Recession hit.

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 5:40 PM
Comment #395594

In Jan 2008 LFPR was 66.2

Six years of obama and the LFPR is 62.8

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 5:41 PM
Comment #395595

http://economics.about.com/od/unemploymentrate/f/labor_force.htm

“Question: What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?

Answer: The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:

Are employed
Are unemployed but looking for a job

Typically “working-age persons” is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired.
In the United States the labor force participation rate is usually around 67-68%.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 17, 2015 5:59 PM
Comment #395596

Royal,

“First you argue with my data, then provide your own data, and then spin like hell.”

How is pointing out the decline started in 1997 arguing with “your” data? You didn’t even provide a link until I provided mine.
Seems to me that the figure for Dec, 1997 is greater than that of Dec, 2004, and so on.

Yeah, it got more precipitous in 2008.

You want spin, the index is down about 4.4 points in 16 years.

“Have you no honor?”

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Oh, and BTW, the LFPR has risen for those between 55-64 (I’m in this group) from less than 55% in the late ’80s, to nearly 65% now.

Go figger.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 6:22 PM
Comment #395597


I am also curious to know just how many of the eligible work force are working, but aren’t being 1099’d.

I can’t find a source for information on whether those that are being 1099’d are included in the figures.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 17, 2015 6:55 PM
Comment #395598

Royal Flush,

The BLS source you cited is the LFPR for everyone aged 16+ including elderly retirees. For the prime age LFPR (ages 25 to 54), please refer to figure 4. 81% of prime aged Americans participate in the labor force, but the rate has been declining modestly since the ’90s (It peaked at 84%).

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 10:00 PM
Comment #395599

Figure 4

Posted by: Warren Porter at May 17, 2015 10:01 PM
Comment #395603

No GOP candidate is saying much about the economy because it is good. The unemployment rate is 5.4%, last month the most important economic employment number of all, non-farm payroll, increased by over 200,000 jobs, non-farm payroll numbers are setting records, inflation remains low, interest rates remain at historic lows, the stock market is setting records- this is now the second longest bull market in American history- housing has recovered substantially, the federal deficit has been reduced every single year under Obama and will be nearly eliminated by the end of his term, the national debt has stabilized while GDP has grown substantially. It is virtually impossible to make an economic argument for choosing a conservative presidential candidate.

The LFPR tells us the population is aging, and we have not yet reached full employment.

The best argument for conservatives is the income inequality argument. But it leaves conservatives sounding like Occupy wannabes.

Jeb Bush being a top contender brings Iraq front and center again, and it is turning into a donnybrook for the GOP. They refused to come to terms with what happened, and how it happened. They have been telling themselves stories. Now they are coming out of the echo chamber and getting banged around by reality. No one believes them. They don’t even believe themselves. Bush and Rubio have just made fools of themselves over this, and the other candidates have even taken off the gloves yet!

Posted by: phx8 at May 18, 2015 10:30 PM
Comment #395626

Chicago Public Schools debt also is downgraded to junk status

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-cps-downgrade-met-20150513-story.html

Chicago credit rating plummets to junk status following pension ruling

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-credit-rating-junk-status-met-0513-20150512-story.html#page=1

“Chicago took yet another hit Tuesday when a major credit rating agency downgraded much of the city’s debt to junk status, making it more difficult for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to fix the financial mess without a major tax increase.

The double downgrade by Moody’s Investors Service leaves Chicago and Detroit as the only U.S. cities of more than 500,000 with such low ratings, according to one municipal bond analysis firm.”

How appropriate that the city of Chicago should host the obama presidential library. The politics of both the city and obama, if not checked, will eventually lead to bankruptcy of the city and the nation.

“The city of Chicago, Illinois has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1931.

By early 2012, each household in the city owed, on average, more than $63,000 in local government liabilities.

The state and local taxes currently paid by Chicagoans are higher than those paid by their counterparts in all but four other American cities. This oppressive tax climate has dealt a painful blow to Chicago’s small businesses.

According to a University of Illinois report issued in 2012, Chicago is the most politically corrupt city in the United States, having averaged 51 public corruption convictions annually since 1976.

Today Chicago ranks among the most dangerous cities in the U.S. Blacks, who constitute roughly 35% of Chicago’s population, commit 76% of all homicides in the city. By contrast, whites, who are 28% of the population, commit 4% of the homicides.

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2015 2:03 PM
Comment #395627

Sorry, the last five paragraphs are quotes from:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/john-perazzo/toxic-government-by-democrats-chicago/

Posted by: Royal Flush at May 20, 2015 2:05 PM
Post a comment