I'm referencing Jeffrey Lords' article at spectator.org where he himself is referencing a NYT Headline. Ain't it always so? The MSM conveniently using our own side's words as ammunition?
I highly recommend the read. Short version is: When Republicans nominate moderates, we lose. I mean, the proof is rather in the pudding - how many moderates in the 20th and 21st centuries have won elections as a Republican?
What, Nixon (twice) and Ike (twice, but can be discounted due to being a war-hero), yes? Let's toss in one termers of Hoover and Bush, Sr. and Taft. Now, how many have lost?
Hoover, Bush Sr, Wilkie, Dewey (twice), Landon, Taft, Ford, Dole, McCain.
By my count, Republicans have at least 2-1 odds at losing by nominating a moderate. Why? Because we try to appeal to the center, who should be won on merit, not on caving. And by doing so, we lose the energy of our base, and some stay home. Who knows how many? But if it's a point or two, we lose.
2010 was on in spite of the moderates and the elites, not because of them. Why would we change gears so quickly? Why would we allow negative campaigning to award the nomination to a moderate who will then, in an attempt to win the middle, will lose the base, and the election, like so many before him have.
Oh, and go check out that article. It's seven pages of clear thought and historically referenced mojo.