"There is little to be done with the Cut Off Their Noses to Spite Their Facers. It is one threat after the other from them and as a consequence they cannot be TRUSTED or relied upon. And they are NOT the base. The Base sticks with the President through thick and thin and defends him against the enemies of us all. The Base does not cut and run away whining about the issue de jour."
I disagree profoundly.
The TaxBots walked right out of the party and voted for Ross Perot in 1992 because Bush 41 broke his "No new taxes" pledge.
The AbortionBots were ready to abandon the GOP over Miers. They had spend too many years in the trenches building slow momentum, with the Supreme Court as the target, to allow the President to gamble everything on somebody they did not trust. They abandoned the President, and got in his face. At that point, the President flinched and gave them what they wanted, because there was no strong OPPOSING constituency within the GOP fighting for Miers other than Bush himself (note, however, that BusinessBots do tend to be socially liberal and pro-choice; however, abortion is not a direct dollars and cents issue, and if the choice is a pro-life judge or higher Democrat taxes, BusinessBots will stick with a pro-life GOP). Once again, a key, core constituency was at the threshold and walking out the door, and had to be brought back with a concession.
Now, perhaps there was some overlap between the 1992 TaxBots and the 2005 AbortionBots, but probably less than you'd think. Most pro-lifers are religious Christians, and not very well off. Tax cuts barely benefit most of them anyway, because many are so poor they don't pay federal income taxes. So, you have two separate constituencies that have both threatened to abandon a President Bush if he did not accede to their wishes. Bush 43 did, so the AbortionBots didn't defect, but Bush 41 didn't, and the TaxBots marched out and either stayed home or voted for Perot in protest.
Did the TaxBots cut off their nose to spite their face? Not in the long run, no. They got Congress back in 1994, and no national Republican has supported a tax hike since. The party understands that taxes are one of the "third rails" of Republican politics.
Did the AbortionBots cut off their nose to spite their face last year? No. They got judge Alito instead of Miers, because the President looked into their eyes and saw that they were not bluffing.
You imply that there is a cadre of screamers in the GOP. Maybe. But I think that TaxBots, AbortionBots and BorderBots are different groups of people. Of course there is some overlap, but there are millions of single-issue voters. Other than taxes, pro-life issues, and the border now, I can't think of any other issue all the way back to Reagan's taking power in 1980 that had Republicans screaming so loudly that the base was imperilled. In short: I don't see the professional screamers you see. I see committed blocs of single issue voters.
Now, as to "the base sticking with the President through thick and thin", I would say that is true of the BushBot loyalist base. To you folks (I am assuming you are one of them), the party is ABOUT following the leadership of the President. That's what party MEANS. So single-issue folks who will abandon the President vocally and catastrophically anger you, because you think that's betrayal.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that Bush loyalists are THE base of the Republican Party, as you do. I think that if Bush were proposing anti-gun legislation as McCain has, that GunBot conservatives would come out of the hills and make it clear that they were going to tube the GOP if it didn't back off. When you hold power through a coalition of single-issue factions, you've got to keep each of those factions.
There are not an unlimited number of factions: Tax Hawks, Pro-Lifers, Gun Rights advocates, Business and Party loyalists. That the Border was SUCH a contentious issue as to have its own militant faction within the Party was not fully visible until this year. But it is now, and we cannot win without them, so just like all of the other core constituencies, we have to give them something that they want. Unfortunately, unlike the other core constituencies, whose interests do not conflict one with the other, the BorderBots key issue directly harms the finances of BusinessBots. An enforced border means heavy additional costs to employers. So, somebody is going to be made unhappy by the decision, whichever way it goes. Thus far, the Party has gone 100% with the BusinessBots, to the point of improving the situation for businesses by proposing a massive guest labor program. That is going to drive a million BorderBots right out of the Party if it is sustained. Business gives a lot of money, but it can't vote. That's the problem.
Anyway, I don't think your "Screw 'em, they're not reliable anyway" view is going to work - unless we want to lose - and I don't think it's true anyway. I think BorderBots are reliable conservatives who are ate up about the Border.
And I don't think that refusing to give them what they want, when what they want is enforcement of existing laws and the reasonable closing of the Border, is absurd or excessive. I think that failing to give them anything is going to cost us Congress, and that means we lose the war and the President is impeached. We can't afford that. So we have to appease these people. We can always reverse ourselves later if they don't come back.
I consider this issue to be the height of stupidity when it becomes Rule or Ruin and can never support giving in to stupidity. Your analysis is glib but greatly overrates the separation between the Single Issuers. If such was the case I would not be seeing the same names threatening yet again to doom the party by staying home. Nor do I share your optimism that they can be appeased short of Nuking Mexico City.
And the costs of allowing Clinton to achieve office greatly exceeded any benefit the Gullible achieved by voting for a Crackpot. It endangered our National Security to such an extent we are now threatened far more than we were. It allowed al Queda and Iraq to become a far greater problem than it should. And it disgraced the Presidency and showed just how deluded the American People can be at times.
Nor was Miers opposed to anything the Pro-life wing wanted no matter what they thought. Miers would have been confirmed had she not withdrawn after the Lynch Mob formed and went howling through the streets.
A political leader of merit cannot hop from one group of outraged to the other without becoming a democrat. That is one of the things I admire in the President, his refusal to vacilate with the wind direction.
To me the party is NOT about the President per se. It is about defending and standing up with the President when under outrageous attacks by corps of Liars because he is doing the RIGHT thing. We see NOTHING positive coming out of a reduction in GOP power and IMMENSE harm to the Nation.