One thing I will throw at you: I'm not sure I'm buying your premise about Bush 41. First off, let me say that you are correct that the tax hike caused a mass defection of the base. But I don't neccessarily agree that the reason he lost was the tax hike/defection.
I remember that year well. Clinton was a WEAK candidate. He "came back" about 3 times that year. Bush still should have won, and probably would have, even WITH the mass defections, save for 3 events:
1) Pat Buchanan uttering the words "religious war" at the convention.
2) Goofy-man entering as a 3rd party candidate on his personal vendetta against the Bushs.
3) Bush 41 looking at his watch during one of the debates.
The first drove away the soccer moms that might have given Bush the win. The second drew in not tax hawks, but deficit hawks (that was his main campaign theme), also "Reagan" union types and anti-NAFTA folks. The third gave the impression to the mushy middle that Bush didn't really want the job, so they gladly obliged. (and don't forget about the "little things" - supermarket scanner, "bozos", etc .
My premise is (and always will be) is that the election is won by winning over the mushy middle. If the base defects, you have to pull in even more of the middle, but you can still win. Bush would have STILL won (most people thought Billy-Boy was a joke) if it hadn't been for those events I listed above.
So once again, I don't buy your premise. There are many political analysts, poll analysts, etc. who post at FR. Maybe they can tell us whose premise is correct?
"3) Bush 41 looking at his watch during one of the debates."
If I'm recalling the last days before the election correctly, President Bush (GHW) also said "he's crazy," in reference to Clinton, which got a lot of media play and effectively killed off what appeared to be a late polling swing to his favor.
"2) Goofy-man entering as a 3rd party candidate on his personal vendetta against the Bushs."
"Goofy-man" got almost a fifth of the vote.
His biggest issues were trade, and Mexico.
Immigration and the Mexican problem was an issue even way back then. Now it's an issue that can't be kicked down the road anymore.
If we do not wish to repeat the result of 1992, we need to behave differently than we did then. Specifically, the leaders need to give the key elements of the base what they want and bring the party united into the election.
They show no inclination to do so.
Like 1993 and the Contract, they WILL after they have lost Congress in 2006. I'd prefer not to have to go through a loss in order to get to the same place that we ought to be getting to right now while we still have Congress.