Jack Balkin was impressed by David Brooks' article yesterday as well, but notes that the ideology he promoted sounds mighty like Clintonism (perhaps with a more moral face). This is not too surprising -- Clinton was in the pulpit over the weekend bashing Bush, suggesting he too has a religious side. Clinton also promoted welfare reform, anti-terrorism legislation, and fiscal conservatism (though his means might be debatable, his goals in that direction are less so).
He also support liberal policies on social issues, but the difference between this and the libertarian wing of the Republican party is often just a matter of emphasis. Finally, Clinton knew how to sell himself as well as make some distasteful if successful political moves. His willingness to compromise also is an important quality for a successful Republican Party to promote. The bully boy tactics they currently use can only be successful for so long.
The fact that Clinton could not control his moral failings along with a certain inability to follow through [he was very good at triage and playing off excesses of his foes, but there was a sense of failure to his presidency ... a potential sadly not fulfilled] probably can be considered tragic. The model he put forth with the proper leadership is a gold mine for either party, if they can handle it properly.
After all, look at the moderate facade they are showing off tonight ... before they let the cat out of the bag by having Zell Miller (!) as keynote.