I had some time to waste during lunch and where is the most reliable place to go if you need to waste some time? The NY Times editorial page! Of course.
I found this gem: Divided on the Right. Same theme, different day. Republicans are crazy, extreme, driven by ideology so they are going to nominate the most moderate of the candidates and the one most likely to beat Obama. Wait, what am I missing?
The Times is confused because, "fewer than 40 percent of the primary voters on Tuesday said defeating Mr. Obama was the most important quality in a candidate," which means more than 60% (enough to stop a filibuster in the Senate) thinks a candidate that will beat Obama IS the most important thing. For the less than 40%, since it looks like Romney is going to be the candidate does it dawn on the Times that maybe, just maybe, those voters are looking to send a message about the direction they want the platform to take. How is that crazy?
The Times is outraged that more than 70 percent of the voters in Alabama and Mississippi want candidates to share their religious beliefs. Golly. And they want the candidate to be a true conservative. And horrors, they want a candidate to have "a strong moral character." A strong moral character! How dare the voters. The Times considers a desire for a strong moral character as evidence of "extreme ideology." Desire for a strong moral character is something we should criticize and avoid?
So let's summarize. Romney is not a conservative. The Republican party is dominated by the extreme elements of the party. Yet Romney is the most likely candidate of the Party, meaning he is getting at least half of the delegates. So the extremists are so confused they are voting for the moderate? Maybe the count is wrong and we should look for hanging chads. Finally, the Party is in thrall to the extremists who are taking the extreme step of wanting someone with strong moral character to occupy the Presidency.
This is pretzel logic.