[KC_Conspirator]

I am going to have to disagree with you. Luntz points out the problems, of which many are correct. However, the whole article is full of incorrect assesments. The basic message for the GOP is "be more liberal", which I have heard for 7 years from Luntz, or basically since he supported McCain in 2000.

[Cedric]

My biggest problem with Luntz is the polyester wig.

[NittanyLion]

The basic message for the GOP is "be more liberal"

Interesting take. I assume your reading stems from the fact that Luntz says we must appeal to those beyond the conservative base. But I think we can do so by advancing conservative ideals.

The way I read it, Luntz' major assertion is this:

But if I were still in the thick of it, my guidance would be just 20 words long: Be bold, return to basics, stop telling, start asking, focus on results, abolish "earmarks" and embrace a permanent balanced budget.

I don't think he's promoting liberalism at all. But after rereading the article I do understand why some might think otherwise.

[Frank Luntz]

This is Frank Luntz. A couple of points:

1) I did NOT support John McCain in 2000. I didn't back any of the GOP candidates that year.

2) I am NOT advocating a more liberal GOP. Quite the opposite. I am quite surprised at the interpretation that ending earmarks and balancing the budget without tax increases is "liberal." Hardly.

3) I am advocating a greater focus on "reform" and less overt political and ideological language. The best way to promote your principles is not to hit people over the head with them.

4) I am a communications advisor, not a policy wonk. If you want more of an agenda, you'll get it from Newt Gingrich. But a re-focus on the policy agenda from 1994 would be a great start.

This is the Washington Post Blog. I think you have a greater responsibility to engage in a more appropriate and a more accurate exchange.