[GraceCoolidge]

I do want an intra-party fight so that we--the so-called ideologues--can finally exercise power instead of chafing under the governance of party leaders who care little about important issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and who treat politics as a game instead of as a war. The absolute last thing I want to see is the GOP turned into a mushy, stand-for-nothing party.

You make an excellent point, and I think most conservatives share your desire for a more ideologically conservative party. Here's what worries me about your position, though: even if you are correct and ultimately true conservatives prevail in an intra-party fight, what if the price, short term, is something like a Hillary Clinton presidency? I don't think the kind of fight you envision is something resolved within a year or two between elections. Is the long term victory worth the shorter term losses from a divided party that would put government control with the left? And if so, how long would it take the conservatives, assuming they prevail intra-party and electorally, to undo the damage from Democrat control? There are high prices to pay no matter which course of action one favors, I think.

[hispanichoosier]

There are high prices to pay no matter which course of action one favors, I think.

Excellent point. If Goldwater hadn't been the GOP nominee in 1964, perhaps Johnson wouldn't have been so successful in screwing up America with his "War on Poverty" and other liberal programs. Then again, without Goldwater we wouldn't have had Reagan...and without Reagan I doubt we would've won the Cold War. It's only in retrospect that we can truly appreciate the importance of who our candidates are.