Posted on 02/26/2008 8:26:45 PM PST by jdm
Scott's observations on Obamanations are a good introduction to this provocative piece by our friend Steve Hayes in today's Wall Street Journal. Steve's thesis is that the commonplace criticism of Obama, that he is all generalities and no substance, misses the mark. In fact, he compares Obama to Ronald Reagan, against whom similar criticisms were leveled. Steve includes our references to Obama as "Chance the Gardener," the character played by Peter Sellers in Being There, in his litany of conservative underestimation of Obama. Steve argues that Obama is more than that:
The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.
In Iowa, long before the race became the national campaign it is today, Mr. Obama spent much of his time at town halls in which he took questions from the audience. His answers in such settings were often as good or better than the rhetoric in his stump speech, and usually more substantive. He spoke about issues like immigration and national service in a thoughtful manner -- not wonky, not pedantic, but in a way that suggested he'd spent some time thinking about them before.
More important for the race ahead, Mr. Obama has the unique ability to offer doctrinaire liberal positions in a way that avoids the stridency of many recent Democratic candidates. That he managed to do this in the days before the Iowa caucuses -- at a time when he might have been expected to be at his most liberal -- was quite striking.
Steve emailed us this morning to let us know about his piece and invite us to "feel free to smack [him] around on Power Line." Actually, though, I agree with him. Barack Obama is a very able man and a formidable opponent.
Conservatives complain about Obama's vagueness mostly because they want to expose the dedicated liberal lurking behind Obama's modeerate demeanor. In truth, though, Obama's liberalism is no secret. His voting record, the policy positions laid out on his web site, and his own answers to questions in debates and town hall meetings make it clear that he is an unreconstructed liberal.
Obama's appeal lies, in part, in his ability to make liberalism seem palatable. Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, he is generally not shrill or hectoring. He comes across as calm and reasonable. In this, he really does resemble Ronald Reagan.
There are obvious differences between Reagan and Obama, of course. Reagan was a life-long student of Communism, while Obama is not yet a life-long student of anything. Most important, Reagan was devoted to conservatism, which is essentially true, while Obama is devoted to liberalism, which is essentially false. This means that Obama's policies, no matter how smoothly he may advocate them, will never be as successful as Reagan's.
Here, though, lies the rub, in my view. Ronald Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative.
Today, the benefit of that experience has largely been lost. A generation of American voters has not experienced the failures of the Great Society, the near-collapse of American cities, double-digit inflation and unemployment, seventy percent tax brackets, or the disaster of Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. In the absence of historical memory, and with a powerful assist from the ever-forgetful press, liberalism is once again emerging as the philosophy that sounds good. The fact that it doesn't work awaits as an unpleasant surprise for a new generation. In the meantime, Barack Obama may well be the plausible candidate who can lead voters, once again, down the blind alley of leftism. He is, as Steve Hayes argues, an opponent who must be taken seriously.
Which doesn't preclude, of course, the occasional moment of ridicule when he slips into his Chance the Gardener mode.
We wouldn’t need this forum. With Americans today its money that matters and they will turn on these people and treat them like they never knew or voted them in the first place. They will not survive relection if they drive the economy into a depression and if an attack occurs they will have to fear for their lives at the hands of an angry mob.
I’m not underestimating Obama. That’s why I agree with Rush; the Pubbies in TX and OH need to cross over and vote for Hillary to keep the fight going and split the Democratic Party.
I heard Al Sharpton say that if the Clintons steal this nomination from Obama, there will be riots.
Let the good times roll, mama.
......”No, we are underestimating the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional weakness of those who would vote for a nothingburger clad in an empty rhetorical bun.”
Speaking of which, has any of you sorta dropped in on one of their sites lately? Those dims are Nuts!
If people are looking for change and that change turns bad they will blame those they voted for. It’s human nature.
“I heard Al Sharpton say that if the Clintons steal this nomination from Obama, there will be riots.”
It will also propel McCain into the Whitehouse in a landslide of epic proportions.
I don't know about y'all, but it helped me! Both of your posts on this number range made me LOL... because I have said the same things.
DarthVader- God, I hope you are correct!
My guns and stock piles ammo will be hidden away safe for the day of reckoning.
Smart
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0622041ryans1.html
Read the Ryan papers yourself. Jack Ryan admitted going to the club but said it was a “romantic getaway”.
The Republican party has had a problem for a L-O-N-G time of covering up perverse behavior from their pols and then having it blow up at election time.
Obama - PINg for further read.
No, Obama is not a Reagan, he is another Jimmy Carter.
I wondered if it was possible that he was underestimated just today, when I was listening to... Savage, was it?
He was talking about how Hillary can’t possibly attack him on the only thing she can attack him on without drawing fire—his liberal record.
He likely knew this going in. That makes his candidacy far more calculating and well thought out than most of us believed, IMOHO.
CQ blog posted on the CBS poll ... BS poll we should say .. they skewed it about 5% to the Dems side. they have Obama up 12%.
I know I am right look how Hillary is being treated. If these incompetents destroy people’s life savings and their standard of living. These fools will face the guillotine.
Obama's background is as an activist lawyer representing victims of America, mostly black victims living in Chicago.
That is his qualification, IMO.
As president, it seems to me, he will feel the urge to expand his clientele to include all the world's peoples' v. the United States of America. Seriously.
Change coming to America. That's the plan.
This is so much like the 1960s that I remember, except the New Left street/campus activists/anarchists/revolutionaries are now the Democratic Party; i.e., the Rat Party (formerly the patriotic, traditional Democratic Party).
"Bring it all down, man."
The black unregistered voter population will be registered and voting this year to be a part of history. I said something along the lines of gouging out my eyes before voting for McCain. I now see there is no choice.
I do not underestimate Obama; his popularity is down right scary to me. I can’t figure out any valid reason why he is ahead in the primaries. The reaction many voters have to him reminds me of some of the rock stars that ended up at the top of the charts that didn’t seem to me to have any musical talent- all show and no go.
This is a scary election year for me, the three front runners are not qualified to be President, yet one of them will be. McCain has more of the type/length of experience for the job; yet I worry about his temper and mental stability. Obama and Clinton are not just lacking in the experience department- they both lack in every department.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.