Bob Ehrlich campaigned on issues and substance contrasting the differences between himself and O’Malley on the issues. O’Malley played the pious piper, spoke in shallow generalities, demagoguing issues like the BGE rate hike as special interests bilking working families, and that he would stop the rate hike. O’Malley won the election, but like anyone who bothered to research the issue knew, could not stop the rate hike.
The emphasis is mine, mostly because Mr. Newgent seems to forget that fact as he closes his post. After stating that O'Malley and Obama won on their amorphis hopeful messages, Newgent concludes that the best strategy for Conservative is to ignore the sea change currently sweeping the nation.
Change for change’ sake, without any real sense of where that change will lead to, is a fool’s errand and fraught with more peril than the status quo.
Sadly, you see the Republican candidates, especially Huckabee and McCain, (and my man Mitt too) engaging in the same rhetoric.
In the face of this claptrap, Conservatives should heed William F. Buckley’s charge to, “stand athwart history yelling stop.”
I don't really think this is much of a change from the current Conservative strategy. Are not Conservatives inherently opposed to brash and abrupt change? Of course they are, and this is why we are currently seeing them get routed at the polls.
Moreover, it seems like the Republican candidates got the message that Mr. Newgent is determined to ignore. Change is the buzzword this season, despite it's muddied meaning. I understand Mr. Newgent's fear of this term. Change for changes sake has more likelihood of bringing bad legislation than good. Therefore in this "change" election, I believe it is the duty of politicians and those who follow them to do their best to define "change" as they see it, not to flee from it.
Being the "anti-change" candidate or party in "change" election does not seem wise.