Dean, you are constraining too many things into one narrow guideline.
"Right-wing ideologues" can win in certain places in certain situations and can't in others. Some of this has to do with the electoral scenario in play this year. Same thing goes with "left-wing ideologues."
Let me deal with each issue point-by-point.
In the MI-07 republican primary, moderate incumbent Joe Schwarz lost to a Club For Growth-backed far-right ideologue who attacked Schwarz for not being pro-life enough and for favoring stem cell research. I guess there is no room in the repub party for someone who uses the "safe, legal, and rare" position on abortion and who favors life-saving research.
This is true, though MI-07 does not equal AZ-08. MI-07 is more Republican, and more importantly, more socially conservative than AZ-08. Such a "pro-life, anti-stem cell" viewpoint (if people really voted on this issue, and most don't) could work here for a Republican candidate and probably will, since the Democratic candidate is a zero.
Perhaps. Ohio is more socially conservative, though, than you're giving it credit, and Ted Strickland is no flaming liberal on social issues. Secondly, I would hold that almost any Republican candidate would be doing terribly in Ohio's governor's race regardless of views and this has to do with one thing, Bob Taft. I also happen to think that positions on these social issues in governor's races are less important than national races.
The massacre that was going to occur in the state of NY this year was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who ran. Still, I agree with you that in NY, the nomination of a moderate would be better for down-ballot races.
I should, while saying this, point out that Stuart Rothenberg commented recently that the Democrats appear to not be doing too well in their goal of ousting GOP NY Congressional members. This may change, but he sees them doing much better right now in the Ohio Valley and the PA/CT suburbs, a comment I agree with.
Your opinion of Laffey is your opinion. I have no proof how much he would vote with Bush or not. I also don't know whether voting with Bush 99% of the time makes you a right-wing extremist or whether voting against Bush 99% of the time makes you a left-wing extremist. I think it is possible such a person could be considered a "mindless follower" or a "mindless opposer", but that would depend on his feelings concerning such matters. To me, Bush is not the be-all, end-all in measures gauging political opinion or oreintation. He is pretty much irrelevant in about 2 months anyway (barring another SC justice pick)
Whatever, if he gets the nomination in RI, the Republicans lose regardless of how he would vote with Bush.
In AZ-08, it was logical. With Chafee, it is logical. With MI-07, OH-Gov. or NY-Gov., I doubt it would make any difference. The particular situation in a particular race is the concern here, not a general rule which one must abide to with inflexibility.
This is merely your opinion. Whilst it may be correct in terms of the national mood of 2006 in terms of Iraq, I would posit that the national mood on this issue is more complicated than you're giving it credit for. Also, Iraq is but one issue in the myriad of issues that make up political ideology and voter judgment. Don't forget this.
