Funny thing, I'm a registered democrat - only for this year's primary though. I did it so I could vote for Hillary to keep the lefty bloodletting going since McCain was already the republican nominee and it didn't matter on that score. (and no, I'm not a Rushbot - I decided on my own to do it - mostly as a lark)
In truth, I've been a republican since I was old enough to vote (for Reagan in 1980). I grew up in a political family of old school, union democrats. How I ended up as the lone rightwinger, I'll never know. But after reading this from Politico about how the party's leadership is treating a guy who is trying to come up with a winnning strategy, I think it may be time to admit the Reagan revolution began and ended with its namesake.
They say generals are always fighting the last war, but usually this refers to complacent, winning generals. The losers have incentives to think outside the box, and innovate so as to win the next war. But for some reason, the party that's had its ass handed to it in the last two elections seems to feel doing the same things over and over again will eventually work. (Note to republican bigwigs: see Haig, Douglas).
I don't really know that much about Jim DeMint, but if he is really trying to reform things and the atricle is correct in noting:
...Senate Republicans doubt his fiery tactics can lead their party out of the political wilderness when the public is seeking an end to legislative gridlock.
They should understand clearly that legislative gridlock is their duty, and bi-partisanship really means they're just helping to hold us down while the democrats go through our wallets.
Yes, trying to stop the sinking of the country when so many seem to want it sunk, will get you scapegoated as an obstructionist; it might even cost you your seat. But going along to get along won't work either, and if you are going down, it might as well be fighting.