Rather than rehashing this separately, would you mind taking a look at the exchange that Common Tator and I had with some others on a thread yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513219/posts
"DeWine and the Filibuster: This Bears Repeating From Yesterday"
I've hashed out other items such as this with some others in the past, too, but I'm not motivated right now to search for it. I'll probably cover some below, though.
The Republican's "will to win" is much greater now than it was even 5 years ago, but if you do NOT HAVE the votes, and can not get them, you have to take what you can get. Sometimes that is simply to slow the march toward the leftist vision, not even to halt it. You have to take that, and then work to slow it even further. Reagan was great at expressing and implimenting this - many of those who aspire to his views simply don't comprehend that major principle, though.
For much of the "conservative agenda", there simply are not enough votes. (Examples: passing a balanced budget amendment, marriage amendment, term limits). That is not because of (for example) Southerners' desire for sure, and they just can't comprehend the problems Blue State Republicans have and why they keep contributing RINOs to the Senate, etc. Their attitude is, "If you're going to elect a Republican, they ought to be voting in support of a conservative agenda at all times." That type of Republican CAN NOT BE ELECTED in far too many states. We can go ahead and nominate them in the primary - but they are very very likely to lose the general election. We MUST settle on what we have, and concentrate on extending our strength little by little, and with great patience.
Neither the President nor the Party have a great deal of clout with these Blue State "moderate" Republicans. THEY are the ones who have much of the power after all, because any time they want to, they can join a coalition with the all-liberal-all-the-time Demodogs, pass (or block) that agenda item, and move on from there without any fear that THEIR constituency will vote them out! In fact, the more often they do that, the more they WEAKEN the remainder of the "majority" because the not-so-moderates get blamed and those are the ones who get hurt by their disgruntled electorate because "they can't get anything good done". Thus, it is important for the not-so-moderates to avoid ruffling the feathers of the moderates as much as possible and keep that weakening from happening. This is a fine balance, and it is why the job of "herding cats" that the Majority Leader has is so difficult. He HAS to work WITH the "moderates".
Committee assignments and agenda control are about the only way the M.L. can adjust attitudes, and that runs afoul of the ruffled feathers stuff above. And as far as the President's power over Senators, it seems virtually unavailable with the ever-increasing power of the incumbency.
Last shot, down and dirty and completely frank about this: if ANY of the "Blue State" RINOs choose to vote against Alito, that choice may hurt THEIR reelection chances, but if conservatives DO exact that penalty and they are replaced by the inevitable Demodog, the conservatives consign that seat to a liberal instead of a RINO, probably for about 20 years. Is such revenge really productive? That puts this nomination in a very tenuous situation indeed, and the President recognizes this far better than most FReepers.
One think I did agree with Newt Gingrich about. It was his Contract with America. Newt only put items on the contract that had 70 percent support.
And Guess what.. Bill Clinton stole nearly every one and helped pass them into law.. INLCUDING WELFARE REFORM.
What that tells poltiical movements is in effect the politicans are not very important. If one can get 70 percent of the voters to favor something, then all one has to do is put that item on the table and politicians from both parties will work to pass it.
If one of us could wave a majic wand and convert enough voters so that 51 percent were conservatives, politicians begging to do their will would come out of the woodwork to pass nearly evey conservative measure.
Politicians are always about pleasing the voters. If the voters in a state or district aree moderate the politicians from that state or disctict will be moderate. If the voters are liberal the politicians will be liberal. If the voters are conserative the politicians will be conservative.
The key for success of the left or right is education of the public. I have often felt that the biggest danger to Democrats is FOX News. Fox news only favors the right a little bit. That means that lots of moderates watch it and even some on the left watch it. Some of them will be converted. Rush, Hannity, and Air America only talk to their bases. But a media that is only a tiny bit to the right can change the world.
The Democrats control most of the media but do not underestand it. They play to the home team and convert no one. Thank goodness.
The world is changing .. but it will never be changed by candidates for office. It will be changed by movements that convert others to their views and cause.
Convert enough voters and the job will be done.. NO further effort is needed. Politicians will fight to do their will.