Will the '12 Republican primary field face the same pressures as the '08 field?

[Jacobtm]

We all saw McCain and Romney falling all over themselves in '08 to conform to the Republican line on just about every issue. Part of this was that "the base" believes in these positions. Part of it was the media's supposition about what a Republican should be, pressing politicians to clarify their positions on all the hot-button issues that had defined the Republican party.

After 4 years out of power, is there any chance that Republicans like Romney, or any other moderate, could try to re-define Republicanism away from focus on "family values" issues, or is that suicide?

[Smid]

In 2008, the Republican "brand" was somewhat tarnished in the eyes of a war-weary electorate. Consequently, when it was expected that independents would break in favour of the Democrats, the Republican candidate needed to bring out the base in order to stand any chance of winning. This was particularly the case for a candidate with a moderate/maverick reputation, such as McCain, or a candidate whose social views were considered fabricated, such as Romney, as there was some debate as to whether a moderate candidate could bring out the evangelical voters who helped return Bush in 2004.

Republicans in 2012 may go either way depending on the mid-term results and polling in the interim. If people have a low opinion of the Republican Party in 2012, it's possible that the Republican candidate may label themselves a "new" Republican, in the same was as Tony Blair rebadged the Labour Party as "New Labour" and its beliefs as the "Third Way." It's also possible that the Republican candidate may instead "dog-whistle" conservative values in order to bring out conservative values. I guess it really depends on which candidate wins the Primary.

[Jacobtm]

I'm talking specifically about the primary campaign. Will Mitt Romney need to re-assert that he has no tolerance for homosexuality, or could he actually admit that they really don't creep him out too much?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm talking specifically about the primary campaign. Will Mitt Romney need to re-assert that he has no tolerance for homosexuality, or could he actually admit that they really don't creep him out too much?

Ignorance. Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean intolerance. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney.

[Dan the Roman]

I'm talking specifically about the primary campaign. Will Mitt Romney need to re-assert that he has no tolerance for homosexuality, or could he actually admit that they really don't creep him out too much?

Ignorance. Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean intolerance. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney.

In 2002. They backed McCain I believe this time.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm talking specifically about the primary campaign. Will Mitt Romney need to re-assert that he has no tolerance for homosexuality, or could he actually admit that they really don't creep him out too much?

Ignorance. Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean intolerance. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney.

In 2002. They backed McCain I believe this time.

And in 1994.

[Brittain33]

There is a distinction between LCR endorsing a Republican in the primary and in the general election. The latter is a given unless the candidate has explicitly defined himself as being anti-gay or aligns his campaign with vocal opposition to gay rights.

In both 1994 and 2002, Romney was fairly pro-gay rights. Certainly by national standards... didn't he say he could be a better advocate for gay rights in the Senate than Ted Kennedy? In 2002, he was courting gay activists in private meetings. (Shut up. You know what I mean.) It was only after he started looking at national office seriously that he changed.

[Jacobtm]

I'm talking specifically about the primary campaign. Will Mitt Romney need to re-assert that he has no tolerance for homosexuality, or could he actually admit that they really don't creep him out too much?

Ignorance. Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean intolerance. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Mitt Romney.

Denying the right to marry to consenting adults because they're gay is intolerance of different lifestyles. All the other rhetoric is just an effort to justify/obscure that intolerance.

Log Cabin Republicans are probably endorsing whoever they think has the best chance of winning and changing his mind as President.

Mitt Romney and McCain both showed that they didn't believe in the Republican orthodoxy 100%, then changed their minds publicly to try to win nomination. LCR's could be excused the hope that once the most powerful man on earth, either might buck the party's base and start advocating for gay equality.

[Joe Republic]

For one thing, Independent voters in open primary states won't be drawn away by a Democratic nomination contest (presumably), which means the Republicans will have a bigger market group.  Thus, there's a teeny bit more breathing space for those candidates who lag behind within the Republican bloc.

By the way, Log Cabin Republicans have it all wrong.  If you're going to be a gay Republican, you have to be extraordinarily homophobic first, and then be caught with your pants down.  Anything else is a terrible strategy.