...and though you disagree, it is exactly that feature which not only needs to be purged from the GOP, but the entire culture as well.

If it's 'their turn," it is nearly always evidence that they aren't the best choice.

Bruno, hierarchical structures work better then free form ones, in my opinion. Industry and the Military have been better for the country in WWII and other times then the political side(think Jimmy Carter, a man who didn't get in line). What are you thinking of, that you hold structure in contempt?

Robert, I have one word for you, Dole.

Which is why the GOP has been so successful in the primary era.

Bob Dole ran the best race any GOP candidate could have and would have won had Perot not been nuts.

Maybe, but the fact that Perot was nuts had been known for five years. Seems like that should have been part of the equation.

Dole was not going to win under almost any circumstances. He was as 'out of touch' with voters as Thomas Dewey was. Plus, he really believed everything Sheila Burke told him about his skill as a legislator.

If Perot had withdrawn and strongly endorsed Dole, as he was about to before a synapse misfired, it would have been a coin toss.

You couldn't make him not run and two competing conservative candidates elected Clinton twice.

After the election, some wag said that all the Republicans needed to win was to put up a candidate who didn't drool. 'Nuf said.

A non-drooling candidate who wasn't too dainty to pound on Clinton's scandals might have overcome Perot the second time around.

At the time the media drumbeat was that it would be bad for the country to bring up the laundry list of Clinton's misdeeds and Dole, gentleman that he was, bought it. The media had him dancing on their string after decades of going along to get along.

Dole was a disaster. Making those Viagra commercials rights after he lost the election didn't cause a lot of people to be sorry they voted for Perot either.

Of course, since Clinton basically used the GOP's Contract for America as his governing policy (liberal lip service aside), from a domestic policy standpoint there's not a great deal to harp on.

Obviously, the man's character and his foreign policy are another matter.

Robert, re: hierarchical structures...

I may be inclined to agree where hierarchies are open to challenges, where they incorporate aspects of what you call "free form" structures, or where competition from "free form" structures keeps hierarchical structures "honest."

I don't see that being the case any longer (if indeed, it ever was the case).

As a philosophical aside, I can't say I can compete with Toyota in building a car or Accenture in wasting a Corporation's money, but I can confidently bet that my entrepreneurial 'free form' lifestyle affords me a more mentally rewarding life than an American Corporate benefit slave.

It all depends on how one measures success.

Though I find the Republican Party closer to my beliefs, and will support their candidates over most Democrat candidates, I won't pretend that McCain, Hastert, Topinka, Rove, etc. etc. aren't minions of a fundementally corrupt structure (the current 2-party system) that is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.

There are times we need hierarchies, and there are times to smash them. I would hope that in a nation that in danger of going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush, and is on course to see a McCain-Hillary presidential election, it would be obvious that smashing the hierarchy is appropriate.

It doesn't depend on success or any other rational measure. Conservastism incorporates a faith in hierarchy. It's what separates us from the egalitarians. It's McCain's turn so he'll win.

Why not be meritorians?