But all it means is that everyone is so partisan so polarized as to make anything other than identity politics martyrdom impossible. If you imagine that the rest of America is black/brown/gay/Marxist you are incorrect.

Can you say, "Miguel Estrada?"

How about your party stop preaching about moral issues as if they mattered in a time of economic meltdown.

Stop bashing gays.

Get off the abortion issue.

Stop playing on people's fears and start trying to play on people's hopes.

Start challenging Israel on the Palestinian issue.

Stop acting like a bunch of racist warmongers.

Maybe then, you'll have a hope of winning an election.

Perhaps we are seeing the start of a level of sensitivity to how the Republican label is perceived among voters of Latin descent. As one observes the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become the next Supreme Court Justice, it is clear Republicans on the committee are determined to be respectful, even admiring of what it means for her to be nominated.

And how does this fit with Senator Coburn's remarks channelling Richie Ricardo?

You pretty much had me until there. You're analysis of the GOP was correct: They have been out of touch with many minorities since the 1970s. But, if these hearings were an example of the GOP being sensitive to minorities, they're in worse trouble than you thought.

It would be intersting to know the average age American women of different races have children. And the total number of children they have.

And then break that down to those with college degrees and those without.

And then chart those trends into the future.

I bet those curves could prove to the GOP that they must appeal to more than just white people if they ever want to hold any power. If that means changing their 'core values' then it is a change they need to make to stay competitive.

anyone see today's NYT op-ed about affirmative action and the future? if not, go read it.

The endless cries of media bias from the Republicans are beyond tiresome. Far from reporting Obama's victory as a foregone conclusion the media outlets bent over backwards to portray it as a horse race long after the polls showed that Obama was pulling ahead. Far from fawning over Obama we received endless coverage of "concerns" about palling around with terrorists. Sarah Palin was covered as if she was a credible candidate and "Joe the Plumber" found no shortage of media opportunities.

So, please, give it a rest. John McCain did not lose because of the media, because of demographics, because of astrology or whatever other excuse you want. He lost because more Americans felt that Barack Obama would do a better job as President.

There is a Republican message, if they would ever find it -- an economic message. Somewhere along the way Rove, Gingrich and others saw great things coming out of an alliance between economic and social conservatives, without realizing how that could backfire. Now it has. There are a lot of people who are opposed -- even alarmed -- at the Obama economic program, but who have no interest in Republican social conservative politics. I'm one of those. You find me a Republican of whatever age and color who will further a reasonably conservative economic program, and I will vote for that person.

"Finally, I must says that it's a sad commentary that only us white guys seem to appreciate the virtues of limited government, private enterprise, the rule of law, American exceptionalism and traditional social values. The GOP should continue to fly the flag for those principles on the off chance that one day, non-white and female voters will see the light."

Just as I was thinking that the writer failed to tell us why he was a Republican, along came this post from a reader who does know what he believes his party stands for. While I admire his consistency, I would suggest that every one of the principles he has listed has been compromised not only by circumstance, but by members of his own party. That in turn leads me to believe that those principles, while valid in the abstract, do not translate intact when it comes to real life. To take the slightest and easiest example, traditional family values. While there is nothing wrong with advocating for strong marriages and intact families, the fact of the matter is that about half of all marriages end in divorce, which often leads to the disruption of the family. That has a ripple effect, which impacts society in very concrete ways that naturally involves institutions, such as schools, courts, social programs, etc. Consequently, while it is all well and good to preach homilies about family values, homilies don't provide child support, child care, counseling, financial assistance or job training. For the phrase "family values" to have meaning, it has to include some measure of pragmatism, some offer of assistance to those who are struggling or who have not been able to achieve the ideal. And that is where the GOP falls short. Republicans are very good at "forgiving" their politicians who stray, but they are not good at forgiving human frailty, in general. At a certain point the party simply has to acknowledge the discrepancy between what they advocate and what exists and come up with some sort of compromise, not in their beliefs in the ideal, but in the application of their philosophy.

That is one simplistic example of a wider problem. It is very convenient to make a list of "values" that in the abstract sound extremely reasonable, but the real debate is about their definition. You'd have to go far into the fringes to find may Americans who don't believe in free enterprise. But you could walk a block and stumble on plenty who have noticed the ill effects of irresponsible tax cuts during wartime, rampant deregulation, corporate malfeasance and a corrupt system of campaign financing, all of which were enabled by a Republican administration, majority in Congress and conservative members of the Supreme Court. I'm afraid the GOP is going to have to go a lot farther than simply trotting out the notion of "free enterprise" to convince the majority of Americans that they are referring to anything that touches the lives of ordinary citizens. In this context, the very notion of "limited government" rings hollow.

If members of the Republican party want to stick to their guns, so to speak, that is their choice, but the chances of their doing so and attracting "non white and female" voters is next to nil. As the GOP would have it, those categories shouldn't even exist, because in their ideal world there is no discrimination, nevertheless any problems which can't be solved with a healthy dose of platitudes. In short, the GOP doesn't have to give up its principles; it simply has to adjust them to fit the real world.