Monday, September 01, 2008

Getting Past the Rhetoric

Wow.  Robert Tracinski just eviscerates Obama’s acceptance speech. 

Addressing criticisms that he offers soaring rhetoric with no specifics, Obama replies “So let me spell out exactly what…‘change’ would mean if I am president.” But what he presents is mostly a list of aspirations, such as “Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.” Or: “for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.” How is that to be achieved? Is it even possible to achieve it? Obama offers no answer.

Obama’s list of specifics continues in this vein, promising everything to everyone in a way that would make the Clintons blush—but with such an earnest sincerity of delivery that it somehow doesn’t seem like pandering.

In foreign policy, he promises the miraculous: “I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease.” He’s going to defeat terrorism with “partnerships”; face down Russian and Iranian aggression with diplomacy; and while he’s at it, he will end poverty, disease, and changes in the weather. All of these promises are equally implausible.

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0931 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. That’s the teleprompter driven version of his rhetoric - will be a hoot to watch as he tries to “er, ah, eh, uh” explain all this “uh, er, uh, uh, eh” stuff in a different “ah, eh, uh, er, uh. uh” venue.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 01, 2008 at 0944 hrs


  2. Where’s the beef?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 01, 2008 at 0951 hrs


  3. And speeches by the other party are different, how again?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 01, 2008 at 1014 hrs


  4. “Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.”

    It doesn’t surprise me one bit that you don’t know what this means.  That, I think, is your entire problem in a nutshell.  At least domestically.

    Incidentally, Obama has a sufficiently detailed tax reform proposal for CNN to hit McCain over the head with it.

    If you hoped to ride the “Obama is just lofty rhetoric and no substance” meme all the way to the White House, I think you’d better think up a different strategy really quick.

    Posted by scott on September 01, 2008 at 1418 hrs


  5. This is the dumbest critique in the world.  These are campaign speeches, not policy briefing sessions.  Nobody talks in those specifics when on the stump.

    On the other hand there is a 33 page PDF on Obama’s website…

    http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

    ...that is a ridiculously detailed policy document for a candidate to make availble so readily.  Not only that he’s provided to the MSM who is specifically going to raise taxes on, down to the tax bracket,  and who he is going to cut them for.  He’s not even trying to pretend he’ll court higher incomes on the issue of taxes, he’s flat out asking them to pony up to relieve the tax burden on those in lower income brackets.  You can agree or disagree, but the facts are all available.

    This, along with the experience question may still work with those who only pay attention at the end, and that is why I am sure I will see it played to the end by the McCain campaign and repeated here as well.  But if you are paying attention you know the amount of info that he’s got out there, especially compared to the drivel offered here

    http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 01, 2008 at 1551 hrs


  6. It’s kind of clever, though.  They turn a strength (inspirational public speaking skills) into a weakness (he’s all “flash” and no substance), while simultaneously ignoring embarrassing facts (Obama’s stance on the issues are more in tune with what voters want).  All this plus managing to steer the discussion away from issues and toward character (at least obliquely).

    The news media today is little more than pundits repeating their partisan talking points at each other, so at no point will anyone on television say “actually, Obama has a detailed plan and it’s one that seems to echo what voters want.”

    If presidential elections were decided on issues instead of this other bullshit, Obama would have a double digit lead and he’d maintain it right through November.

    Posted by scott on September 01, 2008 at 1602 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.