PETER WEHNER writes an interesting post about the fact that Obama has broken a ‘cast-in-stone’ rule of politics…Don’t say anything positive about the other side.
So if the ‘change’ Obama is talking about is related to Reagan’s style of leadership and optimism, then there’s a point for Barack as far as I am concerned…but somehow I think Barack’s optimism would be better described as “the world would be a better place if I were elected.” Optimistic…yes. Specific…no.
And I believe that is the point that Peter Wehner is making here:
“So far his campaign is largely about capturing a mood rather than about advocating a set of ideas–and at the end of the day, changing the trajectory of America depends on ideas and policies, not sentiment. Reagan was an optimistic person–but that is not his lasting achievement. And if Reagan’s policies had failed rather than succeeded, his optimism would have looked badly misplaced and would now be used against him. Barack Obama, who so far has shown himself to be an utterly orthodox liberal (as has Hillary Clinton), now has to take the next step and show that he is bold and creative in the realm of ideas and policies, which was a hallmark of Reagan. So far Obama hasn’t–and that has been the glaring weakness in his otherwise impressive campaign.”
[emphasis added]
I agree, Obama is impressive, but an optimistic liberal just doesn’t seem to compute. In order for liberalism to work, everything has to be in constant decline…except for tax rates.