Every single one, as I already said.
1. A party is not a person. People vote on things, not parties.
I don't see your point. It is a collective entity. It has functions. I described some of them. Specifically its electoral strategy.
The Republican Party has leaders, strategists, and is a relatively closely knit coalition; state parties work at their own discretion, but they receive cues from Washington D.C. and usually follow them.
2. If a party votes unanimously against something, it's a pretty good sign that basically no attempt had been made to reach out to any of its members.
You are drawing an inference that does not necessarily follow. It does not really apply in American politics, and especially not to the Republican Party.
The nationwide mass media makes it so party belonging politicians stand together or fall separately in the American political system. The Democrats vs. Republicans drama does not allow for strong distinctions. Any sound, national-level party electoral strategy incorporates this understanding of American politics and coordinates the campaigns of its members accordingly.
3. No president has ever needed a supermajority in Congress to get things done, even though the opposing party always hates the president.
What? Presidents have 'failed' all the time because they lack supermajorities. Failure is subjective in politics anyway, since passing any kind of bill can be considered a huge success, regardless of its effectiveness. This statement is way too generalized. For example, do you mean 'fail' as in not passing a promised policy? If so, promised policies have failed all the time because of lacking supermajorities. That's the same as saying filibusters have never troubled any presidency.
4. A party is not even a thing. Republicans and Democrats do not have different strategies or styles for governance. Different people do.
What? They do too. They even have measures for punishing people who defect from the party line: they cut off funding and support and re-apportion it to people who stand with the party. That's why Arlen Specter switched sides, because they were going to punish him for defecting on a policy. Another thing is you can isolate somebody; make a collective agreement not to support any of their proposals or measures. Such s the give-and-take nature of politics.
Olympia Snowe would have gotten a similar treatment, except in her case it mattered less because her district was heavily supportive of health care reform; she had less motivation to concur with the party because she would have alienated her base even if she didn't have their support or funding. That said, the Republican Party would have had less reason to inflict a penalty.
5. Obstructing the Democrat's agenda would not be good politics if the Democrat's agenda was popular.
This doesn't have anything to do with what I said. But for one thing, the Republican Party has the resources and networks to make things popular or unpopular among their base, and 'popularity' is a tricky concept when people are dispersed in isolated groups across many regions. Also, there is a certain ethical question in the midst.
I hope you are prepared to actually address my points thoroughly and systematically instead of vaguely.
