I will add - the other canard that the moderates like to float is the Karl Rove school of thinking that if we don't be moderate and compromising, and nominate such candidates we will lose. Look however at the record.
For President, Ford was moderate and lost. Reagan was conservative and won. HW Bush compromised on taxes and was thrown out. Bob Dole lost. W Bush barely won, and lost the Congress decidedly during his term of 'compassionate conservatism'. He also didn't fight the Democrats much. McCain lost. Romney lost.
When we've been bold, we've won. The '94 Gingrich win. We did similar in '10. We shut down the govt and it didn't affect us. We made noise like we were going to do something in '14, and we won.
Except we did nothing, and now we are falling out of favor again. The facts are at odds with the Karl Rove fantasy that's been pushed on us for 20+ years.
The moderates need to get in touch with the times. They are tin-eared and wandering in the desert.
A few comments. When Gingrich won the House his popularity was high and his accomplishment was reform of the welfare system...working with the other side and with Clinton. When he challenged Clinton and the government was shut down, his popularity and that of the Republicans went down.
Reagan was a national security conservative, but was anything but a fiscal conservative, doubling the national debt while cutting taxes. The '14 congressional elections turned away from the TP conservatives to elect more mainstream conservatives.
Ford had the Nixon pardon clinging to him, and ran a less than sterling campaign. Still as a moderate with Dole as a running mate, the election was quite close. What those on the right have never been able to adequately explain is that if the public wouldn't elect mainstream conservatives like McCain, Dole, Romney and GHW Bush because they weren't "conservative" enough, why would those potential conservative voters shift to the left and elect liberals?
Disapproval of Congress is only explained by virtue of what the right wants to see. Democrats for the most part want Congress to work more with the president; Republicans want far more pushback. Patterns of spending, immigration, gay marriage, foreign policy, gun control, are all issues that each side wants Congress to take opposite actions on. Democrats are generally more supportive of their congressional leaders than are Republicans. Perhaps the one issue most agree on is the inaction by Congress to pass appropriations bills until the last week in September.
But Republicans need to honestly look at what most Americans want not only with respect to the specific issues, but also a willingness to negotiate and compromise to get major legislation passed. Constant filibusters and refusals to schedule floor debates are neither in the public interest nor do they promote public approval. In October 2001 approval of Congress was 84%. Today it's 16%. In 2009 self-described conservatives had a 20 point lead over self-described liberals in the Nation. Today it's about even. And whether we like it or not, the people don't move their ideology from conservative to liberal simply because the Republican Party isn't conservative enough.
