My take on this has always been the same, and I have posted on this before.

The Republican Party, for whatever reason (fear of disapproval, lack of moral clarity,) is unwilling or unable to embrace the moral and philosophical foundations that theoretically should form the base of their party. The Democrats are far more consistent in their leftist agenda, and, all else being equal, in any conflict between two opposing points of view, the more consistent one will have an advantage.

The article you cite mentions the positions of both candidates:

Ganske, a Catholic, is pro-life, but would allow abortions under certain circumstances — rape, incest, threat to life of the mother. Salier took a stricter, absolutist position.



Ganske got on the wrong side of the National Rifle Association, refusing to vote to lift a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Salier was pro-NRA, and anti-gun-control, all the way.

Ganske is for expanding federal medical programs to include a prescription drug benefit and a patients’ bill of rights. Salier opposed both.

Ganske voted to give the president “fast track” authority to negotiate new global trade agreements — a key goal of corporate America. Salier was opposed.

Ganske’s most obvious act of anti-conservative apostasy: He voted for Sen. John McCain’s hated campaign finance reform bill, which real-right activists see as an unconstitutional attack on free speech, not to mention their ability to collect from influential issue groups such as the National Rifle Association and the National Right-to-Life Committee.

No matter what happens with the war — and no matter how tightly Rove wraps Bush in the flag — the conservative grassroots activists in the party aren’t likely to let go of their obsessions.



Skimming over the fact that the writer of the article, like 94 percent of the people in the media, is a Democrat, or at least a liberal, (conservatives don't have positions, they have "obsessions,") the article shows the apparent unwillingness of the mainstream Republicans to stand on Republican core principles. Advice from liberals like Fineman, of course, is to abandon these principles, since in their view they are, of course, wrong. That this same advice is constantly pouring in on the White House from the media and advisors is beginning to take its toll.

Last election, Nader drew off a chunk of the hard left vote, and the Democrats, which although they support socialism are unable to do so publicly like Nader did, took a big electoral hit. I could see something like this happening to Republicans easily. In fact, it probably already did if you count in Ross Perot. I am hearing undercurrents that in the congressional elections (not the Presidential one), the Libertarians could actually tilt a few races.

For the record, I would agree with Salier on all his positions except abortion and trade.