--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert <babajii_99@> 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.
Well, no, that isn't the case. If we didn't all know that Barry is not to be held accountable for anything he says, I'd ask him to prove his claim, but of course such a request would be pointless. > 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? You have to forgive Barry. He has a memory like a sieve for anything that doesn't conform to what he prefers to believe, especially about me. > 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) No, that hasn't been what it's been, as the record shows. has been an attempt > to appeal to the *exact* same emotions that the > Reduh!licans use -- fear and distrust. Is Barry so sunk in delusion that he truly believes Democrats--including Obama--don't use those exact same emotions against Republicans? Barry started this post quoting a high-minded paragraph from Obama's speech about not "painting your opponent as someone you should run from." Here are several other paragraphs from the same speech which do precisely that: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change. The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.... For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.... And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war. That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past. You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.
