The Livingston County Republican Party’s letter writing team continues its attack on Barack Obama, but at least the latest letter published in the Daily Press & Argus is not racist like the last two from the Grand Oil Party.
Although the one from Howell Township resident Tom Worley is not racist, it’s still filled with false talking points and inaccuracies. It’s like he copies the talking points, but doesn’t elaborate on them. Russ Spencer needs to do a better job of communicating the false talking points to his drones.
Mr. Worley claims the only one praising Obama is Obama. Apparently he missed the huge crowds all over the country and world. He then claims he has no idea what changes the Senator is talking about. The only person to blame for that is Mr. Worley. If he doesn’t know what Obama stands for or his positions, then he has not been paying attention and does not want to know.
Mr. Worley writes “He says that the surge in Iraq hasn't worked, but the war seems to be slowing down and Iraqi leaders are declaring their willingness to take the responsibility for their own protection.” What he fails to mention is that the Iraqi government has endorsed Obama’s position on the occupation, followed by the President. That is a consistent position of a16-month timetable, dependent on conditions on the ground. That was just endorsed by the Iraqi government, and Bush endorsed it too; only he called it a “horizon.”
Mr. Worley takes a shot at Obama for the troop surge in Iraq. In regular language that’s called an escalation. It was also sold as a temporary measure, which it had to be because we do not have the troop strength to do it for long. It ignores the face that Obama was against the useless invasion of Iraq from the beginning. Here’s the most important question: what does victory in Iraq mean? When do we know we have achieved that undefined goal? When Bush says so? He’s already done that once before, years ago and many dead soldiers and dead civilians ago.
Then Mr. Worley changes talking points midstream with this one that makes no sense. “Congress has passed a bailout bill to care for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” I have no idea what that means or where that even came from.
“One thing he seems to be focused on is a surge in troops to Afghanistan. Wonder why,“ Mr. Worley writes. That’s pretty easy. The people who planned and executed the September 11 attack did so from Afghanistan and are in Afghanistan. If we had consternated on doing the job there instead of invading Iraq for no reason we would not be in this mess.
He than goes off on a confusing tangent on health care.
His next paragraph makes no sense. “One thing he has promised is to prohibit using our natural resources to find oil, saying we can find a way to exist without dependence on foreign oil. He will support even late-term abortions.”
The Grand Oil Party’s fronting for the poor oil companies makes no sense. The oil companies have thousands of leases on millions of acres of land where they can drill and get oil, but it will not effect the price of gasoline for up to 10 years. Instead, they want to extort the Americans people to drill in environmental sensitive areas. There is also the myth that because of environmentalists no new refineries have been built in years. True, but that ignores the increased capacity built at existing refineries. We not only can break our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general, we must.
No one supports late or even early term abortions. I support a woman’s right to choose, and we should do everything possible to make sure that’s the last choice she chooses. I want to see abortions like they were during the Clinton years: legal, safe and rare.
Mr. Worley’s parting shot, “Obama is indeed a great orator,” makes no sense when taken with his opening salvo, “He speaks in riddles and innuendoes.” But that disconnect describes the entire attack.
11 comments:
Huge crowds to see Barack Hussein Obama? This is laughable.
Let's look at his Oregon appearance where he supposedly drew 72,000 people. What you're not hearing from this blogger is that Obama has a rock band opening for him. In Oregon it was a group called the Decemberist.
The rock group is wildly popular in the northwest. Interesting thing about the Decemberist. Look where they got their name from. Interesting also that they begin each concert with the national anthem of Russia being played.
So far, these large crowds he's drawing seem to be due to the rock groups he's got playing.
As for his message. He's an empty suit. All show, no go. There is no substance to his speeches.
All we know for sure is that he's said he'll raise taxes and increase spending and part of it health care.
We did know that he was going to Iraq to find out what he should do, but then, he announced what he'd do before he left. He must be clairvoyant as well.
As for the Iraqi Prime minister signing on to his 16 month withdrawal plan, this was not true and the PM admitted he wasn't backing Obama's plan after the German publication der spiegel misreported his position.
Just another example of the writer of this blog hearing what he wants to hear, but not hearing all of the facts when they turn against his desires.
The one benefit of his trip is that the press followed like dogs and discovered that we're winning in Iraq and that we can probably bring the troops home much sooner.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Brett, according to der Spiegel, Maliki supports Obama's withdrawal plans. See here. href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
I do recall that Bush spoke with Maliki after this was reported and Maliki backtracked on his comments. So, if his position has changed, it was because Bush brought some pressure to bear.
Regarding increasing taxes, Bush did that. As soon as the loans he used to finance his folly in Iraq come due, we will have to pay for it. Typical Bush, make a mess, have someone else clean it up and then blame THEM for it.
Ka_dargo,
Yep. He did say it in der Speigel. Yep. Bush administration officials did call Maliki and tell him how it was played here. Did Bush get him to backtrack? Maybe. Or maybe the translation was what messed things up as was stated. Either way, it was corrected later. It may be corrected again.
I will say this about the Iraq war. According to the AP, we're winning. I realize liberals don't understand what winning is, but that's their problem.
Once we've reached the goals set forth at the beginning of the war, I expect Bush to declare victory and start bring the troops home. As I read it a couple of weeks ago, Iraq was saying that they were wanting to start thinking about us leaving and the Bush administration did not like this idea. I think that flies in the face of what the administration and President Bush has said all along. That we're there until the job is done and the Iraqi's can care for themselves and that we're their guests.
If they feel it's getting time to end this thing, even if we don't think we've achieved our goals, the final call is the Iraqi's. If Iraq asks us to leave them to their own management, we should leave. If Iraq then is attacked by Iran and loses their country, I'm sure the liberals will start saying it's Bush's fault just like if we get Iraq settled and leave and Iraq is strong enough to fend off Iran, the Conservatives will say "see, we told you we'd bolster them until they could care for themselves.
Your last point that Bush raised taxes is silly. He didn't. This is a silly argument.
The deficit has been coming down due to the tax cuts and the added revenue received by the government over the past couple of years. It's going up (they think) this year largely due to the stimulus package. This is another example of the government cutting taxes (or in this case returning taxes) but no cut in spending.
If Barack Hussein Obama is elected, he's going to raise taxes. He won't drill for oil (although me might change his mind on this if prices start increasing if he's elected) and he'll implement his health care plan which will require even more tax increases. The economy will get worse, the deficit will grow further and he will do as Granholm has done in Michigan and blame Bush for all of the ills brought on by Obama's new policies, taxes and spending.
To say that Bush has already raised taxes is nothing more than scare tactics and completely untrue.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the huge crowds and the standing room only town hall meetings that’s no problem.
The false talking point that Obama will raise taxes is simply not true. Here’s a neutral third party debunking the right’s lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_obama_tax_my_profits_if_i.html
Obama’s position on Iraq has been consistent, and the fact that the Iraqi government and now Bush agrees with him speaks volumes. It should not be forgotten that Obama was against the useless Iraqi fiasco to begin with. That speaks volumes for his judgment.
Regardless of how it’s said, the plans are basically are the same. Isn’t it funny that a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately." This, of course after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/19/almaliki.obama/
I’m still waiting for someone to define victory. When Bush says so? The American people will not be fooled like that again.
My response to Brett was evidently lost in blogger land, so here it is again.
Are you delusional? The deficit is coming down? We just recorded the LARGEST deficit EVER. 480 billion, 600 billion if you include Bush's Folly.
What sort of bizarro world do you live in?
I understand supporting you wanting to support your position. However, I think you would be better served by supporting it with the facts at hand as opposed to those you pulled out of your ass.
That last paragraph of my 1st comment today should read as follows...
"I understand you wanting to support your position. However, I think you would be better served by supporting it with the facts at hand as opposed to those you pulled out of your ass."
Interesting. You just said that "we just recorded the LARGEST deficit EVER. 480 billion,..." then you added your own personal bias against this country and our battle against terrorism.
I know that you won't accept this so I won't spend a whole lot of time on it, but that $480 billion deficit is not the deficit now. It's a projection for next year.
Apparently, the ass you're pulling facts out of is your own.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Good news on the economy! ...much to the liberals dismay.
The second quarter results are out and the economy grew at 1.9%.
This is short from what I said earlier. I said that I expected it to come in between 2% and 3%. Missed it by one tenth of a percentage.
We were close to a recession. They've adjusted the fourth quarter results to .02% negative growth. Had the economy not grown in the first quarter (1% was the growth rate for the first quarter), but rather had hit negative figures, we'd have officially been in a recession.
As it stands, we were and are in a slowdown but we are not in a recession. An argument could be made that we're not in a slowdown because the economy grew by almost 2% which is better than the first quarter. However, the economy has been roaring for seven years racking up quarterly growth figures of 8% in one quarter, over 5% in another quarter and always positive growth in other quarters, usually at or above 3% each quarter, that a 1.9% growth does indicate we're still in a slowdown.
What this also means is that Barack Hussein Obama is inexperienced and doesn't understand the economy as he claimed a couple of weeks ago that we are in a recession. This is, of course, UNTRUE. Which is becoming a staple of Obama's. Lies, half truths, or obfuscation on any topic.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
That record budget deficit does not include $80 billion in war costs and $227 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund, according to Faux Biz news.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/richard-viguerie-bush-white-house-hides-true-scope-federal-deficit/
I would love to see some good news on the economy. I guess what you must mean is that the county’s top economists are inexperienced and do not understand the economy because they say we are in a recession. The top economist for Standard & Poor’s said just last week the country is in a recession.
So, Brett, about the deficit coming down. Not so much, huh?
Who has the economy been roaring for? Maybe you should look up the definition roaring.
Post a Comment