Posted on 09/12/2008 9:49:34 AM PDT by andrew roman
Liberals speak in endless commas – epitomized by the stop-and-go cadence of the teleprompter-free Democratic Presidential nominee himself – offering platitude upon slogan, catchphrase upon buzzword, with scarcely a substantive morsel to gnaw on. Upon each utterance, the main-stream-media pools their collective saliva until there is just enough water for Senator Obama to walk upon. For me, the primeval instinct to bang my head against the wall when listening to him (or almost any liberal) try to explicate a position is often very powerful. Being rather fond of my skull, however, I tend to avoid it.
The “debate” between the two senators at Saddleback was a clarifier, sorting out for the poll-going public the dazzling difference between straight talk and comma talk. One candidate offered clear-cut answers (like them or not), the other offered an endless procession of appealing yet vacant axioms, gapped with commas.
More than anything, I would love to hear a liberal actually own up to his or her leftist beliefs without perfunctorily clouding the answers with temperate comma-laced gobbledygook meant to be as inoffensive as possible. With the same instincts that drive me to want to knock my head against walls when liberals explain themselves, the mainstream media will reflexively tout the brilliance of the likes of Obama, regardless of how void of meaning the words actually are. Their enamor of him is so egregious as to be cartoonish. Indecisiveness suddenly becomes measured thoughtfulness. Ambiguity becomes nuance.
Contemplate for a moment the wearisome, muddled answers that would follow these questions:
-Senator Obama, Why does your resume more qualify you for President of the United States than Sarah Palin’s resume qualifies her for the Vice Presidency?
-If you were absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “global warming” was not the result of anything human kind was doing, and were convinced all temperature fluctuations were completely natural, would you still care about the “dangers” that rising temperatures pose to the planet?
-Contrast these two questions, if you would: What do you think would happen in the Middle East if terror-groups like Hamas and Hezbullah laid down their arms? What do you think would happen if the country of Israel did the same?
-If you are unsure of your opinion as to when life begins, why would you come down on the side of having the right to abort the unborn with such certitude? And if it were proven to your satisfaction, beyond question, that human life did begin at conception, would you still feel that abortion was a viable “choice?”
-If President Bush’s approval numbers are relevant in determining how wrong he and his policies are for the United States, then isn’t Governor Palin’s 80% approval rating in her home state just as determinative?
Indeed, Democrats are famous for hurling criticisms at the simplicity of conservative responses to important questions, all the while having to explain their own “flip” responses days afterwards – i.e., Senator Obama commenting on his “above my pay grade” remark (in which he said he could not offer an opinion of when life begins because the answer was “above his pay grade.”) Thus, while conservative conviction translates into shallow short-sightedness, liberal hem-hawing translates into complex gradation of thought.
To be fair, there have been moments, rare as they may be, during this campaign season where the main stream media has done reasonably well in masking their inherent liberal bias. George Stephanopolous’ questioning of Senator Obama on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, for example, was actually quite good – and very telling. It was not Obama at his best, but it probably presented him as he truly is out of the box in ad-lib land – unimpressive and unoriginal and full of commas. Nonetheless, the main-stream-media overwhelmingly does objectivity no favors with their sis-boom-bah approach to the Obama campaign.
Leftists are so accustomed to tortuously convoluted answers from the candidates they support that straight talk almost always baffles them into knee-jerk elitism. It’s a congenital reflex. Governor Sarah Palin’s performance in her widely analyzed interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson (which will supposedly be seen in its entirety tonight) may not have been the follow up grand slam many Republicans were hoping for after her out-of-the-park performance at the Republican National Convention, but it was not terrible by any means. Palin may have sounded rehearsed in her first national interview, but she was steadfast and clear – automatic red flags for the multifaceted, multi-layered, comma-crazy left. Some of the comments from readers at the New York Times website illustrate my point:
-If Russia invades another former Soviet state, Palin’s going to turn it into WWIII? Thanks, but no thanks!
-Boy, her answers are scarry (sic). No doubts, no shadings. I wonder if she wants to start a war with Russia.
Note the second poster is concerned about doubts and “shadings.” (Read my comments earlier about the coveted art of nuance so prized by Democrats). And as is often the case with proponents of the Left, Governor Palin reinforcing the importance of the United States’ commitment to alliances somehow morphs into an American invasion of Russia. Governor Palin never said anything about the United States invading anyone. Funny, I thought the Left was big on alliances with other nations.
Of course, the following post sums it all up:
Oh boy, more hubris in the White House, just what we need. No thanks. I’ll vote for brains and ability first. Obama/Biden!
What else is there to say after that?
By the way, I am not anti-comma. I am in no way an anti-commaist. I rely on them. In fact, it easily ranks as one of my top ten of all-time favorite punctuation marks. It's what is crammed between them that really matters.
Have a comma, the pause that refreshes.
I think I will. Thank you.
:)
OMG! I started reading this and thought, “Who is this guy? What a writer! I’ve got to comment on this thread and ask about this Andrew Roman. He’s fantastic. I want to read more of his stuff.” And I read through the entire article and lo and behold, the author himself has posted it. It’s you?
The spit part, walking on water .... it’s delicious!
You’re another Mark Steyn.
Do you have a list of your other stuff?
Fantastic article. And so true, all of it.
Well, uh, you know, ah, that it’s a matter, of, umm, err, ahhh, uhh, considering, uh, you know, ah, certain, umm, uhh, err, ahh, um, ah, theories, ahh, umm...
You are far too kind. I’m almost blushing. Thank you kindly for your most gracious words.
I ADORE Mark Steyn, by the way.
I have a blog at Townhall.com. It is fairly newm but I attend to it daily. Please visit it at your convenience.
http://romanaround.blogtownhall.com/
God Bless, and thank you again.
PRECISELY!!!
You should see the smile on my face.
That will never happen because they know the American people would run them out of town on a rail.
Excellent article. Thank you for posting, and thank you for contributing your insights to FR.
Thank you so very much. The pleasure, I assure you, is all mine.
LOL! That was really cute. I tend to commadaciousness, myself, when I’m not being careful.
LOL. Excellent!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.