Signs of the Apocalypse...

Nick Gillespie | August 28, 2008

Barack Obama, employing a version of the George Costanza classic, "It's not you, it's me," telling the American people that really, it's about them, not him.

Barack Obama, liberal standard-bearer, declaring that government can't solve all your problems. And reaching back into his inner-SDS hippie, talking up nuclear energy (as did the Port Huron Statement).

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann musing (as only he can do) that he couldn't find anything to criticize in the speech. And noting that Obama made at least 29 specific policy proposals in the plan (most of which are predicated on the idea that government can indeed solve all your problems, with the possible exception of the ones it causes).

NPR's/Fox News' Juan Williams saying that he thought that Obama "hadn't closed the sale." And The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol saying that Obama faced super-high expectations and that the candidate had not only met them, but "exceeded them."

Next week's GOP convention, where according to early rumors, the Party of Lincoln will unveil a party platform that attacks immigration and gay marriage.

Which suggests all is still right with the world, and oh-so-damn wrong.

Comments

|8.28.08 @ 11:31PM|#

And you are forgetting the smart people at Reason bitching, bitching and bitching some more.
The more things change ...

|8.28.08 @ 11:35PM|#

So, in just a couple of days, the events of this evening will be followed by a collection of speeches from people like Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

|8.28.08 @ 11:36PM|#

My friends.

memphisto|8.28.08 @ 11:42PM|#

"Bill Kristol saying that Obama faced super-high expectations and that the candidate had not only met them, but "exceeded them."

Really? I was beginning to think Kristol was channeling Ann Coulter. Haven't heard him say a good thing all week (not that I listen that much to BK).

SIV|8.28.08 @ 11:45PM|#

joe,

The Republicans might take the week off. There's levees need 'splodin down in N'Awlins.

|8.29.08 @ 12:02AM|#

I heard that, SIV. I can't believe it.

There's an Army Corps engineer who's saying the pumps won't work. An outside auditor said the DoD tried to squash her report.

Cross your fingers.

Nick|8.29.08 @ 12:03AM|#

If anything, this speech made me even less likely to want to vote for Obama. The crux of his policies is that individuals can't stand up for themselves in the economy, and that the government is the only hope working Americans have. Then again, McCain's not any better, believing in the same myth of good government (as opposed to the traditional mistrust of government conservatives hold) while calling for even more foreign military expansionism. I don't think he can meaningfully attack Obama's view of government because they share it. I'm really frightened.

Then he laid out a huge laundry list equivalent to every socialist's dream ($150 billion dollars here, $80 billion dollars there), claimed he can still cut taxes for 95% of working families and then pointed out the problem of our huge deficit. It's a brilliant political maneuver - tax cuts are popular and government handouts are popular, so why not promise both and try to distract from the fact that any economist or even anyone with a rudimentary grasp of logic will be able to recognize that you can't have both. I'd like to believe that he'll focus on the tax cuts and the programs will fail because of Republican obstructionism, but somehow I don't think the Republicans will be very powerful if they can't eke out a presidential win.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm going to really miss these last few lame duck years of Bush come January. I think he has improved, with better foreign policy realism compared to his first term and a good immigration policy (Bush was for once showing that he's not always a puppet of his base), although he has utterly failed at his economic agenda. I'm worried we're either going to elect either a Teddy Roosevelt or a Franklin Roosevelt. Libertarians should be shaking in fear.

SIV|8.29.08 @ 12:29AM|#

I prefer Teddy to Franklin.

|8.29.08 @ 8:34AM|#

"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

This isn't talking up nuclear power, this is a back door to do nothing with nuclear power. "Safely harness". Who knew that we hadn't been "safely harnessing" nuclear power for decades?

|8.29.08 @ 9:17AM|#

Who knew that we hadn't been "safely harnessing" nuclear power for decades?

Anyone who's read enough to know that we haven't built a nuclear plant since the early 80s?

|8.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Who knew that we hadn't been "safely harnessing" nuclear power for decades?

"Anyone who's read enough to know that we haven't built a nuclear plant since the early 80s?"

So we haven't built one cause the operational ones are all unsafe, yet nothing in the speech suggests the closing all operating nuclear power plants. Weird. Maybe one who's read enough can explain the lack of urgency.

Kant feel Pietzsche|8.29.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Anyone who's read enough to know that we haven't built a nuclear plant since the early 80s

Joe, really? We haven't built one for almost thirty years because they're inherently unsafe? Apparently the French didn't get the memo. Or is it because it is economically unfeasible to spend hundreds of $M on R&D, planning, etc. and then fight the *watermelons* in court for the next two decades, only to tire of the shit and file 13 the whole thing?

*C'mon, you know. Watermelons, green on the outside....

|8.29.08 @ 1:21PM|#

I know, let's pretend that Obama wasn't talking about building new plants, but was commenting on making existing plants safer.

Joe, really? We haven't built one for almost thirty years because they're inherently unsafe? No. Nor did I claim as such.

I don't actually have to walk you two through this, right? You understand the point, and are just playing dumb for political purposes, right?

|8.29.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Joe,

"Who knew that we hadn't been "safely harnessing" nuclear power for decades?"

"Anyone who's read enough to know that we haven't built a nuclear plant since the early 80s?"

I didn't pretend anything, my point was we have been safely harnessing power from nuclear power plants for decades, hence we already know how to safely harness power from nuclear power plants. Simple enough. You come back with a comment from which I take to mean:

- Those who have read and learned that we hadn't been building nuclear power plants since the early 80's know that we hadn't been safely harnessing power from nuclear power plants for decades. -

How is this not claiming the current operating nuclear power plants are unsafe? Maybe you do have to walk me through this. Obama said

"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

Forgive me for not assuming such an intelligent speaker reading a speech that had to have been proofread 50 times that he was actually talking about finding ways "to make plants safer" vs "find ways to safely harness nuclear power".

|8.29.08 @ 1:48PM|#

correction at the end:

Forgive me for not assuming such an intelligent speaker reading a speech that had to have been proofread 50 times that he was actually talking about finding ways "to build new plants safely" vs "find ways to safely harness nuclear power".

If he's talking about building new plants, then his comment is that we don't yet know how to make them safe, no? And until we do, no new plants.