As someone who was a Republican for 18 years, worked at or near the heart of the conservative intellectual movement (American Enterprise Institute)for a time, and have read widely on both sides of the political spectrum, I can't imagine why you consider that reading David Reinhard --much less discussing him -- is a productive use of time, for liberals or conservatives.

Good for you, Aubrey!

As someone who grew up with one parent who was a Robert Taft Republican (although he outlived Taft by decades) and as someone who thinks genuine "conservatives" are closer to Barry Goldwater than Tom DeLay or Jerry Falwell, I say the same thing. Seems to me Reinhard is an airhead bully, not an intellectual with an ideological streak. (David Brooks, for instance, makes a lot more sense.) Makes one wonder why they can't find a replacement for Reinhard who is more thoughtful.

And also, what would ideologues like that do if Westlund gets on the ballot, a 3rd party member gets into public office above the local level, a sitting member of the legislature (besides Westlund if he doesn't become Gov.) decides not to caucus with either party? They'd be deprived of shorthand like "The Democrats {GOP} believe...".

We don't know the outcome of the St. Senate elections. And I'll bet Reinhard has never pondered what it would be like to have a St. Sen. which is 14-14-2, regardless of who is Gov. or Speaker. Might they have to discuss issues in detail (like the suggestion on the other recent topic of "question time" for the Gov.)?

Maybe question time for legislative leaders wouldn't be a bad idea given all the closed door meetings in the 2005 session.

I'm not sure which is more amusing - that Bennedetti can't figure out the substantive difference between an incumbent governor running against two challengers and three challengers running for a party nomination, or that Blueoregon actually thinks this question is interesting enough to discuss.

As an ex-Republican from when I was much younger I've gotta ditto LT across the board here. Although I would add the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" to the Goldwater Republicans as examples which fly in the face of what has been pawned off as "Republicans" ever since Reagan really. Of course nobody seems to want to talk about the fact that the NeoCons find their roots in the Democratic Party of Scoop Jackson, which goes a long way towards explaining why the current GOP bears precious little resemblence to the Republican Party of old despite their rhetoric. The so-called Paleo Republicans who have remained largely true to the GOP of old are a dying breed and clearly have zero influence within their own party.

Reinhard is a demagogue. His long track record of trying to spin issues along patently partisan lines pretty much speaks for itself.