On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, SA wrote:
> But the movement was *not* the majority
> of the party in 1960. The party was run by Modern Republicans root and
> branch. The cons had to wage an insurgency to take it over in 1964.
Once again, we are getting hung up on the difference between a majority of the members of the party and the control of the apparatus. They were able to wage a successful insurgency because their views were shared by the majority (not all of them, but the ones at issue).
It took an insurgency on top of that to take over the apparatus. But that's because the apparatus didn't represent the majority views. Which is often the case with US parties. Maybe even usually. The conflict between the party base and the party apparatus is a hardy perennial.
Michael