It's hard to be the "backbone" of the party that controlled Congress and the Executive for so long and yet not have your fingerprints on any of the reckless behavior that happened.
You can call me names, say I'm blowing smoke, tell me you had nothing to do with the Bush years. Whatever. But I would think now that the budgetary house is burning down (in part because of the spending that occurred in the eight years prior to Obama) and that the obvious problem is continuous massive government spending, that you would have more important things to worry about than gays in the party.
Are you even listening to the nonsense you're spouting?
The backbone of the GOP is made up of material not unlike that which makes up the majority of Free Republic's membership.
The majority of Free Republic's membership, if you asked them, would most likely tell you that the GOP listens to its base about as much as Archie Bunker listens to Ethel.
There's a reason why the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 - and that reason is that it ticked its base off royally. When that happens, all sorts of bad things happen to a Party, like fewer votes, less funds raised, fewer people being willing to volunteer. These all happened, as we have empirically ascertained.
In short, the GOP lost so badly because its out of touch insiders and big name politicians, for the most part, told the base to take a flying leap. And it paid for it in lost elections.
And here's something else to consider - most of these insiders and politicos are people who ideologically are very similar to folks like David Frum or John McCain - "pragmatic" folks who may be somewhat conservative unless they can be talked out of it. And they are also, generally, open to social liberalism. THAT is reality. The GOP's problems are largely the result of listening more to (perhaps incidentally, but perhaps not) social libertarians instead of listening to its own all-around (including social) conservative base and staying on the True Path.
Who are the usual culprits in Congress when it comes to going along with spending when you don't "have to"? The "moderate, pragmatic" wing of the GOP which just so happens to be...drum roll please...socially libertarian.
There's a reason for this. It's that when you stand for nothing morally, you're not going to stand for anything else either. Everything becomes optional, for the right price or the right persuasion.
Face it - social libertarians are simply untrustworthy when it comes to truly standing for conservativism. Sorry, but we don't see social conservatives like Jim DeMint or Rick Enzi going along with the Dems and voting to end the filibuster on the "jobs" bill. Instead, it took social liberals like Collins, Snowe, and (yes) Scott Brown to do so. In fact, it is almost ALWAYS the case that when some Republican or group of Republicans vote to backstab conservatives and conservative principles, the culprits come from the wing of the Party that just so happens to be socially liberal. There's always a "pragmatic" reason why they "have" to take a non-conservative route with those folks.
No thanks. Not interested.
“..had nothing to do with the Bush years. Whatever. But I would think now that the budgetary house is burning down (in part because of the spending that occurred in the eight years prior to Obama) and that the obvious problem is continuous massive government spending, that you would have more important things to worry about than gays in the party.” - Poison Pill
I was a Keyes supporter and although I knew he wouldn’t win, the last person on my list would have been McCain and second to the last was George W. Bush.