Gilmore Can’t Articulate What The GOP’s “Clear Message” Should Be

From today’s WashTimes:

Mr. Gilmore hopes to be the Republican candidate in a Senate contest against former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner. During the interview at The Times, Mr. Gilmore declared that his party needs to establish a “clear message” and achieve “unity.” Yet, when pressed by reporters and editors on specific general election tactics and initiatives, he was unable to clarify how Republicans could achieve both clarity and unity.

When a candidate for U.S. Senate who is a former Governor and former Republican National Cmte. Chairman cannot articulate what the GOP’s “clear message” should be, you have to wonder precisely why he is a candidate for office.

4 Responses to “Gilmore Can’t Articulate What The GOP’s “Clear Message” Should Be”

  1. Jim Gilmore on his general election campaign plans: ????? « The right-wing liberal Says:

    [...] the editors of the Washington Times,  reviewing their interview with Jim Gilmore (via Riley @ Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall, emphasis added): During the interview at The Times, Mr. Gilmore declared that his party needs to [...]

  2. Gilmore Interview With WashTimes « Virginia Virtucon Says:

    [...] Gilmore Interview With WashTimes Posted on May 22, 2008 by Riley This is troubling. [...]

  3. J. Tyler Ballance Says:

    I don’t see this as a legitimate criticism at this point.

    There are some good reasons for Jim Gilmore NOT to talk about what his team really stands for, such as: More domestic spying, more undeclared wars, more government on behalf of multinational mega-corporations that stick the citizens with the bills. more government ON the People instead of government FOR the People.

    With Jim Gilmore as our nominee, the election will simply be a referendum on the failure of the Bush Presidency and we already know how the People feel about “W.”

  4. Kit Katz Says:

    It is legitimate criticism. He could have said, “We are for lower taxes, immigration reform (we want immigrants to come in legally — duh); we are for smaller government; we are for alternative sources of energy; we are for a cleaner environment; we are for legislators making laws, not courts; we are for crime reduction… ” Geez…this would have been easy for the average person. Too bad he could not have said he is for life. That is because he isn’t –not until a week after their little fingers have developed fingerprints.

Leave a Reply