Medved is incorrect in missing the essential dynamic that I think explains the shift away from Romney among the base more than does a shift of the base itself, which is simply that Romney was favored by many in 2008 as more conservative and therefore preferable to McCain, not necessarily that Romney was actually deemed a true conservative then and not one now.

But Medved is correct in pointing out (at least implicitly) that if we were to judge by what people (including media personalities, and also many rank and file among the base) say, one would think that many of the same people considered Romney a conservative in 2008 and a liberal now. That is because radio hosts, commenters on blogs, etc. have a tendency toward hyperbole and toward a less-than-fully-good-faith representation of the ideology of a candidate they like and of a candidate they dislike. They often present caricatures of each, rather than fair representations. Perhaps to some extent they believe their own spin and sincerely believe they are not exaggerating or presenting grossly distorted pictures, but I think there is also some knowledge on their part that they are doing so, either for the purpose of sensationalism (in the case of media personalities) or some combination of catharsis and/or chest-thumping (showing that “my conservatism is bigger than yours”, so to speak) and/or because the only thing that matters is shilling for their guy vs. the other guy, and fairness and accuracy be dam-ed.

I see it on RS today. Some of the comments and even full-blown diaries I’ve seen condemning one candidate or another (Santorum, Newt, Romney) as supposedly clearly very, very far from anything even remotely resembling a conservative have given me the impression I express above. None of them is ideologically pure. Some less pure than others on some issues. And Romney is a huge, shameless, opportunistic flip-flopper whose true convictions (if he has any) are a mystery, but he is essentially the same animal he was in 2008, when, as Medved points out, many were not simply saying “He’s a moderate, but he’s closer to a conservative than is McCain”, but rather claimed he was indeed a conservative, only to now call him a “moderate” or even a “liberal”.

So, if folks want to avoid the kind of criticism dished out by Medved in that piece, I suggest more of a good-faith effort to fairly and accurately portray each candidate, whether you want him to win or lose.

A couple of examples:

Limbaugh, 2008:
“I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney.”

and Limbaugh’s related headline on his website:
“One Candidate Now Represents All Three Legs of Conservatism”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/05/rush-limbaugh-endorses-mitt-romney/

Levin, 2008:
“The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223558/rally-romney/mark-r-levin

Here’s Laura Ingraham introducing Romney at CPAC in 2008, talking up how Romney “embodies conservative ideals”, saying she “get[s] to introduce the conservative” among the three remaining candidates, and saying: “He is a national security conservative. He is a proud social conservative. And he is a fiscal conservative. In other words, Mitt Romney is the conservative’s conservative.”

Whatever Romney’s true convictions, there is no reason to think he has shifted to the left since 2008, so I can’t blame Medved too much for thinking the views of Romney expressed today must primarily reflect a shift by the commenters to the right and/or their having grown more intolerant of ideological impurity in positions or rhetoric. I do believe there has probably been some such shift, but that’s not the main factor. Medved’s mistake in his assessment is that he is assuming that such commenters then and now make a good-faith effort at objective assessments and fair, accurate representations of candidates. They don’t. Instead they engage in unfair, wild exaggerations to cut down the guy they want to lose and to shill for the guy they want to win, probably for reasons I provided in comment above.

My point — as I stated quite clearly — is that it would have been one thing to say “Romney’s not a conservative. He’s a moderate or maybe even a liberal. But he’s not as bad as McCain,” but it’s another thing entirely to say in 2008 that Romney is a clear, solid, across-the-board conservative, and now to call him a moderate or liberal, even though Romney hasn’t changed.

Observing correctly that Romney isn’t any less conservative (or more moderate or liberal) now than he was in 2008, Medved’s argument is that the shift in views on Romney among the base is due to a change in criteria among them for what qualifies as “conservative”.

I’m saying that Medved is incorrect. Although I think there has been some such shift in criteria, the main factor is that many commenters do not make a good-faith effort to fairly and accurately portray candidates they prefer vs. those they don’t, so they instead engage in unfair, wild exaggerations to accentuate differences and thus make the case that conservatives should love the guy they are supporting and hate the other guy. That’s the primary factor in the huge discrepancy between comments on Romney then vs. now.

You write:
“people are far more educated thanks to levin”

Yet as I pointed out, Levin in 2008 said:
?The only one left standing who can honestly be said to share most of our conservative principles is Mitt Romney.?

So the guy who educated the other folks so they could see that Romney is far from a conservative is the same guy who said of the same Romney in 2008 that he “share[s] most of our conservative principles” and said it in his column entitled “Rally for Romney” with sub-head “Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late”

Did Levin go from complete blindness in 2008 to some great revelation since then that Romney is so far from the conservative Levin thought he was in 2008?

I doubt it. Romney hasn’t changed. And I doubt Levin’s views have changed re: what qualifies as “a conservative”. What has changed is his rhetoric, along the lines of what I’ve been saying.

I disagree with your view of labeling vis a vis context. Context is a reason to label candidates in a relative way, not an absolute way, at least not nearly to the extent that we see in this case. If there is no reason to view the candidate as having shifted left since 2008, and if the criteria and standard for what qualifies as “a conservative” hasn’t changed dramatically, it’s absurd for people who called that candidate a clear, solid, across-the-board conservative in 2008 to call him obviously a moderate or liberal now.

The only explanation I can see is that the labeling then and/or now does not reflect a good-faith effort at objectivity, fairness and accuracy, and more likely reflects wild exaggeration that serves to exaggerate the (supposed) ideological gap between one’s preferred candidate and the other candidate.

Let me put it this way: For those denouncing Romney as supposedly clearly a “liberal”, would you really think it sensible, if, with Romney as nominee going against Obama, those same people started calling Romney a clear, solid, across-the-board conservative? I wouldn’t. It would be sensible instead for them to say then, as they do now, “He’s a liberal”, but then add “but he’s not nearly as liberal as Obama”.

You are agreeing with Medved that the difference in opinions being expressed regarding Romney is due not to any change in Romney but rather due to a rightward shift by the base and stricter criteria/standards for what qualifies as “a conservative” in the view of the base.

As I said, I agree with you and Medved that Romney hasn’t changed, and I think there’s a bit of that shift in the base’s ideology and criteria, but that’s not the primary factor here. Rather, it’s the lack of objectivity, sense of perspective, and in some cases sincerity of commenters as they portray candidates and try to tear down candidates they want to lose while shilling for those they want to win, in order to wildly exaggerate a supposed ideological gap between the two.

Is that article the best support for the contention that “Romney purposely characterized himself as a Reagan conservative in 2008, and purposely distanced himself from that label in 2012″ ??

All it says is that in 2008 “Romney assiduously cultivated conservative pundits, activists, and interest groups, he repeatedly swamped CPAC with his supporters” and apparently (according to that writer) he didn’t do so this time.

That doesn’t seem to me to be much substantiation for that contention.

If you are indeed referring to Coburn’s position that it isn’t a tax increase if rates are lowered even if revenues are raised (even per static analysis) by reducing tax expenditures (deductions, credits and exclusions) enough to more than offset the negative effect of the rate reductions, I too am strongly with Coburn on that point, as well as siding with him on what would be good tax policy. Those tax expenditures are subsidies through the tax code, rewarding people (at the expense of taxpayers generally) for buying (or spending more on) or supplying more of particular products chosen by the politicians for favorable treatment. Those measures create economic inefficiency, redistribute wealth, distort prices, and cause inferior allocation of resources in the economy, and thus they are a vice in their own right, much more similar to subsidies in explicit spending form than they are to lower tax rates (and their existence means that, to raise a given level of revenue, tax rates must be higher, which lowers incentives to work and invest, and thus reduces economic growth).

But I’m not sure what to make of the rest of your comment. I don’t think even Norquist says that higher revenues constitutes a tax increase if they result merely from economic growth rather than changes in the tax code.

Rush is prone to extreme cherry-picking of facts and general distortion of facts, positions, and rationales thereof on issues, as well as absurd hyperbole and even silly non sequiturs.

Medved seems much more concerned with factual accuracy, good-faith representation of positions, rationales, etc., appropriately measured characterizations, and reasoned argumentation.

Rush is more entertaining and to some more satisfying, but that’s connected to the differences I describe above. More people just want to be fed Rush’s caricatures of the “other side” rather than listen to Medved’s more reasoned, measured, fair approach, which can also be quite critical of liberals and Democrats, but in a more mature, logical, factual, accurate, fair way.