Anyone paying attention to the RNC chairman debate play out would know that all the candidates avoid saying really anything of substance. Its all "more fundraising", "better GOTV", etc.
It isn't until they are getting destroyed in the battle for support that they actually say anything unique.
In steps in Gentry Collins with a plan to use the RNC to aggressively back anti Obamacare ballot measures across the country so that Tea Party and conservative activists have something they can constructively work on. This of course on top of holding their elected officials to the fire. By all means not all that special of an idea, but at least a pretty decent one.
Now, I still don't want the guy to win. I have a preference for either Anuzis or Preibus, but I felt this example is constructive.
Why is it that candidates shy away from presenting any ideas(that could be disagreed with) until they are way behind. Even if you are way ahead, you shouldn't play the "don't lose" game when you're up. If its a good idea and you think people will like it just say it. Instead of constantly talking in platitudes that say nothing about what type of elected official you're going to be.
Just my two cents.