The basic issue is Midland is making a weak suggestion for where and why the Republican Party has had failures and where it needs go to rectify, while ignoring the strong evidence for these being unsuccessful where already implemented.

This is only important as it pertains to what we've already tried, what has proved to fail miserably already, and recognizing this as the reason why not to repeat regardless of how much some may want it. It's not important as an individual preference.

Speaking for myself, I (individually) want certain things.  This is fine, others won't mind and may or not even know. It would be unlikely that most would be happy and successful in building a platform around my idiosyncrasies.

Now, I understand (from what you've said) I am always welcome, regardless.  So it is with Midland and anyone else. Others aren't going to build platforms and political Parties on these individual preferences, much less ones that have been implemented and failed.

It would seem that the Republican Party wants to maintain it's basic platform of a Conservative stance (as opposed to who is currently calling themselves liberal) with an understanding, promotion, and acceptance of individual freedom and liberty.

However, what did the Reagan coalition had in common? An aversion to statism (supreme power in the state as opposed to individuals). I as a conservative with a libertarian streak, am real sick and tired of moving towards the statists. We RAN "moderates" for the last 20 years. Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain. All of them had much more statist tendencies than I thought this party should have. It's to the point where I'm calling myself a 1994 Republican as opposed to the Bush years.

I'm not going to tell Midland Republican to leave the party. I'm going to ask him to not be so condescending toward the "Palin" or "Joe the Plumber" wing of the party and ask him to leave them alone.