Thoughts While Watching the Obama Acceptance Speech

The DNC convention has been going on all week, but I have not had the time or the stomach to watch any of it yet. Finally, Obama is giving his acceptance speech tonight, playing to an audience of roughly 80,000 people in a stadium. A speech in front of a large crowd, complete with soaring rhetoric and low on details, is where Obama shines the most, so this ought to be good.

The transcript for the speech can be found here.

Opening: slow, patriotic music is playing, with what sounds like actor David Straithern providing narration. Patriotism is oozing. Why do we have to keep hearing his life story, over and over and over? He came from average American roots. He complained about homework. Mom was a saint. Now we're hearing how he courted Michelle <gag>. Again with the student loans hardship… Barely anything on his Senate experience (all 143 days of it). Mom passed away. A lot of slow-motion images of Barack working. Video of Barack speechifying against "special interests," probably not Democrat ones, though. Professionally done piece, very nice presentation. Almost makes me like the guy.

Obama takes the stage. Everyone waving "Change" banners. Shot of a girl crying. Very strange looking stage. About 25 thank yous. No one will sit down. Obama thanks everyone including his wife and kids. Michelle stage-managing the kids.

Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments, a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

What a strange thing to say. In all of American history, at least since after we won the Revolutionary War, it's difficult to think of a time when the American promise has been threatened. America is great because of its constitution and because of the people who make up the citizenry. Because it recognizes individual rights, because it is grounded in Christianity, and because it has a market based economy. None of these fundamentals has ever been in serious jeopardy.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit cards, bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

Actually, the unemployment rate in the United States is hovering around 6%, so the assertion that more Americans are out of work is simply untrue. "more of you have lost your homes?" 96% of the loans in this country are not in default. The vast majority of Americans who have mortgages do not have subprime mortgages. Home values have been going down, but this is cyclical, and expected. If people have cars they cannot afford to drive, why did they buy them? If their credit card balances are too high, they should work harder to get their debt under control. So the big question: how are any of these problems the fault of the president? What should he have done differently? What will Obama do differently?

Veterans sleeping under bridges. It didn't take long for him to pull that tired cliché out. New Orleans drowned because the government sat on its hands. No mention of the Democrat governor of Louisiana (now thrown out) nor the Democrat mayor of New Orleans, the combination of which were responsible for first-responders in that crisis.

Next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here -- we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On November 4th, on November 4th, we must stand up and say: Eight is enough.

Newsflash for Obama: George Bush is not running for third term.

He said that our economy has made great progress under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers, the man who wrote his economic plan, was talking about the anxieties that Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a mental recession and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

Good quotes; they're all true, including the one from Phil Gramm, which McCain should have defended.

Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies, but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans?

How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

The $5 million figure was a joke and Obama knows it. If we give tax breaks to corporations, maybe they'll invest more in domestic jobs? Maybe? If you don't give them tax breaks, and just punish them as Obama wants to do, they're guaranteed to move offshore. What an idiot this guy is. Privatizing social security is easily the most effective way to save it. The other choices are cut benefits and/or raise taxes, neither of which anyone will sit still for.

Obama: Democrats define progress as when families can save money; attend college; make enough money to pay the mortgage. He cites 23,000,000 new jobs that were created when Clinton was president. He doesn't mention that Clinton had virtually nothing to do with most of these jobs, which were created when the Internet took off. Most of those jobs, including mine, melted away when Clinton left office and the Internet bubble burst. Clinton was in the right place at the right time. Obama claims that average household income went up under Clinton and down under Bush. I'd like to see that statistic.

Obama's rhetoric is high on emotion and low on logic. He talks about the "dignity" of work, while Republicans would refer to the "value" of work. He cites several examples of working class people, including his mother, who struggled to make it in succeeded in the American economy. These are actually excellent examples. People doing what is necessary to succeed and provide for their families. None of Obama's examples begged for handouts, or were saved by the government. All of them made it on their own. That is the America that Republicans believe in, not Democrats. In fact, Obama himself was railing against this type of attitude just two paragraphs earlier in this speech.

Obama raises his voice, and 70,000 people stand up on cue.

the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

This is where Obama gets it wrong. Businesses do not have a "responsibility" to create American jobs; they have a responsibility to earn profits. If they can earn more profits by creating American jobs, they should and will do so. If they can earn more profits, as has been happening lately, by going overseas, then they should do this. That is the nature of a global economy. To mandate that companies hire American workers while profits dictate otherwise, is protectionism.

what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Again, Obama has it right, here (even a broken clock…). Government should do no more than create a level playing field for all people and companies. Create it, and maintain it, and otherwise stay out of the way.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

Now he's got it wrong again. That "we also rise or fall as one nation" is true of any nation on the planet. Used in this context it's just meaningless rhetoric. And I especially love it when Obama tries to quote scripture. Every time he does so, he winds up looking like a fool because it seems obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about. This is a common challenge for today's secular democrats: talk like a Christian even though you never go to church. The "brother's keeper" reference from Genesis has no relevance in this situation whatsoever; and the "sister's keeper" phrase is something Obama made up to please the feminists. It has no scriptural basis at all.

I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

Wow, he finally sees the light on cap gains taxes, and just in time for the big speech. And he'll lower taxes for 95% of the people? Why do the remaining 5%, who already pay more than almost the other 95% already, deserve to pay still more? I thought you wanted fairness, Barack…

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East… Now is the time to end this addiction and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution, not even close.

I would say that's physically impossible to do, and foolish to suggest, unless you're willing to start drilling offshore and in ANWR (he's not). With billions upon billions of barrels of oil under our sovereign ground, why should we not tap into this valuable natural resource? It just makes no sense whatsoever.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

How, exactly? And I'm glad you've finally found religion on clean coal and nuclear power, but I wonder what your liberal base will make of this, especially considering you came up with that right before the big speech.

I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power, and solar power , and the next generation of biofuels -- an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.

Again, Obama fundamentally misunderstands the problem. It's not government's job to invest $150,000,000,000 in energy sources. That is a job for the market economy. Provide tax incentives, listen to industry leaders, encourage startup companies. Let them make the investments, not government. Obama has not run a single thing in his entire life, yet he stands up on this stage and proposes spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on what amounts to research and development in an industry in which he has no experience whatsoever.

I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

First of all, what kids don't have that chance in this country? Even illegal immigrants get free education. Who is he talking about? Why do we need an army of new teachers? Why do these teachers need to be paid more? What makes you think you will be able to ask for higher standards and more accountability? One of the most powerful lobbyist groups the Democrats have are the teachers unions. What about vouchers? When you were asked that question at the Saddleback forum one week ago, you were barely able to get an answer out of your mouth because you know the teachers unions are against vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, and probably every other alternative to public schools. As far as paying for a college education in return for community service, we already do this.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime: by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less

Obama flirts with reality with this paragraph, after a dozen or so covering such favorite liberal topics as Health Care, "equal pay," and Social Security. But besides the fact that this line is very ambiguous, it's also not believable, because liberals have no such history of doing any such thing in any government that they've ever been in. If you want proof of that, take a look at California. Run almost entirely by liberal democrats, California has been on the brink of bankruptcy, dodging bullets seemingly every year lately, and still the liberals refuse to cut spending; instead demanding higher taxation. Liberals don't cut programs. Liberals raise taxes.

"The One" then spoke at length about how he would be a more effective commander-in-chief than President Bush has been, or John McCain will be. There are just too many lines to quote, here, but I was surprised that he spoke as directly on this subject as he did. It is not a subject that is comfortable for his base, nor one that he seems to know very much about. He certainly has no foreign relations experience at all, much less wartime experience. Yet he feels confident enough to criticize McCain and Bush, both of whom have been on the front lines for this country for as many years as Mr. Obama has been alive. He claims that he is anxious to debate McCain on this subject, though of all the subjects that I can imagine him doing well against McCain in in a debate, this one would be the last on my list. Especially considering his dismal performance at the Saddleback forum one week ago, alongside McCain's stellar performance, if I were Obama, I would want as few debates as possible before the election.

The last 10 minutes or so of the speech are all about "change" and unification rhetoric, nothing new there. Frankly I don't think any of what he says there is probably any different than what McCain would say if he could deliver such a speech. Certainly nothing controversial here.

The one thing that strikes me as I listen to this speech is how far to the center Obama has moved with it. He is now talking openly about tax cuts, capital gains cuts, pursuing nuclear technology, developing clean coal technology, cutting government spending, employing our military against enemies in the Middle East, and relaxing gun legislation. He even wore a flag lapel pin and ended his speech with the famous "God Bless America" line. If he keeps this up, he and McCain will have very little to argue about.