I know he's a flaming liberal. Basically, he was saying (mind you, I didn't read the book, this is based on reviews) that abandoning New Deal liberalism for relatively sensible, Clintonian economics was a mistake, because key groups of voters began to see too little difference between the Dems and the GOP, and started voting on the basis of social issues.
I don't agree with his thesis. I'm using him to say that we shouldn't fall in the same trap. It isn't a question of running a true conservative and winning. If that was the case, Tom McClintock would be Governor of California and not RINO Arnold Schwarzenegger.
2004 was very, very different from 2008. We kept both Houses in 2004 and even increased our majorities. In 2006, we LOST the House and, aganst all odds, even the Senate. You shouldn't presume that 2008 will be a cakewalk for someone like Duncan Hunter, because it won't be. He would get my vote, but that would not prevent him from losing in a landslide.
If you don't agree with his thesis, what trap are you worried about falling into? Resisting a drift to the middle? Why?
When the tide of opinion on abortion has shifted to a point where 85% of people support the PBA, and many candidates now are openly hostile to R v. W without consequence. When gun control has been shown to be such a loser that the dems did not make a peep about it during the last few election cycles. When the blowback against those trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance was swift and severe, when gay marriage bans are running 27 to 1 for passing, and winning in even blue states. This is the time to moderate?
We lost in 06 from incompetence, not philosophy.