--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It was the perfect speech for a skeptical nation. In some > ways, the heart of it was near the end, when Obama directly > confronted a country that has lost faith in government - and > an opposing party that preys on that cynicism: > > "I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy > talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, > something firmer and more honest in our public life is just > a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of > traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if > you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics > to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, > then you paint your opponent as someone people should run > from."
Obama's words make an excellent point, one that a number of us have been trying to make here on FFL. That is, that the language used by his detractors, whether they be dyed-in-the-wool Reduh!licans like BillyG and Shemp, or Nouveau Reduh!licans like Judy, is almost *always* phrased negatively. They're sell- ing FEAR and DISTRUST because they don't have anything else to sell. They go *ballistic* when Obama or anyone on this forum says something that is about what they hope to achieve and plan to achieve, and phrases it in positive terms, as something they are FOR. It's as if their rant buttons get pushed by the very *appearance* of hope and positivity in a speech or in an FFL post. I'm including Judy in the Reduh!lican camp because SHE'S BEEN ACTING LIKE ONE. Can anyone here remember *anything* she has said since this election season started that was phrased positively? Or that ever indicated what she was FOR? I can't. She is seemingly *incapable* of stating what she is for *without* stating what she is against. Her whole campaign to discredit and demonize Obama here (and that IS what it's been) has been an attempt to appeal to the *exact* same emotions that the Reduh!licans use -- fear and distrust. At the same time, does anyone here remember her saying *anything* about the things that the person or persons she is considering voting for instead of Obama will actually do that is *positive*? "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters." True when spoken about politics and the Reduh!lican Party. Even truer on Fairfield Life, when someone who paints themselves as a liberal can't find it in themselves to be FOR anything, only AGAINST. And if she claims this isn't true, I DARE her to spend an *entire* post saying *exactly* what she is FOR and what she would like to see achieved for the U.S. and the world in the next four years, and to do so in *completely* positive terms. ANY negativity in the post invalidates it where this dare is concerned, even something like "Prosecute the people in the Bush administration who have committed crimes." That's just more negativity and scape- goating. What I'm after in this dare is whether she is CAPABLE of presenting, say, ten things she is FOR, without ONE WORD about what she is AGAINST, or ONE WORD assigning blame or scapegoating or screaming for retribution. I don't think she can do it. I think she'll come up with some excuse to not even try. That's why I call her a Nouveau Reduh!lican. She certainly isn't a Democrat. Democrats can actually put the things they want to achieve into words.
