Chuck got it, but I’ll play along.

“so called ‘hard conservatives’ have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on).”

Those aren’t policy views . . . those are preferences.
“Lower taxes” — how low? 10%? 5%? 1% Zero? How is that Stronger military and missle defence getting paid for?
“Stronger military” — Same problem, other way. Mandatory 20-year compulsory service? An M-1 Abrams in every driveway?
“Respect for Religion in life” — this is like being for infants and puppies. It’s a lovely sentiment that means nothing. What does being “for” religion mean? The government will hand out Bibles (that would certainly be “for” Religion)? If so, what version? If I’m a doctor, would you support my Religious view that I shouldn’t have to treat a Jew because they killed the Christ? You respect religion in life, right?

and so on . . .

I hesitate to speak for Moderates, but for me a moderate considers the issues for a specific, particular problem. How they come down will change as the facts change. Idealogues (Right and Left) don’t care what the facts are, they have an answer before they even hear the question.

Let me use your “lower taxes” policy position again as an example. Do you honestly think Democrats and/or liberals think “higher taxes” is a positive policy position? That they sit around thinking “gee, things are going swell, but we just aren’t taxing people enough!” I hope you realize that’s nonsense. Or bigger government — Dems want to create government agencies because they are bored? If all the percieved needs of their constituencies were met, and the budget was in surplus, do you think that Dems would vote to raise taxes? Create more unnecessary agencies? After all, they’re “for” higher taxes and big government, right? That’s their goal, right?

The funny thing is . . . I was always tought that this was the conservative viewpoint, rather than the liberal viewpoint. The old “roadblock” parable:

A Conservative and a Liberal are walking down the road, when they come across a roadblock running across the road. The Liberal became enraged. “This roadblock hampers travel on the road!” he thundered. “Let’s drag it to the side immediately and improve how this road works for everybody!”
The Conservative put his hand on the Liberal’s shoulder, holding him back for a moment while he spoke in a calming voice. “You are right, the roadblock does hamper travel”, he said. “Perhaps moving it will be the best solution.”
The Liberal became excited at that afirmation and surged forward to immediately dismantle the roadblock, but again the gentle hand of the Conservative gave him pause.
“Before we do proceed,” The Conservative calmly said, “Perhaps you would clarify one small detail for me.”
“Anything!” the Liberal said, eager to beging making the road a better one.
The Conservative leaned closer.
“Why is this roadblock here in the first place?” he whispered, as with a crash a giant boulder burst threw the woods on the side and rolled across the road, just on the other side of the roadblock.

Sometimes roadblocks are a useless impediment and should be removed. Sometimes they serve a purpose. To go forward with the blanket position “all roadblocks must be torn down” or “All roads must be made as fast and useful as possible” is foolish.

Guess what? Every policy belief you listed for hard conservatives is one I hold. I am for the best military, protection from missle attack, paying fewer taxes, less regulatory hassle, respect for religion and marriage. However, I’m not for wasting Trillions of dollars on useless weapons platforms simply because a contractor wants to get paid, budgeting the government into debt, letting people and industries act with Anarchistic freedom, or government control of personal matters of conscience. What’s the difference? well, after removing out the jingo-istic buzzwords . . . the difference is dependent on the situation and facts.

Those policy positions are the mantra of the far right because they (a) sound good and (b) imply the far left are opposed to them. I’m for good things, you aren’t in my “for good things club”, so you must be against good things. If I say that the far left is for: helping your fellow man as Jesus tought, protecting citizens from being abused, guarding against oppressive government and protecting the environment for our children, does that mean the far right are for letting people be killed, oppression, and dumping toxic waste on maternity wards? Of course not.

What you identify as “what hard conservatives” are for is what EVERYBODY is for. Moderates balance those ideals against practical realities in particular situations. I guess hard conservatives never do (snark).

I have noted a pattern - - - - even in the face of direct requests to state the ‘moderate’ platform, it doesn’t happen … C’mon guys - it ought not be this hard to answer the question.

You’re not going to get an answer, because your question is bunk and makes zero sense. But, you already know that. Which is why you’re standing on our soap box thumping your chest so hard. You think you’re right. You think you’ve got the ignorant rubes beat. But, the rest of us are actually laughing at you.

“Moderate” isn’t a political party. There is no platform. It’s a philosophy applied to certain aspects of life where absolutism is detrimental for more people than a less rigid position. Your grand standing on the issue is laughable, and either you’re a troll, or you simply don’t get it.

He has a Centrist record in Tallahassee where he worked with Crist.

Crist and the National GOP are tagging this Moderates Vs Conservatives

they want to make this a war

Invasion of the Lionfish (photo). Sheesh. But they are highly edible.
The Alinsky explanation for the O and the Dem agenda. Dino
The humiliations of the modern Dad. Dr. Helen. Lucky Glenn.
Moslems call for Jihad in NYC. No wonder they have a lo…

Obviously you’re using the NY Times frame of reference here. Try and be objective.

Now this is fun ….

so called ‘hard conservatives’ have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on).

If you think they’re claiming moral superiority, it may just be that you don’t like them being sure of what they believe - a lot of people think refusing to back down when challenged is somehow ‘arrogant.’

I have noted a pattern - - - - even in the face of direct requests to state the ‘moderate’ platform, it doesn’t happen …

C’mon guys - it ought not be this hard to answer the question.

Depending on what you regard as conservative I’m more conservative than Ann Coulter. However, there is one big difference. I just think liberals have a different idea about government, that’s it, end of story. Not so those folks, they just love to indulge in their liberal hate fest. Here is a new low:
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=312
Now I know there are the same type-A-personalities on the other side. However, that only has to do with a personality disorder not conservative or liberal.

So for me moderate/conservative is not the big issue. What is practical and doable is. Most of all, I’m TIRED to hear the claims of the ’shout-louder’ faction to be the honest true conservatives. Maybe they are but so are many others who might have different views on a number of topics (e.g. Iraq war) and who don’t have a pathological hatred of liberals. Just a thought: am I elitist if I’d rather listen to what David Brooks has to say (even if I don’t agree) then about musings of Joe the plumber?

“What are ‘moderates’ - beyond people who seem to think they’re somehow superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?”

Dunno — why are hard conservatives convincenced they are morally and intellectually superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?

You’re right…

Problem is, that’s just an affectation -

“We’re fair and reasonable, we try to see both sides, we’re not dogmatic, we think we all should just be able to get along ….”

Are we to be moderate in our love of freedom? In our defense of country? In our desire to leave our kids a better nation than we inherited?

What are “moderates” - beyond people who seem to think they’re somehow superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?