Not really. That path leads to a Forth, a Scheme, a Smalltalk.
There are plenty of things which are not necessary in Go. Many of them are eminently convenient, but could be libraried with generics: most of the built-in magically generic-even-though-the-language-doesn't-have-generic collections for a start. the special-cased multiple return values, the magical builtin functions (which generally exist as support for the aforementioned magical collections).
I've read it before, Go is not simple, it's simplistic. A simple language would by necessity give a lot of power to the developer, that's not what Go does.
There's a difficult balance to strike of course, get too simple and you end up with turing tarpit, and simple languages may make it harder to create cohesive communities. Still, calling Go simple is an insult to simple languages.