From page to of an LA Times story:

Many of the Republican House members who were defeated were moderates who suffered as Bush dug in on Iraq and his party drifted to the right.”This election is the end of the Republican revolution. They became too narrow and too extreme and too rigid in every way,” said Matt Bennett, vice president of Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “They lost sight of the fact that moderates and independents are the kingmakers of American politics.”

OK, I’d be the first to want to promote anti-war Republicans, and get the hawk-wing excised from our definition of “conservative.” (There was a time when getting involved in overseas wars was considered to be a progressive, liberal idea. I’m not arguing good or bad; just making an observation about how our definitions and associations for “right-wing” have dramatically changed.)

But leaving that aside, is this not some hardcore wishful thinking? If the republicans who lost their seats were disproportionately moderate, then the problem is not with the party “moving to the right.” The problem was the party had too many moderates.