Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda.
Thus writes Paul Krugman of the New York Times, as he wondered if Barack Obama is a Ronald Reagan. Now at what point in the campaign did we know Reagan was Reagan and what being Reagan meant? And here Sen. Obama has the nomination in hand and we don't even know if Obama is Obama. And we sure don't know what it means to be an Obama.
Mr. Krugman continues his clue search as he expands the comparison to Bill Clinton:
So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque...Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.Decades ago I lived in North Beach in San Fransisco where a lot Italian restaurants ran lunch specials. For $2.50 you could choose what you liked from a group of appetizers; choose one from a group of main courses; choose from a group of side dishes and deserts and beverages. And actually put together quite an inexpensive feast.
What we have here is the "choose one from each group" candidate. For each issue he takes three positions. The position that most excites you is the one he holds. The other two are necessary political panders he has to make to get elected. He does this -- sacrifices his integrity -- so he can put your solutions into practice. Some might call him a politician. He will endure this for you. And he will work hard (never worked harder!) to do right by you. Wait. In fact, wait some more.
So he is neither Clinton nor is he Reagan. He is the man who, once elected, will have a mandate to do whatever he wants. Because the Media will tell us so. After all, the left has already made its choice. If their every choice is not yours, you did not choose wisely.
2 comments:
Of course this is rather obvious in relation to the DC gun ban, which Sen Obama said was constitutional before changing his mind. But then he says maybe the Constitution allows something like it as a common sense measure. You choose a position.
And now, according to the NYT, Sen. Obama works to retain flexibility on Iraq, rather than continuing to commit to a rapid pull out. But then again, he claims his position is still the same and hasn't changed. Of course, at one time he said troops might remain in Iraq even in 2013. So, you choose.
Post a Comment