With the recent op-ed in TruthOut by former Republican Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, who gives an insider perspective of the tectonic shift within the GOP, it seems clear that one of two things is happening; either the Republican Party has changed its political center to suit a new outspoken constituency, or (and I think this is more likely) the Republican Party has adopted a bunch of reactionary conservatives that seem to be wielding popular sentiment, and is hoping to ride the wave into the White House in 2012 just like they did into the House of Representatives in 2012. Here's why it won't work.

Although the Tea Party-adopted Republicans rode a wave of anti-incumbent feeling into the House of Reps in 2010, it's unlikely that will happen next year. The new Republican center has developed a take-no-prisoners anti-diplomacy that leads to more gridlock and filibustering than actual legislating. At a time when congressional action is necessary to keep many agencies, programs afloat and to protect what little economic health exists, less work is being done than ever. This was painfully obvious in the summer debt deal crisis, Amid one of the worst economic crises that this country has seen, the legislative conversation was immediately diverted from job creation to the national debt, federal spending, and the debt ceiling. In pursuing these goals the nation watched an ideological minority in congress suddenly willing push us into default, to willingly harm the credit and integrity of the country, in pursuit of their ideals.  It's very likely, with the budget bomb being reignited this fall, that Republicans will bear some public scrutiny for their legislative roadblocking in this process, which will not bode well for their candidates in 2012.

Tea Party candidates like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and even Sarah Palin (the original pseudo-candidate) have mobilized some conservative support, but have not energized the middle, which is where elections are won. In the primary race it's easy to appear radical and gain support from your respective wing, but in the general election its moderate and Independent voters that often decide the victor. This makes Tea Party candidates largely niche candidates, capable of mobilizing the right-wing but unable to sustain broad support. This is primarily because the Tea Party ideology is not only fiscally Libertarian, but socially conservative; a political platform that is only marginally successful among Millenials and Independents and will not move the swing votes.

Also, among the 2012 GOP candidates there's a strange inversion of the usual political makeup. In the past there have been a strong lineup of centrist candidates with a few outliers (sometimes just Ron Paul). In this case there is the exact opposite, with most of the candidates parroting Tea Party language and ideology, and only two candidates favoring a more centrist conservative approach. Jon Huntsman has distinguished himself as of late by taking the "reason and responsibility" approach, which will either knock him out of the primary altogether or, if more moderate Republicans speak up, catapult him past the front runners as having a real chance of winning the general election by hitting Independent swing voters.

Mitt Romney, seeing his lead in the polls disintegrate with the entrance of Tea Party favorite Rick Perry, has now been more more to the ultra-conservatives, pandering to the Tea Party which prior he had been largely ignoring. If Huntsman can't pull off a more significant lead before the primary, and everyone else likes up behind an unsustainable radical conservative platform, then the GOP chances are slim to win the general election against a presidential incumbent with hundreds of millions in the bank and, despite low approval ratings, is still better liked than the last Republican president. Either way, it's the Republican's race to lose.