Ted Cruz and what the GOP establishment can learn from Osama Bin Laden…

By 35 Comments 1,087 views

In 1975 & 76 the United States was experiencing a crisis of confidence. Unemployment was at 8.5%, our allies in South Vietnam, who 58,000 American servicemen gave their lives to defend, had just been overrun and the reverberations of an OPEC embargo were sending oil prices from $15 a barrel to $100. At the same time Paul Ehrlich was warning about overpopulation and starvation, Newsweek was telling of a coming ice age and many thought we were conceding Eastern Europe to the Soviets.

It was into this emotional and economic morass stepped Ronald Wilson Reagan with a message of hope. He took clear aim at Gerald Ford and fought him all the way to the convention floor. He did so against the wishes of GOP party barons. He did so despite warnings that he would irreparably damage Gerald Ford and give the election to the Democrats. Reagan held firm, and indeed Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, who took an economic malaise and turned it into a full blown economic disaster. Interestingly, after Reagan’s speech at the convention many delegates left wondering if they had made the wrong choice…

If that’s where the story ended, it would indeed be a cautionary tale. But as we all know, the story didn’t end there. In 1980 Ronald Reagan picked up where he left off and eventually beat Carter in a landslide, taking 44 states and the Senate with him, the first GOP Senate majority in a quarter century.

At the end of the day, the 1980 election had something the Ford Carter contest four year before didn’t – a clear cut contest of ideas, with Carter suggesting the solution to the nation’s problems could be found in government action while Reagan felt government was the problem. The American people were faced with the starkest contrast since LBJ beat Barry Goldwater in 1964. Faced with that contrast and with conservative principals clearly articulated by Reagan the contest wasn’t even close.

The point to be drawn from 1976 & 1980 is not that one shouldn’t buck the establishment, but rather that when Americans are presented with a clearly articulated conservative candidate, conservatism wins and the establishment will eventually get on board… if only to avoid being left out in the cold. The Goldwater loss was unique in that it occurred in the shadow of JFK’s assassination.

Today we are faced with a somewhat similar scenario, where a number of “Wacko Bird” conservatives, with Ted Cruz leading the pack, are bucking the GOP establishment. While it’s not in a presidential campaign (yet) the lines are just as stark as they were a quarter century ago and the stakes just as high. Cruz, along with Mike Lee and few friends are suggesting that a government shutdown is preferable – although not necessary – to the American people getting the hook of Obamacare subsidies set in their wallets, because everyone knows that once an entitlement is in place it’s next to impossible to repeal. The barons of the party, from Boehner and McConnell to Rove and Krauthammer, suggest that the backlash from a stoppage will come back to bite the GOP at the polls in 2014. That isn’t a compelling argument in the first place, but it’s particularly feeble given the recent dire warnings – albeit from the president – but little actual blowback for the GOP from the sequester kicking in.

Cruz and co. have also come out strongly against Marco Rubio’s wretched immigration bill. Seemingly the entire GOP establishment is braying that if the House doesn’t pass this monstrosity that the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. The reality is that this bill will not only not accomplish what the establishment Pooh-Bahs claim, but it may well bring about the very outcome they claim fear, eviscerating support for the GOP, only in this case from conservatives fed up with a party that plays pander politics just like the Democrats. Indeed, conservatives constantly harangue liberals for their ignoring the facts in favor of fanciful claims that never come true. In this case the GOP barons need only look back to Ronald Reagan’s faulty 1986 immigration reform to recognize what failure looks like and understand that the Gang of Eight’s abomination is simply a replay that will have even worse results.

The bottom line is that Cruz should not only carry on, but he should draw bright lines in the sand or on the Capitol Hill steps or anywhere else he can get an audience. The Obama agenda in general and these two pieces of legislation in particular are going to be keys to the destruction of the GOP and the nation. At some point creating a national majority of dependant voters will have permanent negative consequences for a party that claims to champion freedom and opportunity. If Ronald Reagan demonstrated anything in 1980 it is that Americans respond to clear lines. In 2008 & 2012 the GOP establishment produced highly flawed candidates whose lack of conservative bona fides caused millions of voters to simply stay home rather than actually go to the polls… and this is despite the fact that the opponent was Barack Obama, and they hate that guy!

The GOP establishment can whine as much as they want about Cruz et. al scaring away middle class voters and minorities by digging in against pandering legislation, but the reality is that since 1992 the establishment has delivered five popular vote defeats and one modest victory. In the Electoral College they’ve delivered more than half the states just twice. Compare that to Ronald Reagan’s three victories (as Bush I’s first campaign was a referendum on Reagan’s policies) where the he delivered popular vote victories of 10%, 18% and 8% and Electoral advantages of 38, 48 and 30 states.

The lesson to be learned is not that the GOP should seek to out pander Democrats, but rather, they should make a strong stand for conservative principals and give the voters a clear choice rather than forcing them to choose between the lesser of two evils. In what is no doubt the only time in my life I’ll ever quote Osama Bin Laden in a positive context, he was unquestionably right when he said: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Ted Cruz is just such a strong horse and he should continue to buck the GOP establishment and in the process demonstrate exactly what it means to stand for something. If he does that, my guess is that voters will respond positively to a 2016 run. The question is, are there enough “Wacko Birds” in and out of Congress willing to pick up their shields and emulate him in order to make 2014 look more like 2010 than 2006? For the country and the GOP’s sake, let’s hope so.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

35 Responses to “Ted Cruz and what the GOP establishment can learn from Osama Bin Laden…”

  1. 1

    Old Guy

    I like Ted Cruz and his ideas, but I don’t think the GOP establishment will support him because they don’t want to lose their power. Sadly the establishment would rather lose than get behind Ted.

  2. 4


    Ted Cruz and his like are the only bulwark against those liberal Republicans and even more liberal Dems. If the people cannot see the truth, or hear the truth about this country and the socialist direction it is now going in, then our country is well and truly fubared.

  3. 5


    @Blake, #4:

    Ted Cruz and his like are the only bulwark against those liberal Republicans…

    That is, against moderate republicans who would actually have some chance of being elected to the presidency.

    As a result of the drift to the far right, a republican taking all of the positions that Ronald Reagan took today would be likely be considered a RINO.

  4. 6

    Nathan Blue


    That is, against moderate republicans who would actually have some chance of being elected to the presidency.

    Yes, because only Reps need to be moderate to get elected, not the Dems . . . because everyone”s inherently left-leaning already . . . unless they are a homophobic racist that wants to take us “backwards”.

    If you are far, far left radical, no worries! Bumperstickers, entertainers, and the exploitation of minorities will hide all the things that make you unelectable (See Barack Obama).

    Indeed, the Reps don’t have the propaganda machine to help people make the wrong choice. We’ll have to believe in the power of the people rather than the power of facebook and Oprah.

  5. 7



    As a result of the drift to the far right, a republican taking all of the positions that Ronald Reagan took today would be likely be considered a RINO.

    This is a line liberals keep trying to sell that conservatives just aren’t buying. Reagan was greatly responsible for the purge of the Country Club Republicans. Today we would know those as RINOs. Do the quotes below sound like a RINO? Quote number one is right out of the TEA Party. Please…….sell that “Reagan would be a RINO” somewhere else. Reagan would be front and center in the TEA Party.

    We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much

    I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born

    I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts

    Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15

    Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

    Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged

  6. 9


    @Aqua, #7:

    It’s more than a liberal line. It’s an arguably accurate observation.

    I suspect Reagan’s position that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income would have sidelined him as a republican presidential candidate today. That was the democrats’ position. The shift of tax burden from individuals to corporations that resulted from The Tax Reform Act of 1986 would very likely have totally enraged the current republican House majority.

  7. 11


    you said: I’ve notice that everyone who is for abortion has been born,
    that line is super wow,
    that is the best I heard since a long time,

  8. 12


    This one
    it cannot be more lunatic than OBAMA,

  9. 13



    I suspect Reagan’s position that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income would have sidelined him as a republican presidential candidate today.

    That was hardly Reagan’s idea. The House was firmly in democrat hands. To get any form of tax reform through, Reagan and the House republicans had to make some major concessions. The original intent was to cut capital gains taxes to encourage investment. But the democrats refused to budge. The only way to get marginal tax rates down was to cave on capital gains.

    Reagan’s original 1985 proposal would have cut the capital-gains tax. He had reduced the rate from 25 percent to 20 percent in his 1981 tax cut and wanted to reduce it to 17.5 percent in his new tax reform. In his televised address unveiling the plan, Reagan proclaimed: “To marshal more venture capital for new industries — the kind of efforts that begin with a couple of partners setting out to create and develop a new product — we intend to lower the maximum capital-gains tax rate to 17-1/2 percent.”

    Reagan would not be considered a RINO today. He is the original TEA Party President. This is what he said at CPAC in 1975. Something republicans today should listen to.

    “I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

    Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

    Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

    Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

    It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”

  10. 15



    @Aqua: That was hardly Reagan’s idea. The House was firmly in democrat hands. To get any form of tax reform through, Reagan and the House republicans had to make some major concessions.

    “Firmly in democrat hands” is an irrefutable fact, Aqua. Reagan’s terms included the 97th thru 100th Congressional sessions. His first year in 1981, the House had the most Republican seats in his entire two terms at 192. The following House GOP seats were 166, 182 and 177. He did, however, have a GOP Senate for three of those four Congressional sessions. Two years at 53 GOP seats, and one year at 54 GOP seats.

    This meant that the Dem controlled House never needed the GOP for votes, but they still had to compromise were they to get it thru a GOP Senate. Reagan handled the compromise effectively, and got the desired economic growth results.

    Because current GOP elected officials cannot muster up to his effectiveness, many of us have, indeed, “gone our own way”.

  11. 16



    Vince in OP: In this case the GOP barons need only look back to Ronald Reagan’s faulty 1986 immigration reform to recognize what failure looks like and understand that the Gang of Eight’s abomination is simply a replay that will have even worse results.

    The problem with this statement is that were were no bad results from Reagan’s immigration policy that affected the base or elections, Vince. Landslides are not common in US history, but despite Reagan’s immigration decisions, Bush the elder won the WH following Reagan handily with 426 EC votes (as evidenced by the EC map below), and the Congressional chamber numbers remained relatively unchanged. In fact, Bush won by a larger percentage of popular votes than Reagan did, despite Reagan’s higher EC count in 1980. There was no 3rd party candidate of substance to peel off votes in ’88. You, yourself, point out that Bush’s victory was a “referendum” on Reagan’s policies… and that has to include immigration. IOW, it did not drive the base away.

    Bush’s undoing came from a combination of tax policies and the Gulf War. Immigration wasn’t involved.

  12. 18


    @Richard Wheeler:

    And the Repub. meme that JFK would be a Repub. today is even more absurd.

    I don’t know that it’s even more absurd, but it is absurd. Even though his stance on taxes at the time is in line with today’s conservatives, he was no doubt a democrat. I’ve read a lot on the Kennedy presidency. I’ve never understood all the hype. He had a gift for inspiring people, but his performance as president was rather mediocre. He tended to stumble from one crises to another.

  13. 19

    Richard Wheeler

    @Aqua: Both JFK and RR were able to unite the American populace. A sense of pride and respect at home and abroad.
    Both men had great self confidence and charisma. Additionally both were self deprecating , an under rated quality sorely missing in recent leadership. +++They were both IRISH.
    The Season opens in 2 weeks. Enjoy!

  14. 20

    another vet

    @Richard Wheeler: JFK would probably be a Blue Dog dem today if there are any of them left and if they didn’t do to him what they did to Lieberman. His statement about not asking what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for it, is the exact opposite of what his party preaches today.

  15. 21

    another vet

    @Aqua: I think one JFK’s greatest contributions was what he did with the space program. The technological rewards were great and it also challenged America as opposed to pols today who emphasize complacency.

  16. 22


    @MataHarley: The disaster came in the form of Hispanics voting for the GOP. GW Bush lost 7% of the Hispanic vote the first time and another 5% the second time. No GOP candidate would equal Reagan’s numbers for 20 years…

    1980 Jimmy Carter, 56% Ronald Reagan, 35% (+21 Dem advantage)
    1984 Walter Mondale, 61% Ronald Reagan, 37% +24
    1988 Michael Dukakis, 69% George H.W. Bush, 30% +39
    1992 Bill Clinton, 61% George H.W. Bush, 25% +36
    1996 Bill Clinton, 72% Bob Dole, 21% +51
    2000 Al Gore, 62% George W. Bush, 35% +27
    2004 John Kerry, 58% George W. Bush, 40% +18
    2008 Barack Obama, 67% John McCain, 31% +36
    2012 Barack Obama, 71% Mitt Romney, 27% +44


  17. 23



    @vince, let’s play for a minute that I actually put much stock in polls, let alone exit polls from CNN over the years and assume the figures you are giving are actually a real reflection of Hispanic support of GOP vs Dem in POTUS elections.

    So the Reagan “disaster” you speak of is a loss of 7% of votes from a demographic that was 8% of the electorate in 2004, and less in Bush the elder’s election? As I said, Bush’s 2nd term loss was taxes and the first Gulf War. Honestly, I think you’re dangerously treading on thin factual ice here, doing a pigeon hole of a relatively irrelevant issue for those voters.

    What you seem to miss is that Hispanics, throughout the history you have portrayed, have overwhelmingly voted Democrat as a national demographic. That 7% would have made no difference in the Bush 1988 election since he already got over 53% of the popular vote.

    And in fact, if tough immigration policies were supposedly a positive appeal for the Hispanic vote, as you suggest, Bob Dole’s 1996 tough immigration issues stance, strengthening Border Patrol and wanting to strip any welfare benefits to those who enter the nation illegally, wouldn’t have resulted in Clinton garnishing 72% of the Hispanic vote to Dole’s 21%… the largest Dem advantage noted in your own figures. In fact, Clinton threatened to veto any type of legislation that crossed his desk which allowed states to decide whether to allow healthcare to illegals, and actually proposed cutting Border Patrol. So using your theory, Clinton’s issues should have cut down his support by Hispanic voters. It didn’t.

    Romney’s equally tough immigration stance hovered right in the middle of HW Bush’s in 1988 and 1992.

    Then we have McCain, who also pushed an immigration reform package unpalatable to many conservatives. If you’ll notice, McCain got more Hispanic support than Romney with his tougher immigration issue stance.

    What it comes down to is you overestimate both the power of the Hispanic vote, and their core issue. I agree that Hispanics do not necessarily want to be run over by those entering illegally, but their core issue is economy and healthcare. This is noted in your own provided link:

    Top Issues for Hispanic Voters in 2012

    For Hispanic voters, according to the national exit poll, 60% identified the economy as the most important issue (of four listed) facing the country today, virtually the same as the share (59%) of the general electorate that identified the economy as the nation’s most important issue. On the other three issues asked about, for Hispanic voters, the economy was followed by health care (18%), the federal budget deficit (11%) and foreign policy (6%).

    Throughout this election cycle, the issue of immigration has been an important issue for Hispanics. In the national exit poll, voters were asked about what should happen to unauthorized immigrants working in the U.S. According to the national exit poll, 77% of Hispanic voters said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 18% said these immigrants should be deported. Among all voters, fewer than two-thirds (65%) said these immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status while 28% say they should be deported.

    As to O’healthcare, that will be a losing issue for the GOP, and any attempts at defunding or repeal, for Hispanic voters (which will never happen anyway, but the GOP elected ones will give it lip service for the gullible base anyway). While they are less supportive of it than they were when it passed (I think it was around 69% then, but not firm on the number), an April 2013 poll still shows that 48% of Hispanics favor O’healthcare, and only 19% oppose it.

    None of this bears an inkling to your suggestion that the “Reagan disaster” of immigration was the catalyst for declining GOP support… which was never strong enough to matter much to begin with. I agree that the GOP must have a strong and defining message. But that message isn’t likely to sway the traditional Hispanic or, for that matter, the black vote. If the message was clear enough on the economy and jobs, it might work. But healthcare will be a major dividing line, unless the Hispanic (or black) voters can see that it’s a negative economic impact on their personal lives.

  18. 24


    Ronald Reagan; from Remarks at Northside High School in Atlanta, Georgia, June 6, 1985

    And we’re trying to give a break, a much deserved, long-overdue break, to the American family. I’ll tell you how strange America’s current tax laws are. They allow a deduction of only slightly more than $1,000 for every dependent person in your family. Now, if you think about what it costs for your parents to put food on the table and buy you everything from books to braces, you know that $1,000 doesn’t even make a dent in it. We’re going to virtually double that exemption to $2,000 with increases if inflation occurs. But it’ll go a long way toward encouraging families again and giving your parents the break they deserve.

    We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.

    We want an America that’s economically strong and economically free. But a caution here—that’s the nice thing about getting older, you know, you get to caution people. Not that I’m getting older but— [laughter]. We want to remember that while the creation of wealth is good—wealth, after all, generates jobs and prosperity—we must not let the creation of wealth become a preoccupation with material things.

    We’ve made so much economic progress in our country, but it will mean very little if your children look back at your days as a time of materialism and selfishness and looking out for number one. The people you’re sitting with right now, they’re your brothers and sisters. Someday you’ll have a home or an apartment, and your neighbors will be your brothers and sisters then. And it’s up to us, as members of the American family, to take care of each other and love each other.

    I voted for Ronald Reagan in two presidential elections. I haven’t voted for a republican presidential candidate since. So what changed most? My views? Or the republican candidates?

    Democrats were willing to cooperate with Reagan. Both they and Reagan understood that compromise was the only way to get things done.

    I don’t think any current-day republican presidential candidate could speak as Reagan spoke and have any chance of being nominated by the GOP. I think republican leaders have lost their understanding that progress comes only by walking a middle path between opposing positions.

  19. 25


    @MataHarley: My point is simply that the GOP should not pander… to anyone. It should have a clear and concise message of strong borders and figure out what to do with people who are here… and there are lots of ideas about that. But welcoming them into the fold with no real border control… which is exactly what Reagan did, does nothing but generate more illegal immigration. The issue is controlling the border before anything else. Everything else could be worked on, but that has to be an absolute.

    As for Obamacare, you may be right , defunding may not work. My point is that there should be bright red lines in the sand. Even if you lose, people know what you stand for. Like Reagan in ’76, he lost, but his message set the stage for his eventual success, and we were all better off for it. Same deal today. Maybe Obamacare can’t be stopped today, but if the GOP would take a clear stand on it then there could be a referendum on it in 2014… and my guess is that it would lose quite handily.

  20. 26



    vince, I said I agreed that the GOP needs a clear and concise message. Then again, maybe we’re getting it, but it’s not the message most want to hear. We don’t have another Reagan running around, ya know. And I think we can safely say that with a majority of Hispanic and black communities, it’s not likely a concise, conservative message will appeal to them because of the core differences on wanting entitlements such as O’healthcare.

    I didn’t say defunding wouldn’t work. Obviously it would. No better way to destroy a program than to starve it by withholding funds. But the GOP will not do that. And they won’t repeal it either… can’t without veto proof numbers in both chambers, depending upon who occupies the Oval Office. But they’ll sure talk a lot about doing it.

    As far as “pandering”, well I don’t consider Rubio’s personal belief in the Dream Act as simple lip service to cater to a particular group. I think his desire for a reasonable path to citizenship is genuine, and doesn’t fall in to the cheap political parlor trick, that is pandering, category. Neither was Dubya’s quest for similar immigration reform pandering.

    Rubio and Bush the younger are not alone in that desire. As the polls show, there are many moderates and conservatives, along with liberals, that want to see a reasonable path to citizenship for those living in the shadows. I also think that most want our borders more secure. Just haven’t found the commonly agreed upon smart way to do it. Fences are expensive and ineffectual. Most don’t support militarizing the borders. They freak out if drones might be used because that can be a privacy abuse. Heaven knows if there’s communications via email about smuggling illegals in, no one wants to let Homeland Security tap in to that communication for the same potential for privacy abuse.

    What to do? Who the heck knows. One thing is certain. Neither party will either agree 100% on how to do it. And there isn’t a leader in sight from either party who can get sheeeeeet done with the current climate. Someone’s always whining. It’s become a national pastime.

  21. 27



    I don’t think any current-day republican presidential candidate could speak as Reagan spoke and have any chance of being nominated by the GOP. I think republican leaders have lost their understanding that progress comes only by walking a middle path between opposing positions.

    I don’t think Reagan walked a middle path. I agree with what he said in your post. I’ve said this before; conservatives care about the poor and down-trodden just as much as liberals. We just differ on how to deal with it. No where in Reagan’s speech does he advocate taking from on person to give to another. One of Reagan’s most famous quotes is this:

    “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!”

    Right now we have a very uncertain economy. Everyone is looking out for themselves. You can’t help others if you can’t help yourself. Companies and corporations are no different; they are just not willing to get off the cash they are sitting on until they have some sense of certainty.
    In our current political climate, neither party is willing to walk a middle path between opposing positions. The news cycle is part of the reason. The far left and far right are constantly pulling at their respective parties. I’ve heard both sides say, “There will be no compromise on this position.”

  22. 28


    @Richard Wheeler:

    Additionally both were self deprecating , an under rated quality sorely missing in recent leadership.

    Dubya was one of the most self deprecating presidents in modern history. The left just called him an idiot. I didn’t agree with a lot of Dubya’s policies, but I don’t think he was an idiot. I don’t agree with most of Obama’s policies, but I don’t think he was an idiot.

    They were both IRISH.
    The Season opens in 2 weeks. Enjoy!

    Is Notre Dame going to play football this year? I thought they might still be sitting on ice after the spanking they got last year. 🙂

  23. 29


    No matter what the opponents say against TED CRUZ,

  24. 30

    Richard Wheeler

    @Aqua: Don’t forget the spanking the Irish gave the Noles last year. Lotta questions on offense this year. We’ll see.
    Can’t put “W” in with JFK and RR . I think he’s doing great as an ex prez and his approval now pushes 50%. His work on immigration reform and continued humanitarian efforts are to be commended.

  25. 31

    Nan G

    @Richard Wheeler: And the Repub. meme that JFK would be a Repub. today is even more absurd.

    Not so absurd as you might imagine…..

    Here’s the graphic for JFK:
    John F. Kennedy is a Moderate Liberal Populist.
    Compare with Joe Biden:
    Joe Biden is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
    And Hillary Clinton:
    Hillary Clinton is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
    And Obama:
    Barack Obama is a Libertarian-Leaning Progressive.

    Now for some current Republicans.
    Chris Christie:
    Chris Christie is a Moderate Liberal Populist.
    Mitt Romney:
    Mitt Romney is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

  26. 32

    Richard Wheeler

    @Nan G: Thanks for the charts. Confirms JFK would be a Dem. today–Lib. on social issues—moderate Dem otherwise.
    Note—closest to him is Christie . He may yet become a Dem.

  27. 35


    THEY WARN THEM TO LEAVE THE SQUARE many days, now they got to stand and get them out,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *