why do republicans let sean hannity represent the party?

I don't know why I am still a registered Republican.  The party is increasingly at odds with my beliefs and values, and its not for the reasons professed by the media that I feel disinterested with the party.  The media likes to say that Republicans are too far to the right, and that this is turning off voters and causing them to become a minority party.  I have to disagree.  The problem is not that the GOP is moving too far to the right, but that it doesn't have an identity right now,  and no one is attempting to rally the party behind ideals and general policy that apply on a fundamental level to all the issues facing the country.  Instead the GOP is left to people like Sean Hannity, a small-minded, religious-right ideologue, who repeats the same rhetoric on every issue, toting the party-line of Bush/Cheney.  For instance, check out his ridiculous comments about President Obama's choice of condiment.  

Now I personally prefer regular yellow mustard, put I have to admit that I dabble in the spicy mustards from time to time, so I hope that doesn't make me some kind of elitist.  Instead of attacking a popular president's credibility on food, the GOP should be challenging some of his policies that are fundamentally changing the landscape in America.  The current handling of the Chrysler bankruptcy and restructuring is a perfect opportunity.  

In the current plan put forward by the government, the UAW is receiving a majority equity stake (~55% in exchange for relinquishing rights to about $10 billion in liabilities it held for pension payments) in the restructured Chrysler.  The government will receive around a 10% equity stake in return for around $4 billion in loans so that the restructuring can move forward.  The remaining 35% or so of equity will go to Italian manufacturer Fiat, in exchange for access to its fuel efficient engine technology and ability to open Chrysler up to the European market.  Notice how Fiat is not investing a single dime of capital in the restructuring.  Left holding the short end of the stick are Chrysler's senior secured creditors and bondholders.  Now in a traditional bankruptcy bondholders are almost always left out to dry, as there are no guarantees on their investments, and that is the risk they have taken.  However, the secured creditors are a totally different story.  Traditionally, they are near the top of the list in receiving payments, as the loans were issued with the companies real property and tangible assets as a backing for the loan.  When a company declares bankruptcy these secured creditors are guaranteed to receive at least as much as the value that the assets upon which the loans were secured.  These values are calculated through an estimate of what the property would be sold for if the company was liquidated under Chapter Seven.  

In this case the secured creditors are owed about $7 billion by Chrysler.  In exchange the administration only offered them about $1 billion and no equity stake in a restructured Chrysler.  The creditors knew they could get more through liquidation, so they forced a Chapter 11 filing.  However, the majority of these lenders are the big banks receiving federal TARP bailouts, like Citi, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Bank of America, although many smaller companies own smaller shares of debt.  Administration officials put pressure on the banks receiving federal bailouts to accept the offer at the expense of the smaller debt holders who received no federal money.  The squeeze proved successful, and last Friday the debtors acquiesced to the deal, accepting less than $2 billion and no equity.  This is probably half of what they could have gotten if Chrysler had liquidated.  And yet there has been no talk about how this major conflict of interest has allowed the banks and feds to put the squeeze on Chrysler's remanining secured creditors.

Although Chrysler's restructuring is not going to destroy the economy or put taxpayers on the hook for too much money, it does illustrate a much larger, and scarier, problem.  When we allow the government to get involved in private business affairs, it gives one side an unfair advantage in the bargaining process and prevents the even-handed negotiating that is both fair and and necessary for the free markets to function effectively.  For instance, Obama is big on fuel efficiency, so Fiat is getting a major stake in Chrysler because they can offer fuel efficient technologies for Chrysler's next generation of automobiles.  However, they were included in the deal because Obama decided it was a good idea, not because they bargained for their equity stake.  In contrast, secured creditors that made arms length bargains under the rule of law are being short-changed so that Fiat can move in.  They played by the rules, secured their debt, but now are being muscled out by the government.  Republicans need to point out this hypocrisy, and let the public know that similar injustice will occur when the government gets involved in the private business sector.  If the government is allowed to come in after the fact and use its tremendous influence and power to change the rules of the game at any time, there will be a chilling effect on how companies do business, especially if their is a risk of insolvency.  This could have a devastating effect, causing credit to seize up any time a company could potentially go bankrupt, as lenders will not want to risk the government changing the rules so that they cannot recoup their investments.