Here's an interesting article on The Standard's blog
Though I really wonder if that is true. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is.
People don't get united through "what we don't want." They are united by what they hold in common. That's why Reagan worked. He emphasized that.
Take the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, for instance. I use it as an example because I am always amazed at how what is going on in our church body, politically, is a strong reflection of what is going on in our government. However, it doesn't surprise me, since the LCMS governing structure was modeled on it.
Those who are conservative and confessional have been trying to take back the presidency for many years now, but have never been able to succeed. Instead of focusing on what they believe in common, they often focus on particular points that they feel particularly strongly about and that leads to further division, much like how the Republicans have social Republicans, evangelical Republicans, and economic Republicans. Each feels their particular issues are the most important and will then attack the others or refuse to join with them in order to emphasize their particular point. Look at how the Republican party tried to win moderates by minimizing the voice of the evangelicals, and how really, they've been losing strength ever since they claimed that there is enough room under "their umbrella" for differing views on abortion.
While I'm not going around saying "We need a Reagan," we do need someone who can emphasize those similarities and bring those groups together. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not necessarily true. They could just be another enemy for different reason.
If there is no way to unite on common values within the Republican Party, instead of just a common enemy, the party can just as easily collapse, and with many voters' disgust with the Grand Ole Party's abandonment of its values and its inability to communicate those values in an effective way -- that is truly a possibility.
The last election did not put forth a candidate who was a true leader with a solid sense of hope for America, except for Sarah Palin, but she wasn't the candidate. But the fact that she did so was why so many gravitated to her. McCain was one who just had the most hope of standing for just enough to unite conservatives and moderates into a place of complaisance. When he ran back to "rescue the government" but that rescue meant voting for a bailout that made no sense to Republican or American sensibilities, all was lost.
If Limbaugh, Steele, McCain, and other leaders cannot get along, it doesn't matter that they are against Obama, because they will be individuals against one very powerful, unified force. They can be flicked away.
"If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; and if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." Mark 3:24-25
We do not have a common enemy if we consider each other to be the enemy as well. I fear for the Republican Party (and yes, for the LCMS ). For some reason, the Republican Party has always been the one that has falls and has to be reincarnated (though the Democrats' message is the polar opposite of what it was pre-FDR). I'm wondering if we are about to see this party restrengthen, or die to be reborn as something else -- which will happen. It is the party that has left the values, not the values that have let down the party. A good portion of the American people still believe in those values.