Yes, still confusion ... however

I think I've identified the problem.

You keep using the word "moderate", but after reading your last few posts I think you mean to write "average" American. You see, by 2010 "moderate" has become a politically loaded phrase. In fact, a political class all unto itself. Someone whom generally likes tax cuts; believes in global warming; soft on gay marriage; doesn't mind quick wars; believes teachers need more pay no matter the state's economic situation; defends the freedom to become rich but doesn't really trust people who are, etc, etc - you get the picture. The voter I believe you mean to identify is the "average - not particularly politically engaged outside of their vote because they're too busy raising their kids & going to work - American", whom could cast their ballot either way depending on how effective the messenger (i.e. candidate) is in a given cycle. Is that correct?

If so, and what you're saying (writing) is that we need a conservative that can effectively, and plainly, communicate how conservative ideals/policy will benefit them and America as a whole, then we are on the same page. Conservatives need to plainly lay out a cohesive alternative so as to engage the average American, not the political moderate, is what I believe you are attempting to get across.

And if what you were trying to say about McCain is he couldn't cohesively lay out a conservative alternative because he is not a "conservative" (at least not on the highest profile issues), then I agree and have been espousing that since shortly after he won the nomination. In fact he is the quintessential political moderate, when he's not in a primary fight that is. Whatever Obama said was the answer to our economic woes (or immigration) he essentially answered, "yes, government or amnesty is the answer, but only a little." Well hell, if both candidates agree on what the solution is, why vote for the guy offering only a "little" of that agreed upon solution? McCain was the quintessential "them light" candidate ... or "political moderate."

On Paul Ryan ...

... just a thought, not picking a fight. Yes, Garfield was the only sitting House member elected (he was simultaneously the Senator-elect via the vote of the Ohio state legislature). However, how many candidates have been elected directly from the Senate? 3? Including Obama I count (top of my head) JFK & Warren G. Harding as the other 2. The vast majority have been elected directly from either governorships (17) or VPs (14). This means that before Obama there was just as many generals as Senators , and only 1 more Senator than House Representative. And if I'm recalling right Obama is the only sitting first term senator to win the presidency. My point in all this is that given the new communication mediums that aided Obama - 24 hour news, countless social networking sites, instant media access via the web and a plethora of mobile devices - perhaps innovations in communication, the raw ability to get your message out in non traditional forms, means the time has come when a modern day House member can make a viable run. But I will plainly admit, it's still "unlikely." As a VP though, he easily makes any short list.

On Jindal ...

I've been texting, posting and otherwise singing his praises for well over a YEAR now, you Bobby-come-lately rascal you! I told you flatly to watch him as the presidential candidate on the make since he won the LA governor's mansion. Solid conservative, bright as all hell, and yes, he marks "present" in the minority check box.

Let me now offer my dark horse candidate ...

Patraeus. General David Patraeus, commander of all US forces in the Near East (and now in direct ground command in Afghanistan after the recent McChrystal dust up). He's a "warrior Ph.D", literally. Word is he's a traditional conservative family man, low taxes, all the normal ducks in a row. And he is the ONE thing no presidential candidate running this cycle can lay claim to (besides being a 4 Star General) - he's NOT an incumbent, of any kind. Countless sound bites of Obama praising him, unquestionable leadership ability (so he must be able to communicate his message), the pros are endless. He would need to retire in the next 12 months to make it viable, which is unlikely. But then again, he is my dark horse candidate.

Cheerio lads ...