>>>>>Let me share with you another personal "spin" :). My brother-in-law is 20 years younger than me. So I have known him since he was in the elementary school. In college he was very liberal (just like most college kids). After college, while at his first job he is still very liberal. My wife and I are laughing amongst ourselves like "give him time he will change." The kid is very hard working and ambitious. He is not happy with what kind of money he is making. So he goes to school for his masters. After masters he gets another job. Still very liberal. Works very hard and still not happy with his financial situation. So he goes to law school at night (borrows money on top of what he already owes for other schools). Make the long story short. He is now a partner in one of the top law firms in Boston. Married to a professional; has two kids. He is now Republican and proudly displays it on his Facebook. So my conclusion is that if a person, by the time they are 35 yo, is still liberal he/she is either socialist or loser <bg>
>>>>
>>>>...and it's thinking like this that cost the Republican's the election...the idea that they're superior and know what's best for everyone and anyone who disagrees is some horrible horrible person that is going to destroy the moral fabric of the whole country....especially if you're not a white christian male. What's even more pathetic is the Republican's still haven't figured this out (or at least are not willing to do anything about it). for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/house-committee-chairs-all-white-men_n_2201136.html
>>>
>>>To be fair, House committee chairs are typically chosen based on their seniority on the committee, and most committees don't have Republican women or minorities at senior levels.
>>>
>>>The people's House operates just like every other govenrment agency, thus long serving nitwits are able to remain in powerful leadership positions due solely to their ability to be re-elected in safe gerrymandered districts. ;)
>>>
>>>One could comment on what type of person still notices color and gender rather than most qualified individual but that too would not apply do to seniority crap. ;)
>>
>>Agreed. Thing is the Republican party has jumped up and down screaming how they're 'diverse' and working to become more diverse. They keep saying all these things (like how they will back off abortion topic) - but when it comes right down to it - no diversity (it's even worse than before) and the votes/stance on woman's rights/abortion issues is the same and there is no backing off it either - if anything its also worse than before. So here you have the leaders of the Republican party SAY they believe a,b, and c - say they will do a,b, and c - and at the end of the day - nothing changes - other than more people and politicians flee the party before it completely implodes.
>
>I suppose if one only takes Congress into consideration you'd appear correct. However, since you demagogued the entire Republican party perhaps you could look further than Washington DC. Take governors for instance:
>http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-governors-considerably-more-diverse-than-their-democratic-counterparts
>Note: I do not have a quick link for the incoming governors.

Valid point. I guess I should of said Republican leaders.

>When exactly has the Republican (or Democrat for that matter) party suggested they will "back off abortion topic"? That's both sides bread and butter in terms of their base.

There is a whole bunch of clips I can send you of John McCain saying this word for word on Fox News....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/25/john-mccain-abortion_n_2189064.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/mccain-wants-leave-abortion-alone-republicans-move-away-grover/59282/

..and it's not bread-and-butter for the republicans - its 100% complete disaster - hence McCain saying they will back off the topic - which in fact THEY HAVE NOT. (You can find many many other video clips to support this as well)

>Besides, the Republican party's official stance is on the winning side according to the trend in the country. Seems to me the >Democrats are the one's who'll need to modify their stance if they are to stay mainstream.
>http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

Ok there are other polls to take a look at and saying it's as simple as pro-live vs pro-choice is really not valid. Pro Life under what circumstances? ALL circumstances? So incest, rape, going to kill the mother - none of that matters according to the Republican party guidelines - right? Now what kind of results you think you're going to get from people (especially women) with an attitude like that?