Both parties face a fine line in trying to satisfy both its moderates and not so moderates. I would argue that Bush is very NOT moderate, and yet when it comes to national elections, or elections in swing-to-liberal states, you'll notice he always pushes the moderate choice. Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey--Richard Riordan (yes, he's a mess) over that guy that Gray Davis actually defeated. Because remember, the Republicans have internalized the message that winning trumps ideology, because at the end of the day, Bush can always sic someone like "the Hammer" on the moderates.
So now we see from this article (from the Times, registration required) that the social conservatives in the Republican party are chafing that they don't have enough face time at the convention and people like Schwarznegger, Giuliani, and McCain will be speaking (although I'd hardly call McCain a moderate--he just seems that way now). But too bad, run to the middle they must, because it seems that swing voters will run screaming from the likes of the Christian Coalition in full glory (as well they should).
As much as we despise the Republican leadership, we do tend to look at their successes with envy, wondering what makes them win. Is it taking one hardline stand and sticking to it under all circumstances (as some have suggested the Democrats ought to do as well)? Well, no--the answer is a bit more complicated. They may have their eyes on the social conservative/neocon prize, but they've learned to coat this in sugar candy pretty well (since the loss in 92 was blamed in part because too much of their racist, fundamentalist "slip" was showing).
Anyway, maybe it works (and I have to think that Rove only does these things because he thinks they work), but it's sort of fascinating to see Republican true believers mirroring OUR true believers.