I am saying the team says: “I don’t care what the quarterback’s problem was, you don’t walk out during a big game; you handle your disagreement some other way, some other time. And I’ll be damned if I or any other coach in this league wants to try to win a game with a quarterback who may get up and quit at any time.”
***This happened before, when the Republicans split off from the Whigs. I really don’t care what the Whigs had to say at that point, they were simply wrong. And since that time, most people say, “who were the Whigs”? In other words, it’s the END of that team. So your team is acting like the crew of the Titanic, rearranging deck chairs when the ship goes down. So, you can keep making this look like the team is changing out one or 2 players, but in reality this would be a death blow to the team. So you need to adjust your analogy to the point where you start to see it that way, and then process accordingly.
I don’t know if the Republican party just hit an iceberg. Most of the passengers on the Titanic didn’t know in the beginning, only a select few were encouraged to get onto the half-empty lifeboats. Basically, we hit something in the night, the captain isn’t telling us what we hit because he thinks that by keeping all of us on the boat he can maintain the facade of grandiosity.
You may be right. But the point is, it could go either way, don’t you think?
It could be that the team crashes and goes away. But it could also be that the team adapts, improvises and overcomes. That it moves on and more or less permanently shuts out those who quit.
If the latter happened-—and it likely will if, for example, McCain were to win with Independents and Reagan Democrats and over the loud objections of conservatives-—those who walked will be marginalized for good, just like strikers who are replaced by new employees.
That would not be a good thing for our country, if it were to come about. And the substantial risk exists.