Redstate

Is newt. But it is hard to bash Gilmore when the reality is Rudy offers only liberal boilerplate.

Molon Labe!

In my home State of Minnesota, the DFL won 4 out of 5 State-wide races, picked up a House Seat in a very “Red” district, increased their margin in the State Senate, and took over the State House on a platform of “Education, Health Care, and Property Tax Relief.”

While many on Red State were chastising Democrats for their supposed lack of a “plan” on Iraq, they were going around the country campaigning on things like “affordable health care,” “ tax cuts for the middle class rather than the wealthy,” “education,” and other “pocket book” issues.

Platforms of “cut the taxes, secure the borders, win the war, and confirm the judges” (channeling Hugh Hewitt’s 2006 advice to Republicans) have a very limited and not a very deep appeal among likely voters. If he isn’t even talking about the issues that are most important to non-affiliated voters (much less trying to sway the other side’s likely voters) in the primary, then should he become the nominee and wait until the general election to start talking about them, any position he takes will be (rightfully) seen as a shallow after-thought and he or any other candidate who follows this tact to become the nominee will have conceded these issues and those voters to the Democrats.

In which case what our candidate said about the other issues won't matter because they won't be in a position to do anything about them.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

In my home State of Minnesota, the DFL won 4 out of 5 State-wide races, picked up a House Seat in a very “Red” district, increased their margin in the State Senate, and took over the State House on a platform of “Education, Health Care, and Property Tax Relief.”

While many on Red State were chastising Democrats for their supposed lack of a “plan” on Iraq, they were going around the country campaigning on things like “affordable health care,” “ tax cuts for the middle class rather than the wealthy,” “education,” and other “pocket book” issues.

Platforms of “cut the taxes, secure the borders, win the war, and confirm the judges” (channeling Hugh Hewitt’s 2006 advice to Republicans) have a very limited and not a very deep appeal among likely voters. If he isn’t even talking about the issues that are most important to non-affiliated voters (much less trying to sway the other side’s likely voters) in the primary, then should he become the nominee and wait until the general election to start talking about them, any position he takes will be (rightfully) seen as a shallow after-thought and he or any other candidate who follows this tact to become the nominee will have conceded these issues and those voters to the Democrats.

In which case what our candidate said about the other issues won't matter because they won't be in a position to do anything about them.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

well I hear a lot on complaining, what exactly is your platform? You think Rudy wants to limit government more than Gilmore? YOu think Rudy cares more about Goldwater/Reagan more than Gilmore? You seem to have a personal agenda here, why not spell it out, why not come clean?

Rudy is an authoritarian gun grabber, is Gilmore?

I am sick of "republicans" that are wiling to compromise all their beliefs because they "think" their man has a better chance of winning. I am getting a bit tired of people who think having no beliefs is a think to be lauded. I am telling you now, as a life long Republican, if the party nominates someone who stands against conservative ideals, I will NOT vote for her...i mean, him.

Molon Labe!

Nothing’s changed for me since I wrote this although to be fair he never was really on my short list.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

last line above should be "...he has NO more experience than the others"