The President Honors the Fallen at Dover

71 responses so far

• 1 balconesfault // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:35 am

  Respectfully, no political talk on this thread.

• 2 SEK // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:36 am

  I certainly have no problem at all with President Obama visiting Dover or with families of fallen soldiers. I think that is a solemn duty of any Commander in Chief. But I don’t like it when the President (of either party) turns it into a photo op. I think that’s disrespectful.

• 3 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

  ……..It was the right thing to do………who knows maybe he saw it part of the decision making process……..there’s a world of difference between sitting in Washington conference rooms with smart lawyers and military brass discussing theoreticals and dealing with the reality of coffins which are bringing grief to so many ordinary American homes.

• 4 LauraNo // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:39 am

  I bet this meant a lot to the families. I hope he does it every once in a while. Presidents should have to face the awful results, not just the families, showing respect at the same time.

• 5 sinz54 // Oct 29, 2009 at 10:55 am

  LauraNo:
  

  Presidents should have to face the awful results, not just the families, showing respect at the same time.

  I agree.

  It helps to see the awful results of war.

  Obama is Commander-in-Chief now–and the lives of many Americans (and Iraqis and Afghans too) will hinge on his decisions.

  On this at least, I wish Obama all the best.

• 6 Demosthenes // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  Like most Americans, regardless of political party, I applaud the president for doing this. I understand the angst among some that photographs were taken, but honoring our heroes is what matters! Bravo, Mr. President!

• 7 andydp // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm

  This was more meaningful to me as a Soldier.

  Gerneral George Patton insisted his staff officers visited the front daily to insure they realized what their decisions really meant.

• 8 seeker656 // Oct 29, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  Thank you for this video David. As the grandfather of two young men who will very likely be in Afghanistan next year, I respect and honor the families of these fallen heroes. I am grateful for the decision of the family that allowed this video of this emotionally painful moment to be shared.

  It is important that the President experienced this event and listened to the families who were present last night as he considers the options for the future of this conflict.

• 9 pnwguy // Oct 29, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  I live in Oregon, and our governor is a Democrat, in his 7th year in office. Without any fanfare, and without the local media noticing it for several years, Governor Kulongoski has attended the funerals of every fallen soldier sent from here into battle since he’s been in office. He’s cut short trade missions and other out of state business to attend. We don’t have any conventional bases here, just guard and reserve units which have been called into service. But as technically the head of the state guard units, he’s felt the responsibility to represent the citizens in honoring the fallen. He also grew up in an orphanage and served in the Marines after high school.

  While there are certainly large segments of the Democratic party that feel uncomfortable with military and defense needs, it is foolish of the modern GOP to always paint the image that only Republicans care and “get” defense. It shouldn’t be a partisan issue, especially when the lives and sacrifices of soldiers are in question.

  No matter what any president does in office, it’s impossible to have a spontaneous, a-political desire, where someone doesn’t assume there isn’t some calculated motive behind it. Whatever the motivation, I’m sure this grounding in the realities of military decisions will stay with him. The huge difficulties of securing a president’s safety in the battle field make any authentic experiences there hard to create. But at least he can know the anguish of those who have served and the families that have been so gravely wounded, by honoring the return of our departed servants.

• 10 The President Went To Dover « Around The Sphere // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  [...] David Frum at The New Majority: Give the man credit: This was the right thing to do, but it cannot have been easy – especially as he is making the decision that may lead to more such sad homecomings. [...]

• 11 MI-GOPer // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  David, as a Marine and father of 3, I can tell you that I don’t agree with your sentiments nor your willingness to cut Obama any slack –especially with this ploy.

  His presence at Dover was a calculated political manipulation to gain some momentum and credibility back with Americans because, rightly so, he’s been portrayed of late as dithering on this important decision. Dithering, many think, because he’s in hot water with his Far Left Cut & Run Democrat Kamp on escalating the war, agreeing and implementing the Cheney Plan for Afghanistan… a heresy that, when disclosed, caused his far Left flank to start nipping at his loins.

  The man is a consumate actor and fake. He can look you in the eye, over the teleprompter, and tell you –with a straight face– that a public option will bring competition to the health insurance markets when its will drive free markets out. He can tell you his reform won’t require new taxes –even though they do–it won’t require cuts in services –even as he gets the OMB scissors out to whack MediCare by $500b– it won’t force you to change medical care plans –even though he’s counting on employers dropping millions of covered employees and dumping them into the public plan.

  Afterall, this is the man who ran on not much more than “Hope & Change” and he’s been personally responsible for making Washington more intractable, more partisan, more divisive with his attack-dog, Chicago Thuggery attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with the Messiah Obama.

  You may be willing to act naive in the face of Obama’s latest political maneuver to curry favor with a public that’s losing confidence in his role as Commander in Chief, but his moves in Dover were intended to use those flag-draped coffins as chits in his public relations effort to downscale America’s commitment to the people of Afghanistan. He doesn’t care about the dead soldiers. He cares about getting out of Afghanistan as quickly and efficiently as possible and he’s worried that if his far Left flank gets unsettled, he’s toast. Of course, his publicity stunt caters to the pro-war crowd too because, for a man who wouldn’t wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart to say the Pledge, this stunt makes them question whether he’s truly the anti-military Democrat he was on the campaign trail.

  And he’s willing to use these brave, dead soldiers as props in his Theatre of the Absurd.

  Shame on you for giving him cover, David.

• 12 Arch // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:59 pm

  I don’t believe the man is a fake. I think he’s a liberal, wanna-be transformational politician with whom I don’t agree on everything. But acknowledging our fallen is important to the families and important to the country. It may seem like a no brainer, but I still applaud the President for this.

• 13 ottovbvs // Oct 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  …….Have you no self control?

• 14 MI-GOPer // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  That’s rich coming from our Village Idiot and resident troll.

  Get back under the bridge with BlankHead, ottoBS.

  Obama is a political shill and opportunist extraordinare. If he’d wanted to be respectful to our fallen dead soldiers, he’d have done it the way that Geo Bush did it on 14 occasions in the years from 2003-2008. Quietly, without klieg lights, cameras and correspondents to record his fake “heartfelt” visit. Go there quietly, meet the families who are there to greet their fallen heroes, be honest and sincere in your respect. Embrace them. Pray for them.

  Our Celebrity in Chief was using those coffins to bolster his standing with his far Left flank nipping at his loins and the mainstream Americans rightly worried about his dithering indecisiveness and the jeopardy he places all Americans in –whether fighting on the front lines or innocent civilians back home who are now fresh targets for the emboldened terrorists Obama courts in his visits to Cairo.

• 15 sdspringy // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:48 am

  Could not agree more MI-Goper.
  Obama is all presentation and packaging. He is a colorful cardboard box half filled with rancid ceral.

• 16 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 9:15 am

  mi-goper // Oct 29, 2009 at 9:18 pm
  sdspringy // Oct 30, 2009 at 12:48 am

  ……..Your bile is normally funny or eyerolling, but in this case it’s as inappropriate as the president paying his respects at Dover was appropriate.

• 17 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:10 am

  Otto, don’t waste your time on mi-goper. He’s the worst brand of partisan, where everything “his side” does is great and everything “the other side” does is horrible.

  This current tirade is a pure insult to the dead soldiers coming home from Afghanistan. He’s using them as an excuse to try to score political points. It disgusts me. It simply shows that he is somebody who loves his party more than their country. I prefer to have my discussions with Americans.

• 18 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:50 am

  lfc:

  I sharply disagree with Obama’s policies, as you know.
  And I do agree with “mi-goper” on one thing: Obama is trying to devise a slow-motion military defeat in Afghanistan, while preserving some face-saving political camouflage for the folks back home. As Kissinger did with Vietnam.

  But I don’t want to make a political issue out of Obama visiting the war dead. Perhaps he now realizes for the first time that he’s responsible for the war–and for all those Americans who will fight, and maybe die, in that war. From now on, Americans will start to die on his orders.

  I wish Obama well, despite my sharp dissents from his policies.

• 19 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:52 am

  the far Left echo chamber trolls chime in with ottoBS and lfc.

  Hey guys, you aren’t on at the DailyKos right now, this is the New Majority. And while ottoBS is here to serve as the Village Idiot, lfc is just here because he’s confused.

  He thought he elected a Democrat to the WH but finds his prez backing away from the Public Option, too slow in ending the War in Iraq, almost appearing to escalate the War in Afghanistan, not meeting often enough with Chavez and Castro and Ahmadinejad, not clearing Middle East policy with Hamas and Hezbollah, not Bashing Bush nearly enough and now, worst of all, appearing to care about military personnel killed in action –as lfc has said here before: “troops killed in war are NOT heroes, they’re just stupid”.

  Yeah, nice group of Democrat trolls that frequent this site. They really are better off at the DailyKos.

• 20 balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 11:55 am

  Perhaps he now realizes for the first time that he’s responsible for the war

  I am pretty sure that he has realized that up to now. Perhaps you are thinking of Bush … and not the one who reportedly lost sleep worrying over the fate of the men who he was sending into harms way to liberate Kuwait in 1991 … but the one who seemed to lose no sleep before deploying our troops into the 6 year old and counting Iraq war.

  It is odd that on one hand you accuse Obama of classical pacifism … and on the other make this slur that up to now he may have not felt any responsibility for the coffins coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. If he were the liberal you speak of, we’d have already drawn down significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan since Obama took office, rather than tripling our force there.

• 21 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  balconesfault:
  

  If he were the liberal you speak of, we’d have already drawn down significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan since Obama took office, rather than tripling our force there.

  Obama can’t.

  He boxed himself in by talking tough on Afghanistan during the 2008 campaign. If he had come off as a pacifist in the style of Eli Pariser and Tom Matzzie of Moveon.org, he would have lost the election despite the poor economy. So he talked like a hawk on Afghanistan, to compensate for being a dove on Iraq.

  And it continued. In March 2009, not yet realizing what he was getting himself into, Obama said this to an audience of military veterans:

  al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

  The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world….

  For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

  As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.
  So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

  So what happened next? General McChrystal, whom the Obama Administration picked themselves, took Obama’s direction at face value, and came back with an ambitious plan that might, just might, accomplish it.

  And now Obama is trapped. If he trashes McChrystal’s plan and goes with something much simpler, he has to explain to the American people how it accomplishes Obama’s goals as stated above–or else Obama will have to downsize those goals, only 8 months later.

  The GOP will nail Obama with a “defeatist/appeasement” charge so fast it will make Obama’s head spin.

  Obama is caught by his own rhetoric, which (thank goodness) is all on YouTube for anyone to view.

• 22 sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  sdspringy:
  

  Obama is all presentation and packaging.

  I’ve noticed that the hard-core right-wing has two separate lines of attack against Obama:

  1. Obama is an empty suit who has no idea what he’s doing

  2. Obama is a dogmatic Marxist who constantly plots to turn America into a socialist country

  The Right doesn’t comprehend that these two lines of attack are mutually contradictory. Either Obama knows what he’s about (and what he’s about is leftism), or he is an empty suit with no idea what to do.

  You can’t have it both ways.

• 23 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:24 pm

  sinz54, I think your analysis of what the “hard-core right-wing” has to say about opposing Obama’s policies and programs, let alone his personal predilections, is off by more than a just a bit of hyperbole.

  I’ve not heard anyone say that Obama is an empty suit. Maybe you’re confusing the last 8 yr mantra from the far Left that Bush was “only an empty suit” who didn’t know what he was doing? Joy Behar, the far Left’s Louse Liberal and newest obnoxious star pundit, along with Gore Vidal, the aging, hapless moron who is still looking for a transplant of Truman Capote’s intellect, recently concurred that someone should have executed Bush while president because he was an empty suited cowboy president.

  Nice company you keep there, sinz54. The only people I’ve heard use “empty suit” are far left liberals still complaining about Bush 43.

  The Right, conservatives and the GOP are a tad smarter and discerning than you give credit… and maybe a bit smarter than you –given your comments here.

  The people I know generally think Obama a smart, capable politician who will sell off his principles to the highest bidders, toss his friends under the bus whenever expedient, lie with the skill of sailor on shore leave talking to a whore, debase the election process and voter integrity if it helps him win and promise, pledge anything in order to get to the next step.

  What most conservatives, GOPers, the Right and others find most objectionable about Obama is lack of character, his cowardliness and propensity to lie and his unabashed willingness to use whatever means necessary to achieve his goal of the moment.

  What you don’t seem to be able to comprehend is that their objection to Obama is based on his character, his conduct, his programs and his policies. No one is trying to have it both ways except you, in this “creative” writing piece.

  Actually, it’s you who can’t have it both ways: make silly accusations like these and still think you have credibility. You may not like the Right. You may even hate the hard-core Right. But you don’t have a clue to what animates or motivates their opposition to Messiah Obama if you stick to #’s 1 &2 above.

• 24 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  BlankHead opens his own trap: “If he were the liberal you speak of, we’d have already drawn down significant numbers of troops from Afghanistan since Obama took office, rather than tripling our force there”.

  Umm, he couldn’t do that given that he implemented the Cheney Plan last March.

  Be sure to pull that rock over your head before crawling back into your spider-hole, BlankHead. Idiot troll.

• 25 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:45 pm

  lfc // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:10 am

  “Otto, don’t waste your time on mi-goper. He’s the worst brand of partisan, where everything “his side” does is great and everything “the other side” does is horrible. ”

  ……..You’re probably right but there comes a point when his angry ranting crosses the line from being humorous to offensive on what is clearly a very sensitive topic some response seems called for……not that it will do much good……. that people like him are anxious to turn this into some political shouting match says more about them than the president.

• 26 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  sinz54 // Oct 30, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  ” The GOP will nail Obama with a “defeatist/appeasement” charge so fast it will make Obama’s head spin.

  Obama is caught by his own rhetoric, which (thank goodness) is all on YouTube for anyone to view.”

  …………At times you are so simplistic Sinz…….this is not about Obama…….it’s about a predicament the country finds itself in after eight years of neglect by the previous administration……Obama is not caught in his own rhetoric……all he has to do is go on national tv and say “now we’ve seen the books”
  the whole situation is much worse than it was presented by the previous administration and therefore I’m having to adjust my strategy…….who is the country going to believe…….him or Cheney?……As of now I want the president to make the best decision for the country……not that this ever going to assuage the desire of Republicans yourself to play silly little games.

• 27 balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  As of now I want the president to make the best decision for the country……not that this ever going to assuage the desire of Republicans yourself to play silly little games.

  Bingo.

  Personally, I’m not worried about Afghanistan once again becoming a terrorist haven. First, even if they retake power, the Taliban was not a terrorist organization. In many ways, the Taliban is one of the best advertisements the world could ever have for why a nation should want a liberalized progressive government instead of rule by militant theocrats who believe that social and sexual behavior should be dictated by millenia old tomes written down by sheep and goatherders who would have murdered anyone who disagreed with their concept of deity if they could get some extra land out of the deal.

  Hell – the Taliban even makes the Iranian mullahs look progressive. But the Taliban is more interested in making sure that women in Kabul stay properly clothed and escorted and uneducated, than they are in fighting the great Satan. And they now know their ability to control Kabul in the future will be inextricably linked to their ability to keep terrorist attacks from being launched from their country.

  Any President who allows us to be painted into a corner requiring military sacrifice due to their own rhetoric does not deserve to be President. Even Reagan was not that stupid – he never committed the military to taking out the Evil Empire, for example, no matter how evil they were.

  And are another two decades of sacrifice by our soldiers a price we should pay to maintain an island of women’s rights in Kabul amidst a countryside still dominated by traditionalist warlords? Personally, I’m down with the Afghans fighting for their own rights. We defeated the Taliban for them – if they don’t want to keep the Taliban from taking power once again, that’s their business.

• 28 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  ottoBS pulls the usual Democrat troll game: “this is not about Obama…….it’s about a predicament the country finds itself in after eight years of neglect by the previous administration”.

  blah, blah, blah… Bash Bush… blah, blah, blah…. Bash Bush.

  It is Obama’s War, ottoBS. He called it the “Necessary War”. He delimited the importance of winning in Iraq in order to hype the Afghanistan War as “his war”, the right war.

  Bush was winning both wars. Now, it appears, we’re losing both wars. Obama is to blame. It is Obama’s War to all but the cowards.

• 29 LFC // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:44 pm

  That un-American piece of s**t, Liz Cheney, just accused of Obama of going to Dover as a publicity stunt. To quote the worm herself, “Bush used to do it without the cameras.”

  Yo’, bee-yatch. Bush NEVER DID IT! He NEVER went to Dover to honor the dead soldiers. So f*** you! Another so-called patriot using dead soldiers for PR purposes. Disgusting.

• 30 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  “Bush was winning both wars. Now, it appears, we’re losing both wars. Obama is to blame. It is Obama’s War to all but the cowards.’

  ……..We were “winning” the war in Afghanistan on January 1, 2009, after seven years…..the appetite for self delusion is unabated…….and we never won in Iraq…..we put the insurgents on the payroll and when the payments stopped the bombs started going off again…..well they never stopped going off really……Iraq is a total mess……the minute we leave the civil war will start…. in fact it’s already started…..every political faction has it’s own army………we’ve poured about 750 million down this rathole…..about 4300 Americans have died and another 20,000 maimed for life……..and all for a mission accomplished tee shirt (sign I mean).

• 31 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  balconesfault // Oct 30, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  ……Chris Buckley(son of Saint Buckley) has a piece up in todays Beast where he says it’s time to go…..it’s good, but even better he has a link to the piece by Hoh the resigning foreign service officer (and decorated Iraq vet) which is a useful corrective to all the bluster by the armchair field marshalls. It really is very good.

• 32 ottovbvs // Oct 30, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  “we’ve poured about 750 million down this rathole”

  ………750 billion……but what’s a few hundred billion among friends……not much when being spent on wars in armpits like Iraq apparently, but a huge deal when being spent at home to reflate the US economy or provide universal healthcare.

• 33 MI-GOPer // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  lfc gets intoxicated on the far Left Daily Kos Kool Aid and writes: “That un-American piece of s**t, Liz Cheney, just accused of Obama of going to Dover as a publicity stunt. To quote the worm herself, “Bush used to do it without the cameras.” Yo’, bee-yatch. Bush NEVER DID IT! He NEVER went to Dover to honor the dead soldiers. So f*** you! Another so-called patriot using dead soldiers for PR purposes. Disgusting.”

  Oh, lfc, to be so wrong so often has got to cause you to pause at some point? No, I doubt it.

  Geo Bush met with military families of fallen soldiers on 18 separate occasions at the White House and 11 occasions at nine other sites, including wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. He was

  Guess what, Bush didn’t bring a press entourage along to record his tearful moments, like Obama did. He paid his respects and didn’t use the dead and wounded soldiers as props to shore up his falling polls like Obama did. The military families understood what Obama was up to and, out of real respect for their fallen heroes, chose not to facilitate Obama’s rush for the camera and credibility while he dithers as CIC. Only one family showed up… they couldn’t help be captured by the Obama Celebrity in Chief… plus, they were probably the only military family that voted for the bum.

  You gotta put down that Daily Kos Kool Aid. Obama is a coward, is anti-military just like John Kerry, he distrusts the military just like all the modern-day Democrat presidents, and he used the KIAs just like he used the klieg lights, cameras and correspondents to push-back against the successful campaign that Dick Cheney and other American patriots are waging against our Ditherer in Chief.

• 34 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 9:44 am

  mi-goper // Oct 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  ……..The good news for America is that you are completely on the wrong side of history……..everything you stand for is going to suffer prolonged electoral eclipse……enjoy the frustration.

• 35 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:01 am

  ottoBS, the Village Idiot, weighs in with his best shot? LOL!

  They’re called mid-term elections in 2010 and I’m betting out side fairs far better than your side. Oh wait, your side is the Community Party of the USA; do they even have candidates anymore?

  As for being on the wrong side of history, you need to look at Gallup. More Americans self-identify as conservatives and independents than they do as “liberals”. The only wrong side for you is that your side’s “reign” will be the shortest in political history –one term far Left Prez and a substantial loss of power in Congress in the midterms of that loser, dithering prez.

  No frustration here… just Hope and Change coming to a Democrat officeholder near you.

• 36 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:03 am

  BlankHead comes out of the spiderhole to write: “Personally, I’m not worried about Afghanistan once again becoming a terrorist haven. First, even if they retake power, the Taliban was not a terrorist organization.”

  Tell that to the school age girls who had acid tossed in their face as they tried to walk to school.

  Terrorists? What an asshat.

• 37 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:22 am

  mi-goper:
  

  I’ve not heard anyone say that Obama is an empty suit.

  That was McCain’s line of attack against Obama in 2008. He compared Obama to Britney Spears.

  And in this discussion thread, “sdspringy” said Obama was “all presentation and all packaging.”

• 38 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:27 am

  ottovbs:
  

  Obama is not caught in his own rhetoric……all he has to do is go on national tv and say “now we’ve seen the books”
  the whole situation is much worse than it was presented by the previous administration and therefore I’m having to adjust my strategy

  IOW, “now that I’ve seen how bad things are, I’ve decided that defeat is inevitable and so I’m giving up on my original goals.”

  Then we conservatives can compare that with Bush’s determination to launch the surge in Iraq in 2007, which actually stabilized the country at a time when liberals said that was impossible.

  The American people are divided about Afghanistan right now. But no American president can get away with a defeatist image, or one who calls on us to “cooperate with the inevitable.” It’s politically disastrous.

• 39 sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:30 am

  mi-goper:
  

  More Americans self-identify as conservatives and independents than they do as “liberals”.

  But those terms have a sliding meaning. What it meant to be “conservative” in the 1930s isn’t the same as what it means now.

  Gallup went further and asked Americans their opinions on specific issues. And yes, on domestic economic issues, there has been a significant shift to the right. But NOT on those hot-button social issues. Support for abortion rights outside the Red States is as strong as ever.

  In sum, the American people would be more receptive to a message from the Club for Growth than from the Christian evangelicals. Let’s keep the Religious Right in the background this time around, OK?

• 40 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:59 am

  sinz54, I have to take exception to you characterizing the McCain ad as portraying Obama as an empty suit. You may have thought that but you’d have been wrong. The ad specifically and directly made light of Obama’s trip to Germany and the media shots from the staged event as almost idol-worship of a Michael Jackson type of celebrity.

  The point was that America didn’t need a Celebrity in Chief, it needed a leader. Guess McCain had it right on that score, too.

  Second, you note the labels conservative-independent-liberal have changed since 1930s. So what? We’re talking about a shift that’s evident in the last few years and months. Not the 1930s. It’s why the O-bots are desperate to portray Obama as anything but a liberal or Leftist… they know a label of liberal or Leftist is the kiss of death for him. We see it right here with some of the trollish O-bots claiming Obama isn’t doctrinaire… isn’t from the Democrat Left… he’s a moderate, a pragmatist. Yeah, that’s the ticket. A pragmatist who is more partisan than ScreamingHowieDean.

  Finally, you argue that America might be more receptive to a message from the Club4Greed than (southern) Christian evangelicals? I have no problem keeping the eye on the policy ball and leaving the social conservative issues behind… I’ve made it very clear here that TomDelay and the soc-cons ruined the Party brand by hyping the soc-con issues at the expense of core GOP issues. You’ll get no argument from me on that score. But I’m also not interested in Club4Greed Litmus Tests.

• 41 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  sinz54 // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:27 am

  “IOW, “now that I’ve seen how bad things are, I’ve decided that defeat is inevitable and so I’m giving up on my original goals.”

  ……..Unfortunately Sinz you’re totally inconsistent because your goal of continually trashing the president keep bumping up against reality……that would be your interpretation of such a statement by him……another might be that the president is responding to reality……..we’re back to are you willing to make the kind of committment necessary to have any chance of turning Afghanistan around (Summary: 20 years, 600,000 troops, $3trillion plus)……..if you’re not then you’re for disengaging……all the rest is bs……so which is it?

• 42 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm

  35 mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:01 am

  “As for being on the wrong side of history, you need to look at Gallup. More Americans self-identify as conservatives and independents than they do as “liberals”. The only wrong side for you is that your side’s “reign” will be the shortest in political history –one term far Left Prez and a substantial loss of power in Congress in the midterms of that loser, dithering prez.”

  ……..The wave is building……the Republican tsunami is coming…..maybe in the south?

  REPUBLICAN PARTY
  FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
  ALL 21 68 11
  Men 30 62 8
  Women 12 74 14
  DEM 4 93 3
  REP 73 10 17
  IND 10 78 12
  Other 12 76 12
  Non Vote 6 79 15
  White 28 60 12
  Black 3 92 5
  Latino 4 82 14
  Oth/Ref 4 85 11
  18-29 6 89 5
  30-44 35 52 13
  45-59 17 73 10
  60+ 17 68 15
  NORTHEAST 6 89 5
  SOUTH 48 37 15
  MIDWEST 10 78 12
  WEST 12 77 11

• 43 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  ottoBS, I don’t know about a GOP wave, but it’s clear that given the Democrats’ conduct of the past few months and all the widespread corruption in the Democrat-controlled Congress, you guys are in for a real ass-whooping in 2010.

  Obama’s favorable-to-unfavorables continue to grow in the double digits… it’s now at 11%. More people strongly dislike and disapprove of his performance than strongly approve of it. The fastest recorded slide in the modern presidency.

  Congressional approval stands at a dismal NEGATIVE 43 point spread! A negative 43 points! My God, if that were a candidate’s ratings, Democrat pollsters would recommend the candidate shoot himself and hope for a bump with the sympathy vote.

  Now, what was that blather about a GOP wave? Maybe you think the GOP is limited to the south… hey, I think I last heard that from either Mikey Dukakis or Wally Mondale… it sure provided them with some political armor, eh?

  I think you were better off bashing Bush relentlessly… when you stray outside your skill set, it shows. Maybe it’s best to stick with being the New Majority’s Village Idiot? You got that role down pat, dude.

• 44 Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  A sentence that was in the New York Times before it was not:

  http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/images-and-sentiment-of-presidents-five.html

• 45 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  …….Please….it’s so easy to check your lies and spin……Obama’s approval average from Pollster not your cherry picked poll although that’s in their average…….Obama approval 56.1 disapproval 37.1…..here’s the link:

  http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php

  …….Congress generic party……..Dem approval 44.4 Republican approval 40.3……….Sorry

• 46 ottovbvs // Oct 31, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  Churl // Oct 31, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  “A sentence that was in the New York Times before it was not:”

  ………I think you should be much more concerned about the Republican lie machine

  Early this evening, the White House voluntarily released nearly 500 visitor records of “individuals visiting the executive mansion between Inauguration Day and the end of July.” The easily-searchable list includes some famous names like Michael Jordan, Michael Moore, William Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright. Of course, the mere suggestion of Ayers and Wright has sent the right wing into a tizzy.

  The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb:
  The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham:
  The Washington Times’ Amanda Carpenter:
  Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey:

  …….All claimed that Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers had visited the white. It was of course bs.

  ……. as the original post by White House ethics counselor Norm Eisen makes clear, the “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” on the list are actually different individuals who merely share the same name:

  Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (”R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.

  Mainstream news outlets have reported this fact accurately. But for the right wing, the story was simply too good to be fact-checked.

  ……..Not that the Republican lie machine concerns you Churl

• 47 balconesfault // Oct 31, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  But for the right wing, the story was simply too good to be fact-checked.

  Well, obviously the information was so critical to be given to the American public, that there wasn’t proper time to fact check.

  Then again, it could just be that the pundits and newspeople in question are just too stupid to consider that there may be more than one William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright.

  Personally, I’m going with rope-a-dope. The Administration intentionally invited some people with those names to come to the White House and get logged in, knowing that eventually they planned to make the logs public – and that once again many on the right would show themselves to have as much credibility as news organizations as the National Examiner.

• 48 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  nice try with spin, ottoBS, but you’re still the New Majority’s Village Idiot… “Obama’s approval average from Pollster not your cherry picked poll although that’s in their average”.

  “Cherry picking polls” is what you and your side do, ottoBS. We just stick to the truth and Obama’s favorable to unfavorable on the daily presidential tracking poll stands at negative 11%. The Democrat controlled Congress has a negative 43% –like I said, the Democrats ought to try shooting themselves and hoping for a surge in the sympathy vote… it’s about the only kind of surge the chickenshit Democrats believe in anyway. By the way, I picked a middle composite score for the Democrats in Congress… there were polls that had them at a negative 51%… all the way down to a negative 39%.

  But serious negative numbers, no matter what your tin foil hat is telling ya, ottoBS.

  As for Republican “lie machines”, there’s far more to the White House story of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Michael Moore visiting the White House… stay tuned; by the way, did you know it took a serious threat of litigation to get the Obama White House to make good on its campaign promise to release the visitors log.

  So much for yet another campaign promise by the Obama Messiah “made good”… on the threat of litigation.

  You’d think a guy who has been dithering away the last few months could have made at least one decision about anything other than what beer to order for Biden at the Summit? Nawh, that’d tax the poor guy’s metrosexual brain. Obama, Celebrity in Chief reigns!

• 49 MI-GOPer // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm

  Back on topic, for a second at least, and I know that irritates our Village Idiot and his fellow trolls, but it turns out that Martinez of left-leaning ABC News reports: “Barack Obama brought twenty-four reporters, photographers and videographers from fourteen media outlets to Dover Air Force Base to cover his ’surprise’ visit there early Thursday morning” –ahh, the beauty of a solemn occasion, no?

  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/military-families-visiting-dover-statistics.html

  The real patriots of the Dover visit were the military families who refused our Ditherer in Chief’s pleading begging demand that they attend his regal presence and legitimize our Dirtherer in Chief. Seventeen out of the eighteen families of the fifteen soldiers and three DEA agents refused media coverage of the return to American soil of their loved ones… in essence, telling POTUS to stick his publicity stunt.

  Now, how does that track with the record since the ban was lifted by Obama and his coffin-cheering far Left thugs? The average permission rate has been about 60%.

  Ouch. Thank God the real patriots -those family members of the KIAs– had the presence of mind to tell Obama and publicity stunted pals to stick it.

  Obama’s motives in going to Dover are rightly suspect. Military families know his dithering is putting other families at risk of experiencing the same sad fate one day.

  Democrat presidents should be made to put the Commander in Chief functions into a lock box if elected. They don’t have enough character to handle the duty.

• 50 txanne // Oct 31, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  49 mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm

  ABC News reports: “Barack Obama brought twenty-four reporters, photographers and videographers from fourteen media outlets to Dover Air Force Base to cover his ’surprise’ visit there early Thursday morning”

  The report actually says:

  “On April 5, about 40 members of the media were on hand to cover the dignified transfer of Air Force Staff Sergeant Phillip Myers whose family was the first to allow media coverage. That has been the largest media presence at Dover to date and the numbers of press in attendance have decreased significantly since then. Usually the only media representative is a still photographer from the Associated Press. Last night, there were 24 media representatives at Dover from 14 news agencies.”

  mi-goper, that is just pure sleaze when you misquote the article to try and score a political point on this. But if your heros are Hannity and Limbaugh, I can see how you think this is ok.

  Another policy change is that now the pentagon pays for the families flight and room and board. This change allows many more family members to attend the transfer ceremony.

• 51 VA Shepherd // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:46 am

  Other Presidents confer with our allies and visit recovering veterans in hospital, but not this one. In the year that the Taliban mounted their biggest counter-offensive since we removed them from power, this President shows his leadership skills by saluting a flag-draped coffin. Nothing like that to inspire victory! If he sincerely wanted to defeat the Taliban he would have granted the professionals’ requests for reinforcements made so many months ago. It was a calculated decision that this picture, so rich with symbolism, was taken at this time. With this picture, the President is deliberately setting the stage for ultimate mission failure in Afghanistan, and it will come to define the Obama Adminitration’s approach to Afghanistan (although “withdrawal from” will be more accurate). However, expect some increase (25,000?) in troop levels before B.O. pulls them back – otherwise he’d look bad leaving Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban in place. This strategy is called “Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory”.
  http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/riddle-me-this-batman.html

  The President’s visit to Dover AFB would have been honorable if he had ditched the press in D.C. Instead the press were notified (on condition of secrecy!), and B.O. used a dead American as a prop for political purposes. The visit was choreographed from start to finish, including lessons on how to salute http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2009/10/salute.html. That the families (17 out of 18 reportedly) refused to allow B.O. to have his picture taken saluting the flag-draped casket of their fallen family member shows that they saw through his cheap stunt. If the President were sincere, wouldn’t he have visited Walter Reed since taking office? Certainly he could make time for a visit between interviews and golf.

• 52 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:53 am

  ottovbs:
  

  are you willing to make the kind of committment necessary to have any chance of turning Afghanistan around (Summary: 20 years, 600,000 troops, $3trillion plus)……..if you’re not then you’re for disengaging……all the rest is bs……so which is it?

  Obama should go with McChrystal’s plan.

  McChrystal has a much better track record than Joe Biden does.

  But you’re right about one thing: McChrystal’s plan will require increased military spending. After eight years of war, our force is strained and needs new recruits; the equipment is wearing out and needs replacement.

• 53 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:56 am

  mi-goper:
  

  you guys are in for a real ass-whooping in 2010.

  We don’t need a “real ass whooping”–though it would be sweet to get one.

  Look at how close the votes on health care reform are.

  A net pickup of 2 seats in the Senate and 25-30 seats in the House would put an end to Obama’s plans. He’ll never get anything through Congress again after that. He can focus on the Afghanistan War, since he’s Commander-in-Chief.

  Anything else is just icing on the cake.

• 54 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  mi-goper // Oct 31, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  “nice try with spin, ottoBS, but you’re still the New Majority’s Village Idiot… “Obama’s approval average from Pollster not your cherry picked poll although that’s in their average”.

  …..More from the rodent …….I just try to stick with the facts and avoid poll shopping which what you’re reduced to:

  Obama approval 56.1 disapproval 37.1…..here’s the link:

  http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php

• 55 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:53 am

  “Obama should go with McChrystal’s plan.”

  …….Actually as has been reported in several venues that go beyond soundbites McChrystal has put forward several options with additional deployments ranging from 10,000 to 80,000……..but all of them are just the slippery slope to what will likely be needed……This is 1963 deja vu all over again…..as ever all the enthusiasts for continuing this nonsense avoid the tough questions

• 56 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm

  ottovbs:
  

  all the enthusiasts for continuing this nonsense avoid the tough questions

  You’re accusing General McChrystal of “avoiding the tough questions”???

  I’m sure he, and General Petraeus, and the NATO commanders who endorsed their recommendations, have given a lot more thought to it than either you or I.

  And I don’t see anyone else whose judgment on this we should trust more.

  Certainly not Joe Biden, with his bizarre plan for partitioning Iraq into three parts (which fortunately no one else took seriously).

  Not Rahm Emanuel, who is unqualified to discuss anything in foreign policy.

  One thing is unacceptable: Leaving al-Qaeda entrenched in South Asia and elsewhere in the world, while we cower here with our shoe inspections, backpack inspections, SWAT teams on roofs, and other paraphernalia of living in an armed camp. For the world’s greatest superpower to have to cower on its home soil would be absolutely pathetic. I wouldn’t want to live in an America that was that craven.

• 57 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  automaticBS offers: “This (Afghanistan) is 1963 deja vu all over again”.

  I hope not. In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies, our military was quickly being outclassed by superior technology and determination by our foe, the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth, we were deep in a presidency which many had come to appreciate as being a bad choice, Americans were questioning whether or not there was a Manifest Destiny and our enemies were laughing at our incapacity to maintain resolve in the face of adversity.

  Well, maybe it is more like 1963. Now, just like then, politics and the self-interest of a Camelot fuzzy prez were more important vectors in resolving any crisis than natl interest or the People’s Business, the Left was ascending and pressing its immorality and relativism throughout the culture… wow, it does seem like 1963 all over again.

  And the Left still has Gore Vidal as its poster boi. 1963.

• 58 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  automaticBS contends: “Obama approval 56.1 disapproval 37.1″

  Well, Rasmussen has it Strongly Disapprove passing those who Strongly Approve by 11%. And the President’s approval rating is now close to 46%, a plurality of Americans disapprove of Obama’s job performance.

  The difference in our polls, automaticBS?

  My poll is of real voters. Your poll is of anyone the pollster can find at home on a Saturday night… by definition, a loser. Like you.

• 59 MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:36 pm

  txanne, I think you make my point, sweetness. Obama brought a bevy of cameras & correspondents with him for his impromtu little political theatre of self-absorption. I said 24 “reporters” from 14 outlets. You say the same and add a bit of indignant huffiness to the outrage? Like Obama, you’re a fake txanne.

  I also noted, btw, that usually 60+% of these KIA events have military families present; the Obama Show only netted a single, that’s 1, family. At least the military families didn’t let the Obama Show use their fallen heroes as props for the stage of Obama.

  I don’t know why you take issue with the truth? Is your love and worship of the All Mighty Magic Obama so intense you can’t embrace the truth…. hey, you aren’t the first O-bot to discover that demerit. Probably won’t be the last, either, sweetness.

• 60 txanne // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:28 am

  mi-goper you are not only a sleaze but a dumb one at that. You do not understand basic grade school punctuation.

  When you write ABC reports, and then frame the next sentence with quotation marks, that indicates an exact quote from the report. But as I said, this is Hannity, Beck style selective editing.

  Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, this family wanted as much press as possible? It is not inconceivable, is it?

  The fact that our lost soldiers have been ignored for the better part of the last seven years is a shameful thing.

• 61 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:09 am

  MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  “My poll is of real voters. Your poll is of anyone the pollster can find at home on a Saturday night… by definition, a loser. Like you.”

  …….Er…… Pollster is a poll aggregator……that means it produces an average of all published polls…….stop circling the drain

• 62 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

  MI-GOPer // Nov 1, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  “I hope not. In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies, our military was quickly being outclassed by superior technology and determination by our foe, the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth, we were deep in a presidency which many had come to appreciate as being a bad choice, Americans were questioning whether or not there was a Manifest Destiny and our enemies were laughing at our incapacity to maintain resolve in the face of adversity.”

  ……….This would explain why LBJ the next year won depending on your definition the first or second largest landslide in US history……. And the US was being outclassed by the superior technology of the Viet Minh?…..really?

  ……….And you’re a lawyer in MI……right?

• 63 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:40 am

  mi-goper:
  

  In 1963, ….the American underbelly had grown fat and lazy in its political sloth

  If anybody had “political sloth” in 1963, it was our South Vietnamese allies. Again and again, the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) broke and ran rather than standing their ground and fighting. Their generals were political appointees, and were often incompetent. Yet it was the policy of the JFK administration that the South Vietnamese had to fight for their own country. Unfortunately, at this point in time, they could not or would not do that.

  The JFK administration began to realize that the Diem government in Saigon was not doing the job. But the assassination of Diem in 1963 didn’t improve the situation; rather, it further destabilized the South Vietnamese government.

  With the accumulated experience of 40 years of counterinsurgency warfare, experts like Petraeus now know this is no way to fight a counterinsurgency war. But in 1963, the U.S. Army had never fought this kind of war before. I do not blame them, or our civilian leadership, for being baffled as to how to win. We lost, fair and square; the enemy had a better strategy, and they beat us.

  I’m glad that we have learned our lessons since then.

• 64 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:43 am

  MI-GOPer:
  

  In 1963, a bunch of Cut & Run cowards were in the White house prepping to ditch our allies to the snares of their enemies

  Instead of criticizing, tell us what they SHOULD have done instead.

  Suppose Nixon had beat JFK in 1960 and become President. What do you suppose President Nixon would have done?

  I really would like to hear how YOU think the Vietnam War COULD have been won. And at what cost.

• 65 Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  ms. txanne, i think you’re hacking on mi-gop too much and for the wrong reason. he (she?) was correct that obama brought a ton of celebrity documenters to preserve the moment for obama’s political use to offset drops in the polls over “dithering” as the cheneys put it. you basically criticize him (her) for telling the truth. what is that all about? if you’re mad about the obama being so transparent on something that should have been more finessed and not so blatant, tell his lackluster communications staff who stage-crafted this affair. put down the kool aid and think for yourself, ok?

  the other fact that kills your partisan argument is that mi-gop right about the absence of other military families at dover. according to d.o.d., these transfer cermonies draw 60 percent of the dead soldiers and this one drew a single family that the obama spin machine used without shame.

  in our house, where both my wife and i served and our oldest is now serving, we think it was a staged media moment for obama to capitalize upon like bush did with the uss lincoln celebration. but unlike bush’s many visits to injured troops or meetings with military families, obama chose to do this one and all others in the glare of media lights, milking it for whatever political cover he can gain.

  i agree with mi-gop, it does say something adverse about obama’s character to use a dead soldier as a prop for his falling in the polls. next time you see shots or clips of obama at military events, look around. the majority of faces are of minorities, not a minority of faces. he’s drawing a narrow, small band of supporters to his military events or he’s attending events where military attendance is mandatory. our household isn’t faked out by obama pr stunts. and the person who wrote that this is just what presidents do is all wrong, too.

  it’s kind of like a comedian who begins their act with “true story, true story…” and then tells an outlandish joke? obama is someone who is practiced at looking sincere, but there’s no reason or record for believing what he says is true. like the comedian, we know obama doesn’t really care about the military or the sacrafice these coffins represent. obama is just using them as a prop to help him offset his fall in the polls or help his leftward democratic party base feel good about finally doing what they’ve wanted to have done for a long time -show the dead soldiers, show the coffins, undercut the american perception of the value of the war in afghanistan.

  txanne, you’re hacking on mi-gop for all the wrong reasons. he’s (she’s) just speaking truth to power.

• 66 txanne // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  Independent, you fail to get my point. Mi-goper is entitled to his opinion just as I am. However, when you misquote the report you are slanting the facts. This is the way Hannity operates. He takes a snippet of video that seems to cast the president in a negative light, but fails to continue the very next sentence of the video, which disproves that assumption.

  All I am saying is that there is a perfectly legitimate argument for more press coverage of the returning soldiers dignified transfer. It is not in and of its self a bad reflection of the character of President Obama. I see it as something we all need to be aware of: the great and final cost of these wars.

• 67 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  65 Independent // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  …….So you’re normally a supporter of the president?

• 68 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 am

  Independent, txanne and automaticBS can’t undestand you criticizing the President, the Messiah. To them, anything he does is always to be greeted with superlatives, glowing high praise, political poetry and idol worshiping children chanting songs of glorious revolution! Didn’t you get the memo from David Alexrod???

  Thanks for re-re-re-making my points. Unfortunately, no one around here has been able to get through their tin-foil hats yet… I’m hoping that election results today will drive the Democrats and Obama back from the brink of insanity, toward calmer, cooler, more prudent ground.

  And give us some new Republican office holders that the far Left trolls here will have to spend lots of time spinning into some sort of vindication of Obama Messiah.

• 69 MI-GOPer // Nov 3, 2009 at 8:51 am

  Best line of the thread: “txanne, you’re hacking on mi-gop for all the wrong reasons. he’s (she’s) just speaking truth to power.”

  Damn txanne, he nailed you.

• 70 txanne // Nov 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm

  Mi-goper, you and Independent sure “nailed” me.

  With all the talk of Messiah and me being such a kool aid drinking disciple, I will assume that is “to the cross”.

  There you go.

• 71 iveyguy // Nov 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm

  Lest we forget.

You must log in to post a comment.