That doesn't seem to be working out for you very well, does it? In that entire 40 years, we've elected exactly one conservative to the White House. And a reasonable question for you would be, did you ever join in the group-think of the time that said Reagan was unelectable? And since Reagan, the trend hasn't been good at all. Maybe you should try something different. Just a thought.
I was involved in HUGE groups who KNEW that Reagan WAS electable, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
There were two groups in the R party then, as now: we called them the "Rockefeller Republicans". They still exist. If President Bush had not been nominated, one of them would be president now, or algore would be.
You think it impossible to do worse than Bush?
You just wait: if Pataki, Guliani, or another northeast "republican" should ever get nominated, they WOULD be elected. You'll then realize, belatedly, why it is important to nominate the most conservative ELECTABLE R possible. You would see an expansion of the government that would make your head spin.
No matter President Bush's faults to the "conservatives" (who were also in the forefront of criticizing President Reagan's "art of compromise), his faults pale in comparison to the person who would be holding that office were it not him.
Progress has been, and is continuing to be made, by conservatives. It would be better to work to continue that progress, rather than working to eliminate those who have been responsible for any of the progress that has been made.