The Shorter Barack Obama

Jesse Walker | August 29, 2008

Government cannot solve all our problems. Just the ones involving energy, education, work, the weather, cities, the countryside, sick children, sick mothers, joblessness, hopelessness, and frightening foreigners who do not live in Iraq. Now if you'll all look under your seats, every one of you is going home with a new car!

Comments

|8.29.08 @ 12:53AM|#

by the ppl, for the ppl, etc

|8.29.08 @ 1:07AM|#

Now if you'll all look under your seats, every one of you is going home with a new car!

Jesse Walker, full of convention snark win.

|8.29.08 @ 1:27AM|#

Now if you'll all look under your seats, every one of you is going home with a new car!

Will we have to pay taxes on it like we did with Oprah?

|8.29.08 @ 2:23AM|#

Good Grief.
snark snark snark
sure you're not one of those bitter people?

I'm all for Barr, but I thought that he did a damn good job of not just going on about liberalism, but presenting a case for liberalism. I may not agree with his points, but to act like there isn't a valid argument is to descend into the vapidity that has become rational thought in the Republican Party.

if we can't beat Liberalism with a rational counter, snarking won't do a damn bit of good, and if we really can't do better than that, maybe we deserve to lose the debate.

bring game, not snark

|8.29.08 @ 3:30AM|#

It's not "liberalism" that needs beating, really. It's more like an anti-capitalist reactionism. The people out there proclaiming the downfall of "neo-liberal" economics, "free-market fundamentalism", etc. The reactionary nature of their ideas is evident directly from the language they employ. These people are motivated by a variety of different versions of socialism. Not really liberalism at all.

Liberals don't hate the market, they just think they are smarter than it. A classic case of hubris, given that we just got through 100 years of witnessing the results of thinking that we were smart enough to control economies. As science is teaching us, more and more, societies and economies (is there a difference?), are way more complicated than we used to think.

It's sort of amusing nowadays to remember that Marxism once had the gall to label itself "scientific". Sure, in the same way that leeches and witch doctors were considered "medicine". Primitive ideas based on a primitive understanding of their subjects. We know better now than to rely on the "four humours" or the "labor theory of value". But the liberals still haven't got the point that humanity hasn't yet acheived such a transcendent level of knowledge that we can "scientifically" order society according to a moral plan.

Anyway, liberals at least are likely to get chastised by reality. By contrast, the anti-capitalist ideologues seem to spend most of their time trying to sabotage markets wherever possible, so as to justify state intervention.

|8.29.08 @ 4:35AM|#

I HAVEN'T HEARD A BETTER SUMMARY, THAN WHAT OBAMA GAVE - I'VE CHANGED MY VOTE FOR OBAMA!

jkp|8.29.08 @ 7:14AM|#

My god -- after reading some of this coverage, I'd almost think this was a libertarian magazine!

anon|8.29.08 @ 7:39AM|#

As our leftoid friends, it's all about context. "Well, what do you expect from a nomination speech?"

|8.29.08 @ 7:51AM|#

Yeah, Theresa? When Mark was talking about making the case against liberalism, I'm pretty sure he means something more plausible than improperly using scary-sounding political terms.

|8.29.08 @ 8:10AM|#

"The Shorter Barack Obama" would be a shooting guard, but could be moved to point if Coach wanted to go big.

Gilbert Martin|8.29.08 @ 8:14AM|#

"Government cannot solve all our problems. Just the ones involving energy, education, work, the weather, cities, the countryside, sick children, sick mothers, joblessness, hopelessness, and frightening foreigners who do not live in Iraq."

This is illustrative of one of Obama's standard rhetorical devices to make himself appear to be something "new" and not the same old politics as usual.

He starts off by paying lip service to some idea held by the other side to make it appear that he acknowledges some validity to it and then he goes on to put forth the same old liberal ideas and platitudes that they've all been spouting for decades.

|8.29.08 @ 9:09AM|#

Jesse, you need to be careful. Mocking Obama is NOT OK.

|8.29.08 @ 9:12AM|#

You be careful, Episiarch. Questioning whether criticism of Barack Obama is accurate is not OK

|8.29.08 @ 9:18AM|#

Everything is NOT OK!

|8.29.08 @ 9:20AM|#

AAAAAAAaaaaa!!!!

(Terrified screams? Are they ok?)

|8.29.08 @ 9:28AM|#

NO!

|8.29.08 @ 9:39AM|#

Plaintive wails?

|8.29.08 @ 9:46AM|#

Only screams of "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!" are acceptable.

phalkor|8.29.08 @ 10:21AM|#

I'm sad that I'm dying.

|8.29.08 @ 10:58AM|#

That kind of rhetoric never fed a child.

Bill O\'Reilly|8.29.08 @ 1:24PM|#

Obama is sooooo inspiring! Maybe in 30 years or so, most violent crime in the inner city will be commited on BHO drive instead of MLK Boulevard.

johnl|8.29.08 @ 10:15PM|#

Word for word, Jessee Walker is hard to beat.