Posted on 08/29/2008 9:20:09 AM PDT by Lucky9teen
DENVER - Maybe they should rename it the “Plagiarism Party.”
Sitting through a few dozen speeches here, I’ve discovered why most of the delegates mill around and schmooze while the speakers are passionately delivering their versions of the Gettysburg Address. The delegates have heard it all before.
Literally.
I’m not talking about the “just words” echoes between our Deval Patrick and nominee Barack Obama. Spend a few hours on C-SPAN and it becomes painfully clear that most of the speakers here have nothing new to say, and they say it again and again.
I first picked up on this one-dimensional discourse problem after hearing the 5,721st speaker make a “McCain has seven houses” joke. That was Monday. Before lunch.
Democrats, write another joke. McCain is old, he’s dangerous, whatever. But you can’t have the same joke in every speech by every Democrat until November. Why not donate the “how many houses does he have” joke to one particularly humorless Democrat in comedic need?
John Kerry, maybe.
Oh, wait . . .
And speaking of “If I hear this one more time I’m going to fling myself in front of Joe Biden’s Amtrak” phrases, the “hope and change” stuff is getting old, too. I know this is the Obama convention (at least it will be when the Clintons are done with it), but good grief.
Every speaker wants to “bring back hope” or “restore hope” or “celebrate hope.” If a computer virus disabled the “h” and “p” keys of every iBook in Denver the Democrats would have to forfeit the campaign.
There’s apparently a backlash brewing. Remember the poll showing that the public was tiring of all the Obama media coverage? It appears the Democrats have had enough “change you can believe in.” Tuesday night, the trademark slogan was conspicuously absent.
Instead, The New York Times [NYT] reported, “a parade of speakers heralded ‘the change we need,’ an effort to sharpen Obama’s message.”
“Change we need” - that’s a lot more specific, thanks.
When the speakers aren’t “hoping for change” or “changing for hope,” they are bashing “Big Oil.” No matter what the night’s message - the economy, Iraq, Bill Clinton’s ego - evil oil company profits are the culprit.
I may be mistaken, but I swear I heard a pro-choice speaker suggest John McCain wants to let Big Oil drill in Planned Parenthood parking lots.
And so in the name of “solar, wind and biomass” (another frequently-fired bullet point), we have to listen to windbaggery like this from Hillary Clinton: “We can’t solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies.”
Giving windfall profits? You mean “letting people sell me gas I need at market price?” If Hillary knows who’s “giving” away profits, why doesn’t she get some to pay off her campaign debt?
That’s what’s most interesting about the “Beat McCain” buzzwords. They are fundamentally dishonest.
Why didn’t McCain know how many houses he owned? Because his wife owns them and he clearly doesn’t care that much about finances. Seriously - does anyone believe that McCain or Obama are in politics for the money?
The same with the attacks on oil and drilling. There’s something laughable about the same people who’ve drastically limited our domestic oil production claiming that George Bush has made us too dependent on foreign oil.
There are many, many reasons to beat up the GOP. But if Democrats can’t find a better way to make the case, another oft-heard phrase will be making the rounds: “Republicans win White House."
Fagetabaudit! She'll just do some adroit maneuvering in the cattle futures market like she did before.
I figured the royalties from Hildegard Braun Rodham Schickelgrubber’s father’s book would have taken care of her debts. Mein Kampf has sold millions of copies.
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.