One of the developing storylines that some in the mainstream media have been following over the past few days has been the wane of the moderate wing of the Republican Party. A couple of days ago, an organization made up of former GOP officials called "Mainstream 2004" has run newspaper ads imploring the Republican Party to "come back to the mainstream." On Monday, former Republican Senator Edward Brooke penned an editorial for The New York Times comparing this convention with the disastrously extremist 1964 convention at which Barry Goldwater was nominated by the party. Now USA Today has now picked up the story.

In today's paper, Andrea Stone examines the plight of GOP moderates by focusing specifically on those in Maine, a state long known for its independently-minded Republican Party. Stone finds that although the vast majority of Maine's Republicans will vote for George W. Bush in November, many are apprehensive if not reluctant to support the President's reelection effort.

[A recent Pew Research Center study] found that 83% of conservative Republicans nationwide were satisfied by their options for president. But only 57% of moderate and liberal Republicans were, down from 70% in 2000, when Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative."

Democrats have long labored to keep moderates and conservatives in their party. But this year, Republicans are nervously watching their left flank as GOP centrists express doubts about the war in Iraq, record deficits and the clout of social conservatives in the party leadership. Such disaffected moderates could determine which way Maine and other swing states go in November.

Although the GOP has gone to great lengths to appear as a moderate party at their convention, featuring such pro-choice politicians as Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger (my adoptive Governor), if the party continues its drift rightward much longer, it might be in danger of fracturing its coalition.

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a leader among centrist Republicans, said Monday that the convention's emphasis on moderates - and particularly Bush's speech Thursday night - will be a "watershed moment in the life of the Republican Party." But she warns: "It is going to have to be underscored in policies."

[...]

Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, McCain and a few other moderates often cast the key votes on controversial issues in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-48 majority.

Centrists such as Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., occasionally play a similar role in the House. "Moderates are absolutely indispensable" to maintaining a GOP majority in Congress, Shays says. But Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware, president of the Republican Main Street Partnership, referred Monday to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as "almost hostile" to moderates.

Some conservatives get the math. Newt Gingrich, who led the conservative "Republican Revolution" that won control of the House in 1994, sat on a panel Monday called, "Moderates + Conservatives = Republican Majority."

"We can create a center-right majority in America, but it is impossible to create a right-only majority," Gingrich said.

But others have no use for moderates, whom they call "RINOs" - Republicans in Name Only. "RINOs are a dying breed," says Stephen Moore of the conservative anti-tax group Club for Growth. "Rockefeller was the epitome of what we're against. He was the ultimate big-government Republican."

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot at one time promote "moderate" speakers at its convention but endorse a staunchly conservative platform; it cannot embrace moderates and then label them "RINOs" and try to defeat them in primaries (like they did of Spector).

Regardless of the outcome of this election, I cannot imagine the GOP maintaining its current coalition if it continues to cater to such non-mainstream elements. Perhaps this means the party moving back towards the center, ever so slightly, with the nomination of Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, or the likes; maybe it means the party fracturing and losing its moderate wing. Maybe this schism will even occur before this current election, denying Bush another four years and his party of the Congress. Whatever happens, the GOP of today will not be the same in four years, and that's a good thing for the American people.