Do Republicans Know What They're Up Against?

Peggy Noonan ponders whether the republicans know what they're up against:

He is subtle and likes to kill softly. As such, he is something new on the political scene, which means he will require something new from his opponents, including, first, patience.

I am wondering once again if Republicans in Washington fully understand what they are up against.

No, they don't (and I'm not sure Noonan really does either).
That's because they've always thought about Obama as the novel black man that people really love because he's novel and black. Republicans and Obama haters (let's just call them what they are) couldn't see past their own deep biases. It's like having on a pair of glasses that only allows you to see one way. If they'd take their glasses off, they could see what others see. 
They haven't a clue of what they're up against and that's apparent in their criticisms of Obama (the whole socialism thing just isn't going anywhere) and the way they flail around and attend hate, I mean, tea parties.
Some people say it's just a cycle, that the republicans will dust themselves off and once again be a shiny party.
I think it's more than a cycle because there is clearly a group of republicans who want to move forward and there is clearly a group who wants to move backward and there is clearly a group that has already jumped ship.
We're witnessing the beginning of the end of the republican party. Its biggest downfall is that it hates too many people. You can't be the party in power if you haven't got enough people on your side.
The group who wants to move backward flourished under Bush-Cheney. Obama, being their polar opposite (reason, smarts and maturity), has pushed them to be more vocal than ever, led by rightwing radio talk show hosts of all things. They're not bending or backing down. They have out-voiced the progressive republicans, though Meghan McCain is trying her darnedest. 
There are enough of them, the Tea Partiers, that it effectively neuters the party to powerless. Republicans need to get back the people that fled and they need to find a way to speak louder than than tea baggers, the folks like Michele Bachmann, so that the republicans aren't perceived as a bunch of strange people with strange ideals. 

Noonan says a great party needs to be inclusive, yet the republicans have the appearance of hating a lot of different groups of people:

A great party needs give. It must be expansive and summoning. It needs to say, "Join me."

A party that is huge, vital and national, that is truly the expression of the views of a huge and varied nation, will, by definition, contain within it those who are more to the right, and more to the left, and more to the middle. This creates a constant tension, a constant fight, but no matter. As Ronald Reagan said in China, in front of students at Fudan University, we are "a great disputatious nation."

She says shrink to win isn't a viable strategy:

In the party now there is too much ferocity, and bloody-mindedness. The other day Sen. Jim DeMint said he'd rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans. Really? Good luck stopping an agenda you call socialist with 30 hardy votes. "Shrink to win": I've never heard of that as a political slogan.

Is it fully mature, and truly protective toward America, to be so politically exclusionary? Read the whole thing

Mark Steyn, an Obama hater (as opposed to a rational critic) writes the same column as Noonan--Obama looks moderate but is radical--but with his ugly spin.