We are not contradicting each other, I'm sorry to say to you sir. Things will get done, but because their is debate, not conflict, we will form better policies. Congress will unite on most policies, if we are given a majority, if it members support the legislation; if not, we will work to make the policies more inclusive. However, a Congress controlled by your party will only rubber stamp the proposals of a New Democratic President.
As for being a former great party, what makes you say that? That we have had an energized primary, which awakened our base, and you mistook as fighting, not debate, seems to say little to your own party, which simply approved of Howard with no opposition even considered.
However, I should rephrase the statement that began this; a majority that supports the ebbing away of our rights is detrimental. A majority, or uniformity, of those devoted to liberty is grand; though I have yet to see the New Democratic Party govern by the Constitution, and I pray I never see the National Vinogradists rise to power. I merely said that, perhaps not clearly, that uniformity can be a threat to liberty, as the minority views are generally hushed and discarded. My Party celebrates those voices, and gives them a place in its leadership.
Our Party has stood together for a decade, and is older than both the New Democratic and Libertarian Parties. We respect our differences, and generally do hold some similarities; though we don't show uniformity to the party line.
Senator Henry J. Jarvis, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate