I am one of those guys who thinks there is no real gospel on conservative, liberal or moderate. But I would call someone conservative who bargains/advocates for conservative principles to the point of almost saying they are non-negotiable, often accusing the other side of immorality. A la Cheeks and Grass.

A liberal likewise is inclined to bargain/advocate for liberal principles and policies to the point of saying they are non-negotiable, and accusing the other side of immorality.

But Obama has negotiated away righteous liberal principle. He has acted every ounce a republican on national security. He has not closed Gitmo. He gave up single payer and listened to Romney in order to expand the zone of possible agreement.

Obama is every ounce a mediator, a moderate. The founder of a new ideology. Moderatism. His bible is just as much Riskin as it is Alinsky. More so in fact. There are no principles, no easy answers. There is only expanding and contracting the zone of possible agreement. If Romney and Obama face off on a ballot, it will truely be the end of history…again:)

More and more americans are giving up on principle. And more and more americans hate these wishy washy americans and are taking up advocacy of principle. A good deal of Obama hate is rooted in hatred of mediation. A deep hatred of moderates. These folks have rules. They don’t think you can be catholic and pro choice. Or they don’t think you can be a true liberal and oppose PETA. Everywhere I go there is some anger at the root of coalitions. A ton of anger over what labor lawyers might call a representative/barganning class. A desire to rewrite this liberalism or conservatism as encompassing this or that position.

I don’t know if Romney can out mediate Obama, but the moderates are for lack of a better word unprincipled, or at least unprincipled according to the barganing class conservative or liberal.

The problem is that Romney and Obama are both very good moderates. Both can easily reality check your positions. Collapsing what you believed was a principle into a question of fact. One where “history” is against you:) (studies show some of the best negotiators are moderates)

Not everyone is rich enough to hate Obama, and racism is in fact the preferable explanation for the economic interests that be. But I think there is a different orientation towards principle and property at work. Some folks have too much of themselves invested in the principle, or the cause, to accept a moderate doctrine, or a mediation of the principles they hold. I only jest partially when I speak of the Copyright Industrial Complex, its permutations are manifold. But I take seriously Jane Radin’s (a weak Hegel?) notion that we can have personhood/property in our principles/words, and all manner of property, including potentially trademark/Conservatism.

I am not sure how this works out, but I think a moderate is someone who can edit himself:)

It is more in the nature of this conservatism not to consider itself to be barganning than you would think. I might say that it is contrary to its moral sense of self.

Understand that you can sell the mainstream media as having a left bias, because what the news does is fact check or reality check your conservative principle. It kills simple explanations…unless you run for cover and listen to Rush. But Rush doesn’t save you. He creates a barganning class. A barganning class that has soaked up “reality checks” of cherished liberal principles (but rarely how liberals understand themselves). But some of those principles and ideas are deeply embeded explanations of causality.

All of your points are valid, but I think you are weighing them as a moderate might.

Notice that the entire zone of mediation is embodied by Obama and Romney and belongs properly to the New Moderates. To appeal to moderates you must mediate.

Only those who live in more multicultural areas can really appreciate mediation, or the need to compromise. Romney is winning votes from people who understand this. The wealthy, who understand how much of principle is hitting your head against a wall, and those who live in democratic strongholds who consider Romney the furthest possible right.

What is and is not a moderate, and the topics open to mediation/compromise are a function of where you live. It is as simple as that. Just look at where Romney got the bulk of his votes! Cleveland especially, Columbus, Cincinnati.

Santorum screwed up in terms of not certifying delegates. I know the RNC weights delegates based upon the likelyhood of actually winning the state. But had Santorum certified delegates, and had delegates been awarded on a county level according to counties most likely to vote Republican…Santorum would have had the lop-sided distribution and not the other way around.

I don’t think Romney wins Ohio. But if he is the nominee Romney will not win a single county he won in the Ohio primary.

Also Santorum still won the toledo area (Lucas county). He would have won a lot more union democrats, but they were all busy supporting Marcy Kaptur over the ideological Dennis Kucinich (thanks to republican gerrymandering) (a lot of potential Romney moderates might consider this unethical). This also had considerable effect upon some “moderates” torn between the social conservative pro-manufacturing Santorum, and more reliable plain old union democrat self-interest.

So Romney only won parts of northern Ohio, because of gerrymandering that prevented a certain number of “moderates” from voteing Santorum (not that these are any more certain for Santorum in the general, than Romney’s moderates are for Romney over Obama).

The best explanation for the large swing in poll numbers post michigan was the factoring out of Santorum’s moderates/demographics from Michigan as likely voters given the gerrymandering of northern Ohio!

In some way your post only concedes Santorum’s poverty… some moderates might conclude that Santorum is much better if he can get some help (not that I trust the proffesionals not to screw up his mojo) As someone who is more worried about income inequality as a disruption of barganning power and true informed consent, than pure poverty, I am going to have a hard time not voteing for Obama.

I am pro-union, so my kantian duty and self-interest seems more complex.