During the summer "lull" of the 2008 presidential election year, the candidates are beginning to, as they always do, shift their focus away from locking up primary votes to locking up general election ones. Historically, this has involved a move to the center, away from the more polarized voter base that participates in the selection of a party's nominee. But, as in many respects, this year has some exceptions.

John McCain's shift to the middle begin the day he entered politics. Since he was elected Arizona senator nearly 30 years ago, he has been both hailed (by Democrats and the media) and cursed (by Republicans and conservatives) as a "maverick." More recently, he has teamed with Democrats championing anything but conservative causes: campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants. While unquestionable on the Iraq War and our soldiers, he used the New York Times to combat Bush's domestic surveillance program that has been an integral part of our national security. I have not seen him shift at all this summer: even in the midst of cries for cheaper gasoline, which conservative policy could easily provide, McCain is offering hundreds of millions of dollars for a battery! He has shifted on one thing I can find: tax cuts, where he has been proven wrong by a strong economy and an actually increased share of tax revenue by the wealthy. (Tax cuts for the rich? I think not!) The point? McCain is in the middle, and always has been.

What of the other? Barack Obama's shift to the center has come startlingly quickly and clumsily. It was so hasty that the New York Times cried for his head in an editorial titled "New and Not Improved." He is offering to "revise" his position on troop withdrawal in Iraq and contemplate offshore drilling. He is agreeing to continue allowing government grants flow to faith-based initiatives, a Bush policy deemed a violation of the separation of church and state by liberals. He expressed favor for the Supreme Court's overturning of the D.C. gun ban, while previously expressing his support for this very ban. The point here? Obama is now shifting to fight McCain for the middle.

Both candidates are now fighting over a single group of voters. But this battle is based on a fundamentally flawed concept, i.e., this group is the one that picks the president.

The polar ends of the electorate choose the president, not the idiots we see on NBC after a debate labeled as the "undecided voter." And this is historically true, even back to Carter. According to polling data, moderates have been forming a small and decreasing percentage of the general electorate since the early 70s, a key fact for Bush's campaign strategy. But more on that in a bit.

Jimmy Carter was elected for two main reasons: he was a liberal (and thus was voted for by liberals), and he was from the South, arguably the most important region for a candidate to win. (We can all agree that the South is right of center and will choose the Republican. After all, only two of the past seven presidents have been Democrats, and both were from the South.)

Ronald Reagan campaigned as a far-right conservative, and was able to inspire all Americans to vote for him. His conservative base guaranteed his victories; his Great Communicating that inspired moderates and liberals gave him his 44- and 49-state landslides. George H.W. Bush was elected on Reagan's immense popularity only.

Bill Clinton is a moderate, but on the left side of center. The reason he was able to win (never with a majority of popular votes) was by weak opponents: the unpopular tax-hiker George H.W. Bush and the lame Nixonian relic Bob Dole. His acceptance of conservatism from the Republican Congress and fallout from the Reagan tax cuts gave him a strong economy, and his ignorance of foreign threats gave him a peaceful decade. This resulted in his extensive popularity, almost enough to get his veep elected in 2000. But in that case, deep-pocket campaigning won again.

George W. Bush won in 2000 against nearly every single statistical odd possible (even the popular vote itself!). Bill Clinton was popular, despite the stains (no pun intended) of the Lewinsky scandal. Al Gore was heavily identified with the success of the 90s, not the kook global warming alarmist fringe he is today. Bush was a bold-headed Texas cowboy with an embarrassing past, little experience, a "threat" to the success of the Clinton legacy, and did I mention his daddy was a bad pwesident?

How does one change the White House's party after eight years of peace and prosperity? Karl Rove knew the answer: deep-pocket campaigning. Go for the base. And in 2000, it worked brilliantly.

Bush campaigned as an uncompromising conservative. He fought for nearly everything the GOP's base stood for, with minor exceptions like education and immigration reform. His conservatism was further contrasted with the "maverick," John McCain, his only serious contender for the nomination. The reason it was so close in the general was the remnants of Clinton's popularity. The base, however, overcame that deficit, albeit in an unconventional way.

2004 was textbook. Had Bush possessed Reagan's communication skills, he could have won by a much larger margin. But even with a minority of Americans approving of his job as president, he won re-election with 51% of the popular vote, the first time since his father's 1988 victory that a candidate got over 50% of the vote. And according to exit polls, the reason voters chose George W. Bush was "moral issues." His base, and thus his voters, identified with his idealogy and values as a conservative.

What does this have to do with 2008? Since 2004, the Bush administration's ideology has been marred or lost. Bush has approved budgets nearing and exceeding $3 trillion, wiping out the gains made in reducing the deficit by his 2003 tax cuts. His nomination of Harriet Miers, support of amnesty, and stubbornness on Iraq policy have caused his conservative base considerable grumbling and disdain. Right now, because of one man and certain circumstances, it is uncool to be a conservative.

This is why a moderate is on the GOP ticket. McCain coudl not be further from a Bush third term (I wish he were; I'd vote for Bush in a second if I could) and still be a Republican. But Obama knows that liberals cannot get elected as liberals, so he has to shift to the right.

Voters claim to be moderates, but I believe they are conservatives at heart alienated and confused by a poor three years of the Bush administration, which so heavily associated itself with conservatism. It is guilt by association. The middle is a ghost, and the sleeping giant of a conservative ideology will require only one man of charisma and patriotism to awaken it. Who is that man? I believe our first chance is Mitt Romney, our second Bobby Jindal. But it really doesn't matter who it is. He or she just needs to appear.

This election is void of a conservative. That means it will be a referendum on Obama and his ideology, which is decidedly liberal (as the electorate knows and will learn as the campaigns continue). Anyone can find common ground with a moderate, but a liberal will alienate a lot of Americans. If Obama cannot successfully fool voters into thinking he is a moderate, he will lose. This ghost of a middle is why Hillary Clinton was (or is) the more viable candidate for the Democrats. She, too, can easily get its vote, a senator with a very moderate voting record.

The phantom of a middle will decide this election, but will re-discover itself as conservatism once again with the right man as it did in 1980 and 2000. And we faithful few are waiting for that day with great anticipation.