That is not true. The party does stand for a couple things. Not those that you'd expect it to stand for, though. Both parties stand for one thing: for power, for control of the country. Not for much else.
And yet, time and time again, ever since Reagan, they're all the Republican party offers on the presidential stage.
They offer "their men." If they win - good. If not then it's still OK. The party still gets seats in Congress and can do things. When you have only two parties, and when those two parties only struggle for the *exact* division of the pie between them, then we have this problem. The party lost because it didn't really want to win. It didn't have to.
To this day, I still have no idea what any of the above folks ran on.
They ran on something that does not go against the interests of both parties. Ron Paul made some waves, where is he? Herman Cain made some small waves, where is he? A "radical" candidate cannot be nominated. The secret is simple: only the candidate who nobody cares about is going to be nominated. Who took Herman Cain out? Was it D, or was it R?
We the People need to take back the Republican party before we do anything else.
It's minimally possible. The party does not belong to the members of the party. It belongs to the functionaries of the party. It's their plaything.
There is a deeper problem, though. Regardless of the party, the popular vote is still for Obama. It means that people of this country want Obama's money. He just bought them. If the party suddenly comes to its senses and nominates a great candidate (say, Sarah Palin) the end result will be exactly the same: 51% of the country will vote for free money. Why shouldn't they? Especially if Sarah immediately announces that her government will make people work! Imagine that audacity, make them WORK! They don't need your WORK, they are doing fine living on Obama's money, thank you very much. Obama voters will stop voting for Obama only when they will be better off with someone else. But Obama opened the spigot of national debt and offered the proceeds to the people. How can you outdo this? Especially when a responsible leader will call for tightening of the belt, for working harder, for making products - not for printing money as if there is no tomorrow.
So there are two problems: first, existing R's are no good, and second, people don't want R's of any sort anyway. You have to solve both problems at the same time, otherwise Sarah will lose to a newcomer who promises to open Fort Knox to the rabble. (I guess that would be perfectly safe, though, since there is nothing inside.)
I personally suspect that there are only the following solutions. One is in political separation; another is letting the illness take its course. Eventually the government runs out of other people's money - and then the same rabble that elected it will happily burn it down. That always happens when you pander to the crowd.
Interestingly enough, the same problem - incompatible view on life - is seen in marriages. Divorces are legal, and that's the most popular solution. But a divorce on the scale of the USA is practically impossible. The conservatives are just a minority, on par with Indians or immigrants. Why would anyone care what the minority wants? In other words, I think it can't get better until it gets worse - much worse. If you look at USSR, they were never a healthy society. But it took the system almost a century to rot and die. The new system, somewhat more sane, was able to rise only on the rubble of the old one.
I can’t dispute anything you’ve said, but I think the horrors of Obamacareless may scare just enough of them straight.
Or maybe I’m dead wrong. Your scenario is 1000% correct.
Either way, I’m not giving up. It may be a fool’s errand, but what the heck ? What do I have to lose ?
If Sarah doesn’t want to put her family through a presidential campaign (which is beyond understandable given what kind of animals are on the left), wouldn’t she be a great person to lead the RNC ?
Spot on!