Originally Posted by Baby Lee
You have to know that I see this through a diametrically opposed prism.
Bush was demonized for being simultaneously EXTREME RW, and too centrist, often by the same critics, occasionally seemingly in the same breath.
Centrism is one thing, the path to centrism is another.
There's widespread consensus that fiscal liberalism isn't the answer, I'm not talking merits, I'm talking consensus. So let's call that 'the whole loaf'
There's a difference between;
'I think we should give away the whole loaf, would at least you let us give away 2/3 of the loaf.'
'We shouldn't being giving away the loaf, but if you insist I think we can live with giving away 1/2'
But the liberal argument seeks to gripe about both approaches fungibly.
'Our side isn't liberal, because he only got us 2/3 of a loaf, and besides who are you to talk of loaf responsibility when your last guy just tossing around 1/2 loaves willy-nilly?'
So people respond '**** it, lets stick to a no loaf policy. Loaf coveters hate us anyway.'
Right, which is why we end up with a pretty crappy crop of candidates for the GOP this year, I am led to believe.
To stick with your metaphor, whole loaf policy may be unpopular, but no loaf policy is similarly unpopular. The problem for the GOP, one imagines, is that the DNP has moved pretty close to 1/2 loaf territory, while the GOP has fully embraced no loaf policy.
That's going to do a couple things. That's going to drive off centrist or moderate conservatives from running for President (or at least cause them to pretzel themselves to pull it off), and the serious, honest hardcore conservatives know that their hard conservativism isn't popular in the mainstream choose to keep their political capital in tact instead of burning it in vain.
So you're left with a race that was at times dominated by Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. And won by Mitt Romney by default.