Republican voters need to familiarize themselves with the concept of E Pluribus Unum. Regardless of ideological differences within the big tent of the Republican Party, from many, we must become one in opposition to the Democratic Socialist movement currently in command of today’s DNC.

Reasonably, Republicans have been using the primary process to vet a new leader of the Republican Party for coming years. For the first time since Reagan was elected in 1980, the party has no heir apparent, no President running for re-election and no Vice President seeking the oval office.

And rightfully, after years of less than conservative leadership from the nation’s conservative party, many Republican voters are working to return their party to the conservative values that made the GOP grand.

Like 1992, when conservative voters were angry and divided over a broken "no new taxes" promise and overly "compassionate" liberal social spending, conservatives are angry and divided again over record liberal social spending, open borders, apologetic war strategies and defenseless tolerance for leftist ideals.

Divided, the GOP will experience another 1992 set of results in which Hillary Clinton, like her husband Bill, could become President of the United States against the will of more than 57% of American voters, the majority.

In 1992, 44.9 million Americans voted for Bill Clinton. But 58.8 million Americans voted against Bill Clinton, 13.8 million more and still, Bill Clinton became president. Bill Clinton became President in 1992 with the support of only 43% of American voters. The same thing can happen for Bill’s wife Hillary in 2008, unless Republicans find a way to unite in opposition.

Two lessons Republicans had better pay attention to in 2008 is the fact that Democrats can win any time Republicans are divided, and 2000 was decided by less than 500 Florida votes. Every conservative vote will indeed count in 2008, which means Republicans can not afford to leave a single Republican voter at home on Election Day.

At present, the GOP is divided into three major ideological groups and this schism within the party must be rectified or the party is doomed to failure in 2008.

Often referred to as "moderates" or "RINOs," this group currently sees the War on Terror as priority one and all other issues, in particular social issues, as unrelated and at best, secondary.

As a result, they are happy to support a socially liberal candidate so long as the candidate appears tough on terror. This group makes up the base support for candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, all of whom have dismal records on social issues like abortion and gay activism, as well as illegal immigration.

Though popular in liberal leaning blue voting districts, all three of these candidates leave social, Second Amendment conservatives and illegal immigration foes in conservative red districts, out of the voting booth on Election Day.

This is the smallest group within the Republican Party, but it draws on campaign support from across the political aisle. Often referred to as the "Libertarian" wing of the Republican Party, which supports both fiscal and military isolationism and withdrawal from engagements on the world stage, smaller government, less taxes, individual liberty to the extreme of anarchy, with legalized drugs and prostitution for all.

This group makes up less than 5% of the Republican rank and file and it is remnants of the failed Libertarian Party led by Libertarian Republican Ron Paul, who is an international apologist, blame America first, last and often anti-war activist and is supported by the same across partisan lines.

This group, opposed by 95% of Republican voters, seeks to re-define conservatism as some false "Jeffersonian" isolationism and by doing so; they leave all national security conservatives and social conservatives out of the voting booth on Election Day.

This group has always been referred to as the "ideological base" of the Republican Party and they are across-the-board conservatives. They see liberal social policies as the root of all social ills and the cause of all undesirable social spending and subsequent growth of the Nanny State.

They see apologetic foreign policy and sheepish diplomacy as the cause of many diplomatic failures which end in undesirable military conflicts and unacceptable international threats.

They see defeating terror networks abroad as the best means of avoiding the need to confront terror at home. They are for pre-emptive (preventive) or pro-active engagement with the world in order to confront threats before they fully materialize. They are conservative in that whether talking money, social ills or international threats, they seek to conserve, preserve and protect all American principles and values.

This group drafted Senator Fred Thompson to champion their values of Life, Liberty and Happiness through fiscal restraint, social conscience, strong national sovereignty and security and a general sense of traditional American principles across the board.

Those in this group leaning towards federal mandates to legislate moral values seem to like Mike Huckabee, who has promised to use the power of the federal government to enforce the unalienable Right to Life, to bear Arms and protect traditional Marriage.

While Life, Liberty and traditional family values are at the root of the conservative movement, using the federal government to mandate these things by law is not a conservative value. The Tenth Amendment is a fundamental tenet of conservatism, restoring power to the people and the states, not micro-governing from on high in Washington DC.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo also represent many in this group although both have somehow failed to capture the imagination of conservative voters, making them highly unlikely winners in the nomination process.

These candidates leave only the most hardened Ron Paul supporters out of the voting booth on Election Day. All other Republican’s can and will unite behind true conservatives working on true conservative values. Thompson is the most likely winner in this group.

While members of groups 1 and 2 will disagree, group 3 is in fact the legitimate majority of the Republican Party and the conservative base behind which the party must unite to win the White House in 2008.

Group 1 is maxed out at around 30% GOP support nationally. Group 2 is maxed out at no more than 5% GOP support nationally and Group 3, base conservatives, is currently running second in GOP support nationally and by no means maxed out at all.

Group 3 and Group 2 will not support group 1 candidates due to their liberal social positions and less than conservative past performances. But many in Group 1 will support a group 3 candidate if nominated.

Neither Group 1 nor Group 3 will ever support the national security insanity of group 2. But some in Group 2 will eventually support a real conservative Group 3 candidate if nominated.

In the end, only Group 3 candidates that represent all conservative voters can unite the party behind conservative principles.

Only Group 3 can provide a real alternative to Democratic Socialists next November and lead the nation in a fully conservative direction after the election.

Isn’t this what the Republican Party is supposed to be? - A conservative party, leading the nation on conservative American values and principles?

I’m not in the business of endorsing candidates. But I am in the business of promoting and supporting conservative values and principles, as well as writing on the political climate of the country I care dearly about.

If the GOP can’t unite behind conservative principles, it can’t unite at all. If it can’t unite, if from many, we can’t become ONE in conservative values, then we can’t win in 2008. 1992 history will repeat and Republicans will find themselves completely out of power in 2008.

Doubt this reality at your own peril…