Well-staged for television and forcefully delivered (though almost always staring into one of his TelePrompTers), Barack Obama gave a victory speech in North Carolina widely heard as a pivot to the general election campaign. Glenn Reynolds shows you at least one Obama supporter experiencing the rapture onstage. Some in the home audience were less enthused.
Tom Maguire was taken by the section where the Obamas join Team America, contra Michelle Obama’s comments on the campaign trail. He also notes that Barack must have missed US history class the day that FDR’s policy of unconditional surrender was covered. Obama supporter Megan McArdle began her assessment of the speech this way: “Gack.” Gateway Pundit focuses on Obama’s claim that US energy policy is funding both sides in the war on terror:
The man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one – he can’t afford four more years of an energy policy written by the oil companies and for the oil companies; a policy that’s not only keeping gas at record prices, but funding both sides of the war on terror and destroying our planet in the process. He doesn’t need four more years of Washington policies that sound good, but don’t solve the problem. He needs us to take a permanent holiday from our oil addiction by making the automakers raise their fuel standards, corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future. That’s the change we need. And that’s why I’m running for President.
John McCain notes that Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill three times. Of course, I do not think that Obama did so because he is a tool of the oil companies who wants to fund our enemies in the war on terror and destroy the planet. No, I think Obama voted for it to pander to the ethanol lobby and for a slab of home-state pork. That is the New Politics. That is Change You Can Believe In.
O!
Meet the new jerk.
Same as the old jerk.
You will be assimilated, Karl. The O-borg cannot be stopped.
Karl:
You’re a big weinie. Obama is the man. You are not the man.
There. I made thor moot.
If we would just all stop fighting, we could all be a rapturously happy as that lady in pink. We’d be like Stepford voters.
RACIST!!!!
/closing out the thor gambit
It now becomes at least somewhat important to find out who Obama’s speechwriters are.
His speeches are excellent, no doubt about that — perfect examples of political tapdancing. When caught in unguarded moments he is, umm, “less coherent” fits. It follows that, in office, when he has time he will respond at least as sensibly as whoever holds his strings does, but when ex tempore response is required the results will be the usual scattered pseudo-Marxism he and all his known associates exhibit. It would be nice to know what the string-pullers are like.
Regards,
Ric
There was a young guy behind Baracky in his reading of his speech in NC that looked like he popped his cork about 5 times during that recitation of a written speech.
It won’t matter to the true believers. They’ll continue to be angry at anyone attempting to Harsh the Obama Mellow.
That rapture lady looks like the people in Kim Jong Il’s card section.
“It would be nice to know what the string-pullers are like.”
Soros is like any other market manipulating, influence buying, pol renting traitor. Maybe a little more noisy. Auchi is quieter but perhaps a little dirtier. The billionaires who own the Copperhead/Prog faction really aren’t that notable for distinguishing differences. Kinda like cockroaches – they come in different sizes but they all crunch about the same when you stomp ’em.
Well, Rick, the other thing about cockroaches is that squashing the visible ones is entertaining but futile.
Regards,
Ric
Sorry Karl. Drunken exuberance fueled my post directed at you last night. You’re not Hillary’s bitch. Neither officially nor unofficially are you Hillary Clinton’s bitch. It was inappropriate of me to state such and I apologize.
Sorry.
In the list of futile things we should add sneering at the enthusiasm of his supporters.
In the list of futile things we should add sneering at the enthusiasm of his supporters.
Not everything has to be productive, Ardsgaine.
I am under no illusion I will buy into everything Barack Obama puts forward, but I am damned sure convinced he is a decent man who, at the very least, will restore a sense of competence to the national stage. I think Obama will act in good faith for this nation, and I am responding in kind. His policies are not outlandish or crazy or uber-left- they reflect a rational, and I would argue, a decent and progressive way forward out of the mess . I won’t like all of them, and I will not agree with all of them, but there is no chance that I will ever be President, so perfect agreement is never a possibility ~J.Cole
and I approve this message.
I have no idea where this Obama-marxist narrative is coming from, I listened to him and read his speeches ( and you guys know I heard and read plenty of socialistic crap in my life). I do not see nothing resembling this even under the very lose standards
cont…
It is not like he is proposing class wars or revolutionary coup, or violent expropriation of the property etc.
The taxation proposals could be questionable, I agree, but this happens all the time , everywhere, and does not render one a socialist…
Not everything has to be productive, Ardsgaine.
If it’s picked up as a meme, it becomes counter-productive. Think for a minute how it would look to us if the left were criticizing a Republican candidate on that basis. We would laugh our asses off at the jealousy on display.
but this happens all the time , everywhere, and does not render one a socialist…
Or it does, but since everyone’s a socialist these days, it doesn’t stand out as being especially so.
You’re ok with the 150 BILLION “investement” in energy? You’re OK with the idea that the Government can create jobs?
You’re OK with universal health care, and universal Pre-K (expanding the teacher’s unions … and the Deptartment of Ed to encompass that as well.)
You’re OK with the government filling out your IRS forms -you have to check a box, I believe, to fill ’em out yourself.
You’re OK with expanding the rolls of non-taxpayers? Of a “progressive” tax?
Honestly, just about everyone of these issues is a step toward socialism.
So … one can advocate socialist policies, but they’re still not a socialist. How exactly does that work?
Isn’t it like being a “little” pregnant?
If it’s picked up as a meme, it becomes counter-productive. Think for a minute how it would look to us if the left were criticizing a Republican candidate on that basis. We would laugh our asses off at the jealousy on display.
Watch what you say! It may become a meme!
Anyway, the whole Bush as cult leader thing has already been done. Daou and Greenwald did it. We did laugh our asses off, but Daou got a job with the Clinton campaign and Greenwald went on to write several best selling books, get quoted on the floor of the Senate, and meet with nearly 20 Democratic Congresspersons.
“Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Here is Obama’s judicial philosophy. Not only does it redefine the role of judges in our government, it also sets up very nicely the class warfare that sashal is having a hard time seeing.
I am O’K with energy investment, Carin.
And I am fine if everybody is covered for their medical needs, whichever plan is working (after my recent heart operation in Yale -New Haven i am in the hole for about $60 000 ), let the government and private plans compete.
but like in the previous post :
His policies are not outlandish or crazy or uber-left- they reflect a rational, and I would argue, a decent and progressive way forward out of the mess . I won’t like all of them, and I will not agree with all of them, but there is no chance that I will ever be President, so perfect agreement is never a possibility .
EG #23.
That is what McCain said about him ?
Not actually Barak himself.
there’s a contradiction in there somewhere.
sashal
No that is a direct quote from an Obama spokesman, in response to McCain’s speech on judges yesterday.
yes, I just found it, sorry, was too quick to response.
I’m NOT Ok with energy investement. Not with a government that has accepted man-made global warming as fact. Not from a government that has brought us ethenol. Not from a governemnt that refuses to allow us to drill in ANWAR.
I say that money will disappear into a black hole. And AlGore’s pockets. Of course, we’ll prolly have a bunch of new government employees. That’s the only way the government knows how to create jobs. By finding new people who’s income is derived from taxes.
No thank you.
whose. I’m all pissy.
Wait, did I read that right, sashal? You want the government to compete with private business?
With all due fondness, fuck that. Feel free to star a co-op, but let’s leave the fed out of competition.
EG,
If the law doesn’t contain protections for some groups then they should not find protection in the courts. That sounds harsh , but if we want the rule of law we can’t have courts deciding cases on subjective, moral bases. If such groups need protection of their interests they need to appeal to the general populace to pass such laws or constitutional amendments as appropriate.
I also doubt that Obama really would choose judges on this social justice basis , that he has as results-oriented view of law that this statement suggests, or that he really thinks that courts should interpret the law with social justice in mind. Social justice is a pretty lefty term. I don’t think Obama’s that far out.
Sounds like Sashal is all for hate crime legislation.
What, exactly, does he propose to do about the policies he complains about?
The government mandated MTBE to oxygenate our gas, to solve the pollution problem and it poisoned our water.
The government mandated ethnol to replace the MTBE and it is using our water and driving up the price of food.
Now the government is going to solve high gas prices?
Get used to walking. You’re going to be doing a lot of it.
sashal,
Bullshit. All you’ve established is that you don’t yet understand the concepts and the code-phrases used to discuss them.
No, they don’t use terms like “social justince” without weaseling qualifiers. “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.†They do not see any use for or validity in the concept of equal justice under the law. To be fair to them, they have convinced themselves that it doesn’t exist — but that is based purely on results; if somebody they don’t like wins, it’s an “injustice”. This is most evident in the notion of “windfall profit taxes”. By investing money in oil and infrastructure, the oil companies placed themselves in a position where they could profit by providing an essential product. That’s why they invested in the first place — but that profit is “unfair” and must be taken away posthaste to serve the needs of “social and economic justice”.
They’re saying all the things you used to hear; they’re just using different words to express the same aims and ambitions. The only real difference is that they aren’t calling for expropriation. That isn’t because they don’t think having the State run things is a bad idea; it’s because the one thing they did learn from the fall of the USSR is that if the politicians are running things directly they get to take the fall for failures, so it’s much better for them to maintain a class of scapegoats.
Regards,
Ric
Rick, I do not argue about “social justice” terminology. I see it the same way you do. check my # 32 reply
I also doubt that Obama really would choose judges on this social justice basis , that he has as results-oriented view of law that this statement suggests, or that he really thinks that courts should interpret the law with social justice in mind. Social justice is a pretty lefty term. I don’t think Obama’s that far out.
I agree with the first part of your statement sashal, that the will of the people expressed through the rule of law must trump all other concerns. The part I have copied here I have more of a problem with as you are essentially saying that despite what he says (and its social and economic justice, not just social), what he really means is…
If he really meant what you think he means, why didn’t he just say it? Worse, why throw in the classist “only the rich are served by our courts” bit? For my money, he said those things because he truly believes them.
he just has someone on his staff that releases statements for him that thinks he is? really I’m trying to square how you can read his campaign statement and say, “he doesn’t mean that.”
For sure something’s afoul when even Socialists know that “Socialist” is a dirty word, and then refer to this putrescence as hope.
EG,
Obama did not say it himself it was his surrogate and it may just be political talk to a certain extent.
I am just guessing here.
Like I said Obama is not a deity, he is a leader and it is time to turn our attention to the really important issues – the economy, crumbling infrastructure,etc…
Btw, sashal, [Wright’s] TUCC/Black Liberation Theology Church is still B.O.’s Church. Can you say “Marxist”?
Like I said Obama is not a deity, he is a leader and it is time to turn our attention to the really important issues – the economy, crumbling infrastructure,etc…
I’d say the changing the job description of one third of our form of government fits rather neatly into the category of “really important issues”. Changing the societal goal of equality of opportunity to that of equality of outcome is also something of a big deal. In any case, it appears as if we disagree on this.
thor,
Apology accepted. But as I have commented previously, friends don’t let friends drink and comment.
maggie,
sure Obama is to the left of G.Bush.
But between this and the real socialism is huge chasm.
Somewhere in Europe Barak would have been considered moderate or centrist.
I think he is pragmatic, and he will act in the interest of the country first.
EG, I never disputed the following statement:
Changing the societal goal of equality of opportunity to that of equality of outcome is also something of a big deal
I just do not think we should be afraid that Obama is going to change that, or even if anyone can be capable of it…
sure Obama is to the left of G.Bush.
But between this and the real socialism is huge chasm.
A chasm, sashal, which Progressives “hope” to narrow progressively – toward the very same complete putrefacton which also describes their minds.
The man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one… – B.O.
From that point on, confabulatory Marxism prevails.
Yes, because everyone knows that the most effective, efficient way to look for a new job is to “drive around.”
But, honestly, I can’t shake the dread deja vu of this campaign against the backdrop of the global economy. The ’70s live on, dudes!!!
Check out this energy policy landmine ..
For far the Iraq War has cost less than a trillion dollars, so 50 to 100 trillion make those recent oil company profits look like “chump change.”
according the National Journal he’s to the left of everyone in Congress. anyhoo, he’ll do our taxes and give us healthcare! and raise capital gains taxes. for FAIRNESS!
Hell, I’m beginning to think were going to blow past the ’70s and head straight for the ’30s. Anybody think it was mere coincidence that DJIA was down +200 points the day after Barry O’Bama’s coronation became a fait accompli?
OK, maybe it was. I should stop reading Kudlow, I guess. I think I like watching him because he looks like my aunt Hattie except with less hair.
Short-Change You Can Believe In !!!
Most excellent post Karl. Deserves many ‘lanches.