Democrats Campaign Against Obama's Afghan Plan

Even before President Obama formally announces his plan to surge more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan, Democrats who want to win elections are campaigning against it.

The next big election for Democrats is the Massachusetts primary organized to fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy.

The leading candidates in next Tuesday's primary are scrambling to appeal to the party's base voters in a state that gave overwhelming support to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

But the candidates are not presenting themselves as enthusiastic backers of the president's military adventuring abroad.

In fact, they are doing the opposite.

Congressman Mike Capuano, who has attracted the support of anti-war activists in groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, is up on television with a commercial that trumpets his anti-war stance.

In it, the congressman recalls his vote against authorizing the war in Iraq and then says: "Now there's a call for more troops in Afghanistan, but the questions remain: What's our mission? How do we define success? And what's our exit strategy? Without the right answers to those questions, I will never vote to send more of our sons and daughters to war. Never!"

Noting that the mission seems to be shifting from tackling terrorism to a vague mix of defensive fights with the Taliban and nation building, Capuano says: "It's about to turn into somehow bringing democracy to Afghanistan, somehow protecting a corrupt regime. And I don't understand why that mission is good. It wasn't good in Iraq, it won't be good in Afghanistan, it won't be good in any place in this world.

"Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan," Capuano argues, correctly. "(If) we stay there, we are fighting yesterday's war. We should go where Al Qaeda is, chase them around the world, not where they were yesterday."

So does that mean that Capuano has staked out the anti-war turf in the primary to replace Kennedy.

Actually, he's got a lot of company.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who leads in most polls as the December 8 vote approaches, says she is opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan. And Coakley goes a step further, declaring that, "I believe we should begin the process of bringing our troops home."

Community organizer and activist Alan Khazei, who just picked up a warm endorsement from the Boston Globe newspaper, says that will "absolutely not" support sending more troops.

The friendliest words for Obama come from the most conservative candidate in the field, businessman and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca -- a George W. Bush campaign donor who has switched allegiances -- says "let's listen to (Obama's) plan and then criticize it."

That is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So is this just a Massachusetts thing?

Not hardly.

Democrats in serious contests across the country are distancing themselves from Obama's misguided strategy. Some are sitting senators, such as Wisconsin's Russ Feingold. Others are top competitors in key contests, such as Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

Brunner, who is campaigning in a 2010 Democratic primary for her state's open U.S. Senate seat, just penned an opinion piece in which she declares that: "At the risk of being called a naysayer... I believe the costs are too great -- in human lives and economic resources -- to continue along the current path. It is clear to me that America must set a timetable for bringing our troops home from Afghanistan as soon as possible."

Argues Brunner:

The impact of this conflict on the United States, and my home state of Ohio, is unacceptable. As the cost to American and Ohioans' lives increases, billions are spent each month on the conflict in Afghanistan, ballooning our national debt and diverting resources we desperately need here at home.

So far, of the 4367 military deaths in Iraq and 928 military deaths in Afghanistan, Ohio has sacrificed more than 200 lives in military deaths and $33 billion to fund wars on these fronts -- priceless loss to Ohio's future and $33 billion from a state with unemployment exceeding 10 percent. Looking just at the dollars, had we invested these funds, Ohio could have funded roughly 6 million Pell Grants, or hired a half million elementary school teachers or provided completely free health care for one year for every woman, man and child in the state.

Given the increasing death toll in Afghanistan, it is clear that progress in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban has slowed or worsened. We cannot remedy this by simply sending additional troops, given the conditions and corruption in Afghanistan.

With regard to foreign and domestic policy, Brunner's assessment is a wise one, which parallels those of Afghan and American observers who have paid serious attention to the conflict.

But it is also wise from a political standpoint.

Polls suggest that base Democratic voters, the folks who cast the ballots in party primaries, still respect Barack Obama as an individual and support his positions on a variety of issues.

But they are not inclined to back the president when he expands what Brunner correctly notes is "a war he -- and our nation -- inherited from former President George W. Bush."

Recalling Bush's mistakes and misdeeds, the Ohio candidates makes a case that party activists are likely to embrace: "Eight years and nearly a trillion dollars of our tax money-gone. More than 5,200 American lives-also gone. It's time to say, 'Enough.' It's time to employ more than military and mercantile strategies in Afghanistan and set a timetable to bring our troops home from Afghanistan."

Comments (41)

1. Yeah, lets get this Afghan war over with so we can start putting our soldiers on trial for all the thousands of war crimes they've committed.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:51am

2. NICHOLS: "Base Democratic voters, the folks who vote in party primaries, still have high regard for Barack Obama.

   But they are not inclined to back the president......"

   My Tuesday quota for `funny' from The Nation has been filled!

   I'm ever more doubtful about the mental capacity of most "Base Democratic voters" who "still have high regard for Barack Obama". but now I am fairly certain.

   Proof: They want to jazz up the Dem Primaries with candidates that "not inclined to back the president"!

   Anyone that doesn't find this knee-slappingly funny, please contact the nearest psychiatrist.

   Remeber, I am NOT a doctor.....LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:09am

3. A troop surge will never win the war in Afghanistan. Obama strategy on Afghanistan is not going to fulfill. It is a losing war. Afghanistan is the graveyard of the Empires for centuries. Soviets were the last victims. But they were alone. US will have many friends in defeat.

   Posted by Dastu11 at 12/01/2009 @ 10:15am

4. #

   Yeah, lets get this Afghan war over with so we can start putting our soldiers on trial for all the thousands of war crimes they've committed.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

   YEAH!!! and lets spit on 'em when they come home and call 'em baby killers!!!!

   jeez darrin - is this the best you got?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:17am

5. jeez darrin - is this the best you got?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:17am

   That happens to be the historical trend, 11 months so far, of the Magic Era......

   You've been too busy starting your biz....probably missed the 3 Navy Seals going to tribunal for Bloody Lipped scumbag!

   Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:28am

6. jeez darrin - is this the best you got?----Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:17am

   Actually, yes. See, they (the Right) CAN'T attack Obama's troop increase...it would contradict everything they've said and agree with us. But they can't support him either....cuz...well....he's Obama.

   So...all they're left with is the snarky comments that Darin and Happy are making. Or the inevitable subject changes to "Climategate" or something else.

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 10:30am

7. Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:28am | ignore this person | warn this person

   hey HAP. how u doing? sorry for letting my demon run amok a few days ago, but well...thanksgiving and family and all...you know?

   plus i thought it a great obverse approximation of glen beck and company...

   but yeah i have been occupied despite the continued volume of my rants...

   i'm actually currently in one of those lulls after and before crap...but thanks for the advise and support.

   but really...i'm sure there will be a few soldier spittings regardless, the precedent is there, but i doubt it will reach anything resembling a repeat of the 70's...

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

   i think big D is depressed. his propaganda rehashing seem to have lost a beat, missing the smarmy pride in shameful ideological based ignorance they once had.

   he posted a sort of wrap-up neocon version of the weeks events on another blog that i found especially limp and flaccid on another blog response thread.

   but sure, what's a controll to say in this case, depressio or not?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:52am

8. Yeah, lets get this Afghan war over with so we can start putting our soldiers on trial for all the thousands of war crimes they've committed.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:51am

   I'd settle for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. And not thousands, just tens.

   Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/01/2009 @ 10:53am

9. Posted by Blair Wooff at 12/01/2009 @ 10:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

   and by the way...

   if big D is referring to the trial of those involved in the mai lai massacre in vietnam...

   i sincerely hope any US military personnel (or brutal christofascist blackwater thugs) involved in immoral or brutal war crimes DO get prosecuted and suffer the full extent of the law.

   lets face it - although the vast majority of those in the military are fine upstanding folks and patriotic...

   1. some brutal psycopaths are also attracted to the lure of being able to kill and get rewarded. sure, ever will polite society need hard men and women to break and explode heads, but some enjoy it a little too much...

   2. not dinking anybody's patriotism who is serving, but many serve out of a desire to get educational benefits or out of a general will to improve their lives and or take care of their families and find themselves in a shooting war...

   so enough of the military worship. does it have to be worship or demonizing? perhaps we could see things as they are...good and bad...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 11:46am

10. Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:52am

    Darin pissed because after weeks and weeks of spouting the Humana/Wellpath/Blue Cross Talking Points.....HCR is looking like a done deal and the reality about the "disaster it will cause" will never live up to the right-wing hype...and they'll be proven wrong again.

    As noted on the other thread, Darin's another RW who like most of them....want us out of Afghanistan as much as everybody does.

    But he can't criticize Obama's plan....because it's in line with conservative thought.....but he can't support it.....because it's Obama.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 12:09pm

11. Actually, yes. See, they (the Right) CAN'T attack Obama's troop increase...it would contradict everything they've said and agree with us. But they can't support him either....cuz...well....he's Obama.

    So...all they're left with is the snarky comments that Darin and Happy are making. Or the inevitable subject changes to "Climategate" or something else.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --WHAT A WONDERFUL REASON FOR MORE U.S. TROOPS TO DIE! SO OBAMA CAN SEEM "TOUGH"!

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 12:49pm

12. Afghanistan is the graveyard of the Empires for centuries.

    Not really true, see below. 5 long-term conquests from Persia: Achmenian, Seleucid, Sassanian, Parthian, and Timurids 3 long-term conquests from India: Ashokan, Pala, and Mauryan. Conquest by Mongols Conquest by Alexander Conquest by Arab Caliphate Conquest by Ghaznavids Conquest by Seljuk Turks

    The reputation only came from the time that the Russians from the north, and British from India checkmated each other, as American support did to the Soviets more recently. Geopolitics is a wonderful game that never stops.

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 12/01/2009 @ 1:00pm

13. Our Republicrat fiends. I mean friends...

    Now that the deal is almost done it's safe to come out and be against this war because, of course, they need to start running for the next election cycle.

    I'm not for it, this new surge. But if there is actually a plan to withdraw in three years (not completely substantiated yet), then it plays a little to both sides.

    If there is an end in sight and it's not just bull s**t then I think that it's the only move he could make. Unlike urmy, I don't think that he's doing it just to seem tough. He's got a lot of the military wanting this to happen. They need things to blow up. R and D, y'know?

    Posted by ficheye at 12/01/2009 @ 1:44pm

14. Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 12:49pm

    I'm sorry...did I say that ANYWHERE in that post???

    urmy, stick with the stuff I say, not the stuff you imagine that I say....works better for you.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 1:45pm

15. somewhat off topic but interesting

    http://tinyurl.com/y9bkstq

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 1:53pm

16. I'm sure it doesn't help that the senate report also came out stating hsuB/cHeney/Ruinsfeld admin let OBL go at Tora Bora somehow in order to stretch the war out as much as possible. Makes sense now that around 2003, didn't hsuB say, OBL who? I don't think much about him anymore... A typical new con worm squishy brain tactic.

    But now here we are with this big ugly mess and the new con worms are still here. Want to solve as many of the problems the new con worms created, we's got's to do a hell of a lot of squishing. Every time they poke their heads up out of their dirty little holes-- SQUISH!

    After we do a good job of that, then we all need to turn and look at all the blue worms...

    It'll be HILARIOUS!

    One would've thought they'd get the message.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 3:13pm

17. It'll be HILARIOUS!

    One would've thought they'd get the message.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 3:13pm

    It is hilarious

    ......Bush fault.....

    ....who knew a Dem Senate Panel would arrive at that conclusion...?

    ..I'm shocked!!!!

    And another shocker...!!!.... You believe it all.!!!! Hook, line, sinker, boat, and the water it floats upon!!!

    ....and to a point you are right, Bush should have let the CIA put a bullet in OBL's head when they had him in the cross hairs...I would have flattened the the house and area where they saw OBL go in...

    but then you types would have put the US on trial instead...

    you can't have it both ways Bushboy.

    The real truth?...we wouldn't be here at all if Clinton(and deep inside even he knows this is true) would have taken out OBL when he had the chance after the FIRST Twin Tower Bombing, the Cole, African Embassys,....

    You have been sniffing the paint fumes in the art department at the University too long...

    Try the real world for a few years...your perspective might not sound so canned...and pathetic.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 3:36pm

18. Squishy.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 3:48pm

19. "we wouldn't be here at all if Clinton(and deep inside even he knows this is true) would have taken out OBL when he had the chance after the FIRST Twin Tower Bombing"

    clinton could not possibly have known that 9.11 was going to happen, and as such, believed that taking out OBL would have prevented anything so significant......but bush certainly knew. in fact, the august briefing warned him exactly how OBL would do it.

    the other point i wanna make is: why would taking out OBL effectively end terrorism?

    Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 4:10pm

20. jomamma, bush failed to protect the country. to a large degree, clinton did (Whatever that means).

    Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 4:12pm

21. sorry, clinton did not fail in that regard.

    Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 4:12pm

22. #

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 12:49pm

    I'm sorry...did I say that ANYWHERE in that post???

    urmy, stick with the stuff I say, not the stuff you imagine that I say....works better for you.

    Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you're kidding right? you're political "analysis" is about making obama look good to voters and taking away his political opposition's fuel. sending more troops in is meant to make him look "tough" in your analysis, instead of weak. plain and simple.

    Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 4:28pm

23. John Nichols:

    "Polls suggest that base Democratic voters, the folks who cast the ballots in party primaries, still respect Barack Obama as an individual and support his positions on a variety of issues."

    And some of us recently polled replied regret not to have written in a vote for the honorable Judge Joseph Crater.....

    Charlie M.

    Posted by cmsandia at 12/01/2009 @ 4:30pm

24. >>>"Now there's a call for more troops in Afghanistan, but the questions remain: What's our mission? How do we define success? And what's our exit strategy? Without the right answers to those questions, I will never vote to send more of our sons and daughters to war. Never!" <<<

    ALL of these questions will be answered in the speech tonight!

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 4:47pm

25. Is Obama the anti-Nixon?

    1) Vietnamization First, it was necessary to reduce American casualty rates and the number of combat troops in Vietnam. To this end, Nixon defined his policy as "Vietnamization" -- the idea that South Vietnamese would gradually assume a greater combat role and ultimately eliminate the need for American ground forces. Because the US would not withdraw abrubtly, the policy of Vietnamization would require time. The domestic political objective was to convince the public that the Army of South Vietnam could eventually handle the war on their own.

    (2) The "Politics of Polarization" To buy time, Nixon had to build a larger and more reliable base of support within the American public. His popular vote margin in the 1968 election was razor thin. However, to his advantage, the Democratic coalition was shattered in 1968 and there were political opportunities. To exploit these opportunities, the administration would pursue a "politics of polarization" in which it would, at one and the same time, appeal to a "silent majority" and attempt to isolate opponents and paint them, in one manner or another, as extreme.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 4:52pm

26. Is Obama the anti-Nixon?

    (3) The "Madman" scenario A "madman theory" was devised for negotiating with the government of North Vietnam. In this gambit, Henry Kissinger would emphasize, in his meetings with representatives of North Vietnam, the volatility of President Nixon's personality. He would warn the North Vietnamese that Nixon was unpredictable, that he could fly into a rage, and that this could happen in response to either North Vietnamese military action or intransigence in the peace talks. A similar theme was sounded by Kissinger in his dealing with the American press. Over the course of the term, Nixon provided a number of examples to give credence to Kissinger's claims: secretly bombing Cambodia, bombing Hanoi and Haiphong, invading Cambodia (see below), and mining Haiphong harbor.

    (4) Triangular Diplomacy Finally, Nixon pursued a "geopolitical" approach to the war as well. During the first years of his term, Nixon discovered reason to believe that both the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China were interested in what became known as detente -- an easing of Cold War tensions and expanding trade relations. This interest, plus the suspicions between USSR and the PRC, would provide Nixon with leverage for pressing the Soviets and Chinese to "do business" with the U.S. and to pressure the North Vietnamese to settle the war.

    When we examine the history or chronology of the first Nixon administration, each component is evident as is the manner in which the components "meshed" into both a political strategy for getting America out of Vietnam and reelecting Nixon in 1972.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 4:53pm

27. Is Obama the anti-Nixon?

    http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/01/2009 @ 4:53pm

28. Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 12:09pm

    You act as if there is no opposition to the surge from the right. I, for one, don't think this one is winnable.

    That said, I will hope for the best. If the CICs decision is met with success, that would surely be good for the US, as well as the Afghan people.

    In that scenario (success) Obama will be a winner, but he'll have to share the trophy with the Repubs, who mostly support this move.

    If things turn sour, he'll be the goat. With the upcoming show trial of the WOT by way of the trial of KSM, we will see for the first time in world history, a government propagandizing against itself while at war. Not a great recipe for success.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/01/2009 @ 5:51pm

29. If I understand Obamas plan correctly ..

    He is going to escalate and announce a withdrawl date at the same time? And he expects help from the Afgans to stand up and join the fight? What happens to those Afgans on the day after we bug out?

    If I were Taliban I would take a vacation until theday after NATO leaves.

    Libs belong as far way from military and economic policy as possible.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 5:56pm

30. Posted by balataf at 12/01/2009 @ 1:00pm

    "Not really true, see below. 5 long-term conquests from Persia: Achmenian, Seleucid, Sassanian, Parthian, and Timurids 3 long-term conquests from India: Ashokan, Pala, and Mauryan. Conquest by Mongols Conquest by Alexander Conquest by Arab Caliphate Conquest by Ghaznavids Conquest by Seljuk Turks"

    Then why have none remained? Afghanistan is a country 3 centuries behind the modern world with a very weak central government and a very strong tribal tradition.

    For centuries the tribes have coexisisted or have done battle with one another. What has historically brought the tribes together was the introduction of a foreign army.

    Despite all the efforts of American and Nato troops, Afghanistan will revert to what the Afghans will choose to be. There will never, in my lifetime, be a strong central government or a democracy in Afghanistan.

    All the efforts up till now and all the efforts in the coming years until our withdrawal will have the same effect on Afghanistan as the effect your fist has on a bucket of water when you remove it.

    People have said that Afghanistan was the Soviet Unions' Vietnam. Well now we can say Afghanistan is the US's Afghanistan.

    Posted by COProgressive at 12/01/2009 @ 6:21pm

31. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 5:56pm "If I were Taliban I would take a vacation until the day after NATO leaves."

    Works for me. Let the Taliban lay down, let the NATO troops "secure" the countyside and hand it over to the Afghan police/army, then withdraw.

    What happens after the US and NATO leave is what I said about the fist in a bucket of water.

    Sounds like the plan I expect to hear tonight from the President.

    Posted by COProgressive at 12/01/2009 @ 6:34pm

32. Posted by COProgressive at 12/01/2009 @ 6:34pm

    Until we return again when Taliban welcomes AQ back as it goes deeper into Sharia...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:26pm

33. Libs belong as far way from military and economic policy as possible. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yeah right. FDR won a real war against formidable foes AND he brought the depression to an end. no one has done better.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/01/2009 @ 7:28pm

34. Like I said, It is simple enough, he made these political campaign promises, YOU voted for him, and now you whine?

    Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan "As Obama removes our combat brigades from Iraq, he will send at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent. He will also provide our armed forces with the reset capability that they need. He will replace essential equipment, and he will ensure that our men and women in uniform get the care and support they have earned."

    Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan Some countries "contributing forces are imposing restrictions on where their troops can operate, tying the hands of commanders on the ground. ... As president, Obama will work with European allies to end these burdensome restrictions and strengthen NATO as a fighting force. An increased U.S. commitment to the NATO mission will substantially strengthen our hand in asking for more from our European friends."

    Train and equip the Afghan army "Barack Obama will strengthen the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police and increase Afghan participation in U.S. and NATO missions, so that there is more of an Afghan face on security."

    Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion Barack Obama would increase U.S. non-military aid to Afghanistan by an additional $1 billion to $3 billion. "This aid would fund reconstruction, police and army training, embassy operations, and local projects including efforts to impact the lives of ordinary Afghans and to give farmers alternatives to growing opium poppies. The aid would also be tied to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country."

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 7:34pm

35. Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts "As president, Barack Obama would condition U.S. military aid to Pakistan on their making progress to close down the training camps, evict foreign fighters, and prevent the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base to strike inside of Afghanistan. ... Obama also will increase aid to Pakistan for development and secular education to counter extremists."

    Are leftist now admitting they were WRONG in supporting the Obamanation or just you did not expect him to keep his campaign promises????

    What happened to all those Demoncrat friends who jumped on his bandwagon, oh they got elected and want to remain that way!

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 7:36pm

36. yeah right. FDR won a real war against formidable foes AND he brought the depression to an end. no one has done better.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/01/2009 @ 7:28pm

    OK, let define terms...

    todays libs..Progressives....

    Many ways FDR and JFK were more right leaning than Reagan...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:48pm

37. I'll go ahead and be the first rightie here to say I don't think the stopwatch clause is a terrible idea. It sends a message to the Afghan army/government that they are going to get their asses handed to them shortly if they don't step up their game.

    Conversely, they may instead negotiate a de facto truce with the Talibs behind our backs.

    While our exit, and the almost imminent Taliban takeover will be a humanitarian disaster for Afghans, especially women, I'm not entirely convinced that they will make the same mistake again re AQ. The Saudi suicide nerds have not been finding warm receptions in their travels among indigenous Muslims lately. The Talibs felt a debt of gratitude to OBL, but that may be paid up by now.

    Posted by gangpapist at 12/01/2009 @ 8:15pm

38. Many ways FDR and JFK were more right leaning than Reagan...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    FDR right-leaning?

    I'm keeping that one, like the other half of a Mounds bar, for later.

    This place is getting surreal.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 9:47pm

39. Wait 'til Larry hears that one.

    To him, FDR is the AntiChrist.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 9:48pm

40. What happened to all those Demoncrat friends who jumped on his bandwagon, oh they got elected and want to remain that way!

    Posted by BigPasture at 12/01/2009 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Criticizing the POTUS, IN A TIME OF WAR?????????

    Why do you hate the troops?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 9:49pm

41. Wait 'til Larry hears that one. To him, FDR is the AntiChrist. Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 9:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    to me HE'S the antichrist.

    Posted by EmailduBois at 12/02/2009 @ 10:48am