Seen little evidence of it so far.

I think you misread 2006. 2006 is when the Democratic Party realized that it had to actively recruit people who do not fit the Republican stereotype of what Democrat can be. In particular, they recruited a lot of candidates who didn’t have much in common except being anti-war. What’s so grassroots/netroots Democrat about Heath Schuler, Jim Webb, Bob Casey Jr.?

In my opinion, 2006 did indicate a trend in which the Democratic Party engaged in a little affirmative action toward social conservatives while staying true to its roots on environmental, economic and foreign policy matters, and I think this was a good thing because it provides diversity of viewpoint within the party and encourages voters to identify as Democrats even if they don’t march in lockstep with the party on every issue. I certainly don’t; for example, I think the Assault Weapons Ban was stupidly written and I have yet to see a convincing argument for card check instead of a law that would give employees the right to discuss unionization on employer property.

The more the Party can encompass people who might oppose a position held by a particular Democratic interest group, the larger and better it will be.

You’re an expert on how those evil Rethuglikkkans think, but I would think would you know your own party even better.

Care to share?

‘…because the leaders of the [INSERT ANY PARTY HERE] don’t give a fuck about their values, only power.’”

Don’t play false equivalencies with me. I don’t fall for that bullshit.

“…because the leaders of the [INSERT ANY PARTY HERE] don’t give a fuck about their values, only power.”

Those bastards — each of their separate little soon-to-be-warring subgroups of bastards — would have no problem taking as many of the rest of us with them as they possibly can. They have no restraint, no morality except that power is good. And they’re full of free-floating rage.

If they see they’re really losing and going to lose, they’ll start killing people, en masse. Look how close they are already.

Which is funny because Obama has been hammering McCain over the issue in ads in Bowers/Atrios’ backyard. I hear the ads all the time. It’s good to see someone not afraid to address the issues as well as knock the Republican back on their heels.

Isn’t Robertson older than McCain? He might be the titular head, but someone younger(Ralph Reed?) will have to do the heavy lifting.

1.) Value Voters
2.) NeoCons
3.) Libertarians

and…

4.) The real conservatives (smallest faction).

This would have the effect of killing the party, because only the fourth group has any real chance of getting the independent vote (unless Ron Paul is in charge of the Libertarians).

On a side note, the main reason the party is around today and has not splintered previously, is because the leaders of the Value Voters don’t give a fuck about their values, only power.

I’ve got some fundamentalists in my family, but most of the self-described Republicans I know are socially liberal, and I believe social progress is inevitable. Every generation is more accepting of racial minorities and gays, simply by virtue of exposure to and interaction with them.

I foresee, within a generation and maybe a lot sooner, the Libertarian-leaning Republicans taking over the party, beginning to concede social issues. (Ending the drug war is a bit too much to ask for right now, as is gay marriage, but I think we’re going to see more states approving civil unions and the Republican Party backing the hell off Roe in the coming years.)

That’s not to say the fundamentalist wing of the party will go away, it just means it’s going to find a new place to call home. It would be the height of Orwellian irony if that were the Libertarian Party, but Barr’s nomination shows that it’s certainly possible for fundamentalists to reinvent themselves.

The GOP is in the process of marginalizing itself, much like the Democrats did 40 years ago. Karl Rove’s quest for a permanent majority is being turned on its head.