Alex wrote: Crappy power Republicans do not represent the wishes of the majority of the party in the Majority Party
I agree. What I don’t understand is that given this, why do you think that enlarging this already ineffectual conservative majority will help you take the party away from the strong government Republicans who have controlled it since its birth? I’ve already seen good conservatives spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do precisely what you’re advocating, only to eventually quit the party in disgust, their lesson learned the hard way.
You will never be allowed to seize the reins of power. Do you truly believe that it is happenstance that the same sort of quasi-moderate Republicans keep getting nominated, regardless of whether they are electable or not? Do you think it is an accident that the party is always trying to unseat one of its most popular members, Ron Paul? The notion of “fixing” the Republican Party is like trying to take over a Fortune 500 company to bring your product to market instead of starting a new business. It may look easier, but the reality is harder because you have an active opposition.
Only those who think outside the box ever have the ability to create significant change. The two-party system exists for a reason and only way to break out of the long-term bipartisan direction is to build a third party. And a third party will never grow unless those who are sympathetic to its goals are willing to give up their addiction to the status quo. That’s my take on it. Perot and the Reform party were not a genuine movement as they had no ideology, however, they did show that their is real discontent. Just imagine if Perot had not been a goofy-looking loon, but a principled and properly polished candidate committed to liberty.