Nikola Drobac – 10/26/04

This page was last updated on October 26, 2004.

Forked-tongue GOP; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; October 26, 2004.

This is the 10^th anti-Bush and/or anti-Republican rant by Mr. Drobac since July 1^st.

If you follow Mr. Drobac’s letters, you have to chuckle when he accuses anyone of being misleading.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The Republicans are great at misleading voters. They say one thing and mean something totally different. Sometimes, their words mean absolutely nothing.”

[RWC] Mr. Drobac must be confusing Democrats and Republicans. For example, when Democrats say “pro-choice” they mean “pro-abortion.” When Democrats say they want to count all votes, they mean they want to count all votes except from the military. See the web site dictionary for more examples of liberalspeak.

“Back in 1980, Republican Ronald W. Reagan said, ‘I’m against abortion on demand.’ Key words: on demand. No one could ever figure out what ‘on demand’ meant.”

[RWC] What’s to figure out, unless you don’t understand English?

“Of course, the right-wing, Christian Coalition-controlled Republican Party members only heard, ‘I’m against abortion.’

“Once in office, Reagan did nothing to stop abortions in this country. Twenty-five years later, nothing has changed and the Republicans are still using the abortion issue as a political football.”

[RWC] I guess Mr. Drobac missed the fact that Presidents Reagan and Bush #41 appointed justices to the Supreme Court who tend to believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Justices who have this belief tend not to see a “right” to abortion in the Constitution. Anti-abortion legislation can be passed only after we know the Supreme Court won’t strike it down. If we re-elect President Bush and he has a chance to nominate Supreme Court justices, that day will be a little closer. As a teacher, Mr. Drobac should know that.

“In 2004, Republican George W. Bush is saying that seniors will continue to receive their Social Security checks if he is re-elected. Let’s now examine this political rhetoric.

“Reading between the lines, what Bush is actually saying is that if you are a senior currently eligible for and collecting Social Security, you will continue receiving a Social Security check minus any future increases in Medicare premiums.

“Also, cost-of-living adjustments might be adversely affected under the Bush plan.”

[RWC] From my research, there’s no basis for the cost-of-living allegation.

“But that’s OK because seniors currently collecting Social Security will still continue to receive a check, even if it is less than what was earlier promised or expected.”

[RWC] Expected? We now need to give people what they expect, not what the law states?

“What about those individuals currently in their 40s, 50s and early 60s (like myself) who have been paying into the Social Security system since many of them were 16 years old?

“Well, there is a real good chance that they will never see a Social Security check under the Bush plan. His campaign promise is only to those who are presently collecting Social Security checks.”

[RWC] What a crock of BS! Even if this were part of the Bush plan – which it is not – does Mr. Drobac really believe Congress would support it? It would be political suicide.