Herein our dilemma is crystallized. You both have been injecting reality into this debate by referencing demographics.
I think what gets so many of us frustrated is the fact that Bush/Rove are expanding the party by morphing into left-centrists instead of educating people to the ideal of small government conservatism. It's not that hard when you have the bully pulpit. Reagan did it relentlessly. It's also a lot cheaper, and it actually does the nation good in the long run instead of actual harm, which many of his proposals will do.
Just yesterday I got into a discussion with an extreme leftist, a highly educated, wealthy Jewish lady with Democrat stickers all over her minivan (a customer, and I still made the sale- lol) and she had never even heard of the Libertarian Party. (I wasn't pushing the LP, but when I referred to it, her ignorance was startling.) We started talking politics, she was spouting the Bush conspiracy line about Iraq, blablabla, and I started talking about limited government. She was in complete agreement, but all she knew was the party line of the Dems.
My point is the need to reach people like that, they can be educated. All the spending and stuff isn't going to bring them in. A fresh outlook will, with some of them.
In the meantime, I'll just make as much noise as possible to counteract the mass stupidity out there.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
Hence the Democrats and their handmaidens in the "Reform" party and whatever other fringe group du jour who is their lineal descendant.
And once we've " converted "/educated a few, what then? There is no HYDE PARK CORNER in America. What are we to do, wander American streets playing at the Ancient Mariner ? Kidnap known Liberals, tie them up, and force them to listen to Rush and Sean and Brit and us ? I'm all for reprogramming centers a la Mao, but that's illegal and President Bush is no Reagan, when it comes to public speaking; unfortunately.