Replies

BULLET / TALKING POINTS

(To assist when contacting media)

· After winning his U.S. Senate seat, Obama stated that he would not run for President, citing lack of experience and the need to begin running the moment he had just become a Senator. He has precisely 143 days of work experience as a U.S. Senator under his belt and now presumes to be prepared to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief. Since when do we elect neophytes for President?

· Obama has never remained in any single job or position for any length of time to actually make a contribution. Where do his convictions lie: With those he is slated to serve, or with his own personal ambitions?

· Obama has no history of being a so-called “uniter”. His voting record reveals a pattern of digging in or not voting. He does not find common ground in order to gain consensus, unify, and get legislation passed. With no track record of doing so, how does he plan to unite this great country and a highly polarized Washington?

· Obama has not sponsored a single piece of legislation during his term as a U.S. Senator. Why should this man be President if he hasn’t even made a mark as a U.S. Senator?

· Obama has changed his position on numerous serious issues, including abortion, gun control, Iraq troop withdrawal, campaign financing, taxes, and FISA while also embracing Bush’s faith based initiatives. Why should anyone trust what he says if he changes his mind so often on substantive issues?

· Obama was the only Senator to vote “yes” on a bill that would allow babies born alive due to failed abortions to be left to die. And he did so three times (state and federal votes combined). Even passionately pro-choice Senators voted “no” on this bill. Why would anyone in their right mind condone such barbaric behavior as infanticide?

· Obama’s word cannot be trusted. In addition to his flip-flopping on issues, he has a proven propensity to go back on his word or blatantly lie. In 1996 he went back on his word to Alice Palmer. In 2004, he went back on his word to the American people that he would not run for President, by immediately running for President. If someone proves their willingness to go back on their word, how can you trust them regarding anything they say, particularly when there is so little evidence of achievement to go on and all we have is their word?

· Obama also has a history of affiliating himself with questionable characters, including convicted felons and terrorists. Once exposed, he either claims innocence or minimizes these relationships. He publicly stated he was unaware of Wright’s hateful rants, despite having embraced Wright as a father figure while sitting in the pews of his church for 20 years. While trying to prove to the American public that he was Christian (a point which is neither here nor there), Obama stated his weekly devotion to attend Sunday church services. Once Wright became a controversial issue, Obama started to back peddle regarding how often he went to church services. So which is it? Every week or rarely? And what of someone who takes on as a father figure a man who honors Farrakhan with a Lifetime Achievement Award? Surely there are countless great men and women in the black community worthy of such an honor. Is not the selection of Farrakhan a telling and important piece of information?

· When asked about his relationship with Rashid Khalidi, Obama brushed it off as one simply based on the coincidence of them both teaching at Columbia and having children who attend the same school, when in truth, he and Khalidi have scratched each others backs in mutually beneficial ways over the years. How can you trust someone who consciously minimizes a relationship with a former terrorist who was affiliated with the PLO and what do you make of someone having such associations?

· Obama claimed innocence about Tony Rezko while receiving large sums of money to support his campaigns and became entangled with him personally over his home and land purchase. Why should you put stock in Obama’s claims to care about Americans when he ignored so many impoverished families living in sub-standard housing in his Illinois congressional district and, to add insult to injury, was in the pocket of the slumlord of those building?

· Obama has a history of developing relationships with individuals who express through their words and actions profoundly anti-American sentiments, including Bill Ayers, a terrorist who built bombs that killed fellow Americans and who, to this day, remains unrepentant. Why should anyone have a shot at becoming the President who has affiliated himself with the likes of Bill Ayers?

· Obama routinely expresses a confused understanding of history, including his own personal history, noting that he is the product of the march on Selma, despite the fact that he was born four years prior to the march. Why would you accept a candidate who is so willing to distort facts and manipulate public perception in this way?

· Obama appears to feel he is above the fray and undeserving of scrutiny, despite applying for the job of the highest office in the country. He routinely scolds the press when they ask him a question or scolds his opponent if he feels at all attacked. How in the world will this man handle the very real and dangerous threats that exist in the world if he appears to lack the fortitude to withstand media scrutiny and attacks made by his opponent during the campaign?

· Obama claims a desire to reach as many people as possible, yet declines invitations from the McCain campaign for additional debates. Since the best way to reach the most people is on national television, why support a candidate who prefers to minimize such exposure? In addition, given his claims about energy use and energy policy, why support a candidate who prefers to jet around the country consuming enormous amounts of fuel, when he could sign up for more debates, use less fuel, and reach more people?

· Obama speaks of equal pay for equal work, yet pays his female staffers 83 cents on the dollar as compared to male staffers. In addition, among his top 5 most highly paid aids, only 1 is a woman. Among his top 20, only 7 are women. Why support a candidate who talks the talk, but appears not to walk the walk?
There is mounting evidence of voter fraud and intimidation in all caucus states during the primaries that benefited Obama’s campaign.

Is it acceptable to elect to the office of President of the United States a man who quite likely stole the election within his own, co-opting party?

· Obama is willing to sit down with leaders of enemy nations. In these dangerous times, can we afford to have an inexperienced President with no international experience and with a stated willingness to sit down with our enemies without precondition? Do you grasp the implications of what could happen with just one misstep, one misjudgment, one naïve, boneheaded choice?