Taking it down a notch...

I think the term was "Dem-lite", in point of fact, and while I still think McCain was a bad choice to have to make, you basically made my previous point for me.

For the GOP to succeed in the next two to four years, some kind of understanding is going to have to be found between what conservatives WANT to see happen in Washington DC, and what IS going to happen in Washington DC, regardless of who is in control.

If we take Ryan as the average GOP opinion, then what they WANT to happen is a reduction in the size, scope and cost of the Federal government, a tax rate that reflects 1983 margins or lower, increased spending in national security and defense with at least a proportional cut in domestic social spending and entitlement programs, massive deregulation of such vast and varied global industries as energy production, environmental protection, resource procurement and management, infrastructure improvement, corporate and private financial practices and national health care administration. Did I miss anything?

That's a big "wish list", and making that the fundamental platform of the GOP for the next decade is going to get the GOP no closer to a controlling majority than they have right now.

Even the Great and All-Powerful Reagan didn't reduce the size of the Federal government... not by one janitor or one dollar. The most you can credit him with is reducing the rate at which government expanded. Reagan didn't eliminate agencies or programs of any real value to the left, he simply reduced the amount of increased revenue those agencies or programs could expect from his executive budget proposals... and he didn't do an awful lot of that. Reagan didn't de-regulate the financial sectors of our economy, he increased them with extended power and authority to the Federal Reserve and the the Federal Trades Commission, as well as championing the cause of "free trade" by beginning the process that would become NAFTA and CAFTA, allowing increased requirements from foreign nations to effect our production and distribution of export goods and a flood of cheap untaxed imports to compete with American products.

So why should the GOP, and its vocal conservative supporters, continue to pretend that someone is going to magically appear that will reduce the size and cost of Federal government by 25% over the next ten years; eliminate agencies like the EPA, IRS, FCC, Department of Education, FDIC, Social Security, Amtrack, NAFTA/CAFTA; end our membership in such organizations as the UN, the OAS, NATO, ANZUS, the WHO, the IMF; and institute a policy of unrestricted, unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the national economic model?

Not only are you NOT going to find this man or woman in the modern era, but even if you did (let's pretend his name is F. Ryan), who in Christ's good Name is going to vote for him? If I really thought that is what the country needed, and that it was an achievable goal for us to strive for, why didn't I vote for Ron Paul in 2008?

McCain was trying to tell the public what they wanted to hear... just like Obama. Difference was, Obama did it better.

I'm saying that the strategy that is going to make a DIFFERENCE in how this nation operates and prospers is by outlining WHAT needs (not what the GOP wants) to be done, HOW it is going to be done, and WHY that is the best way to do it. The person making this pitch to the people needs to be articulate, honest and willing (and able) to withstand some powerful abuse and scrutiny from the opposition with grace and aplomb.

Continually calling for the impossible to become possible furthers the cause of only one group... the liberals.