A related question, conservatives only need apply: who do you want to become the face of the Republican party, and why?
I want Oprah. Why? Because everyone loves her. But she’s going to be a tough nut to crack.
I’m not sure the Republican Party has a face.
Did the Democrats have a face during most of the George W. administration? Maybe Hillary. Maybe Pelosi. Maybe Ted Kennedy. If any of those were the face, it was a blurry face.
The Republicans are in a similar position now. They’re hoping for another Reagan. Folky, charismatic, self-assured. And if they give frequent lip service to Jesus and Jehovah that’s 20 bonus points.
So there’s not much of a face, but the heart seems owned by Limbaugh, and Fox commentators.
That’s my answer as well.
Interesting (and important distinction) you make. To draw an analogy, it’s kind of like the Queen of England is ostensibly the “face” of England, but Parliament is the heart.
I’m not sure the parallel between the Repbulicans and Democrats stands at the moment, because the Democrats have consistently failed in cohesion and order. That is, even now there is a lack of overall unification. Granted, the Republican party isn’t a font of unity, but they are much more so than the Democrats.
A small correction. I think it is made up of rich white males and poor, stupid, whites of both sexes who’ve been sold a bill of goods that they are surely going to be rich someday so supporting tax cuts for the rich and not for them is in their best interest. Joe the Plumber is an excellent example.
Your accounting prof is very wise. That was Bernie Madoff’s market exactly, and it made him a lot of money over a long time before he got caught.
Its something widely known by grifters: smart people are easier, because they trust their own intelligence and judgement. A dumb person usually knows they are dumb.
This pretty much can’t be. First of all, even if each of those categories individually were a majority, the intersection of the three would be highly unlikely to be so. In particular, even if males are a majority of the Republican party, it’s a very slim one, so <adjective> males, with almost any adjective at all, will not be. Second, most people aren’t rich, even in the Republican party. Rich wannabes, maybe, or even folks who think they would be rich if the evil liberals would just stop oppressing them, but most of them aren’t. Finally, whites are the majority in the Republican party, but then, they’re also the majority in the Democratic party, too, just by a smaller margin. And I don’t think it makes sense to say that the face of the Democratic party must necessarily be white for that reason.
I should have posted this sooner, but as soon as Dangerosa pointed out my foolishness in describing the Republican party as “rich,” I recognized my folly. I’ll be sitting over here with a dunce cap.
You probably meant “rich” as in b-s, as in “that’s rich. Next time, why not try selling me a bridge or something.” You know, subconsciously that’s what you meant. 
I have read a couple times that Newt Gingrich was instrumental in Palin quitting in Alaska. He wanted to get her more involved in national politics and rallying the party to its lowest common denominator. he must have felt the party needed her. He has 2 years to work with her.
You know, of all the people I might have picked to play Henry Higgins in the Branson Playhouse version of My Fair Lady, Newt Gingrich is probably way down on the bottom of the list.
Maybe so, but they call the shots in the GOP – and, to only slightly lesser extent, in American society as a whole. The way healthcare reform is going provides ample proof.
The face of the Republican party? You know Orwell’s boot stamping on a human face forever? Picture a flabby, balding, white man in that boot. And he’s clutching a bible while screaming incoherently.
“Speaking in tongues”.
Nope. (PDF)
Something that strikes me as really interesting in the Birther movement is watching Free Republic (it’s like crack, I can’t help it) react every time someone on the right comes out against Birthers.
It goes something like this:
“O’Reilly is awesome. He’s so awesome. I love him.”
<O’Reilly says Birthers are stupid.>
“O’Reilly is such a fucking liberal. It’s so obvious he has always been in the bag for liberals. Glenn Beck is awesome, though. He’s the only one willing to tell it straight.”
<Beck says Birthers are wrong.>
“What a RINO! There’s no one worth listening to except…”
<… says Birthers are loony>
“I’ve never liked him anyway!”
O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Beck, NRO, others I can’t remember. It all follows this same pattern.
And Palin’s supporters do this exact thing with people who say anything about Palin. Johnny Isakson? RINO! Etc.
I’m sure Rush gets the same treatment.
Rush versus Palin? I think Rush wins that. But <anybody else> versus Palin? Palin.
Are the nominations still open? Because I’d like to submit the guy who assaulted a woman and tore up her poster of Rosa Parks at a town hall meeting.
Well, according to Tom Delay, No one: