It’s been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states – Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia – abandoning the party.

So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party’s own fundamental problems – divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.

The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor’s race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor’s contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.

In fact, 2009 seems to have underscored what may be the biggest impediment for Republicans – the war within their base.

Not that the GOP would casually brush off even a small stack of victories on Tuesday.

One or more wins would give the Republicans a jolt, and a reason to rally in the coming months. Victories certainly would help with grass-roots fundraising and candidate recruiting. And they might just be enough to reinvigorate a party that controlled the White House and Congress through much of this decade, only to lose power in back-to-back national elections.

Viewed from the other side, a GOP sweep would be a setback for Democrats. It could be seen as a negative measure of President Barack Obama’s standing and could signal trouble ahead as he seeks to get moderate Democratic lawmakers behind his legislative agenda and protect Democratic majorities in Congress next fall.

Still, with Democrats in control, the onus is on the GOP to get its act together. George W. Bush, the president many Republicans came to see as an election-day albatross, is gone, but the party troubles born under him linger.

Republican leaders in Washington certainly are mindful of the challenges.

“It’s going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests,” House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there’s “a political rebellion” taking place in the country.

Others are more blunt.

“Right now there’s no central Republican leader to turn to, and there’s no central Republican message,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. “The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it’s opposition to Obama.”

A debate is waging over whether that’s enough – or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America – and ended up taking control of Congress.

Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues – which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times – and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.

Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and – in a slap at the GOP – endorsing Democrat Bill Owens.

The White House is suggesting that those developments show that hard-liners are taking over the GOP and the trend will affect the 2010 elections. Predicted presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday: “This is a model for what you’ll see throughout the country.”

Indeed, there are similar tensions in Senate primaries in Florida, California and elsewhere, where conservatives are challenging establishment-backed candidates.

Adding to the party’s woes: No one – or rather everyone – is speaking for the GOP.

Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush’s departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.

The 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain, has all but disappeared from the Republican power structure. His running mate, Palin, refuses to disappear – much to the delight of tabloids and to the chagrin of elder party statesmen. And one of the most unpopular politicians in recent times, former Vice President Dick Cheney, keeps popping up to attack Obama – a reminder of the country’s and the party’s problems under Bush.

What’s more, the GOP’s ranks are thinning: Only 32 percent of respondents called themselves Republicans in a recent AP-GfK survey compared with 43 percent who called themselves Democrats.

Also, the party’s power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else – including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.

And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats’ favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation’s fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry – so-called “green jobs” – is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.

Still, Republicans sense opportunity – at least in the short term.

The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.

Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren’t reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama’s expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn’t sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.

All that raises this question: Can the GOP take advantage of such conditions – or are the problems the party faces too great? Stay tuned to 2010 for the answer.

Here at 365 some of our readers have a little parlor game. If there is a comment that gives the slightest props to a Republican and/or conservative, a few will furiously start typing  “Jews for Hitler,” “self hating queen,” or some other accusatory phrase. Well ladies get those keyboard ready!

A few months back Ross Douthat replaced Bill Kristol as the conservative op-ed writer at the New York Times. A good thing really because Kristol can be a little fact deficient when opining. Anyway Douthat was recently on a panel called “Meet the Neo-Cons: They’re Young, They’re Bright, They Tilt to the Right” (he was joined by Reihan Salam) and the topic of gay marriage came up. Apparently Douthat turned incoherent. Strange but he kept going and  explained his tongue knots thus:

“I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public.”

Calm down folks. Not finished yet. He hasn’t jumped on the marriage train because of his religion. Will you wait please!? However, he described the conservative opposition to same sex marriage as  “a losing argument,”  thinks gay marriage is going to happen, and said something that needs to be put on your wall today.

“The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren’t just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don’t find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,’ you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.’ Who wins that debate? You win that debate.”

The highlight was jilted former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, starting a brand new religion — “MEvangelical Christianity.” In her remarkably self-centered, narcissistic speech, she cast herself as a martyr on a mission and repeatedly had to remind the audience that she wasn’t as stuck up as she appeared on stage.

Prejean’s introspective idolatry was almost outdone by Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn. For those who do not remember, Coburn is the Oklahoma Republican who once criticized the movie Schindler’s List for its nudity.

Thank God for our watchdog, Senator Coburn, or lusting after malnourished and gaunt holocaust victims might have caught on.

With a mentor like Coburn, it was only natural for Schwartz to become an expert on pornography, and we were fortunate to have him share his wisdom at a Values Voter discussion on “The New Masculinity.”

On the cusp of insulting gay people, Schwartz told the rabid right crowd that he was about to get “politically incorrect.” Why bother with a disclaimer, as if gay bashing is actually controversial at such rallies? If he really wanted to shock the crowd, he would have introduced “Schwartz’ List” – naming all the social conservatives caught in tawdry sex scandals.

But, alas he only had an hour, clearly not enough time for this endeavor.

Schwartz called pornography a “blight” and a “disease”. Although he failed to point out it disproportionally afflicts Republicans, with “Red States” having the highest rates of pornography subscriptions.

The porno politico then agreed with an “ex-gay” friend of his that said, “‘All pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.’ Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.’ You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

So, straight porn will turn you gay and holocaust nudity is erotic. Just plain, homespun common sense.

Now that the loons have finally left DC, there is the question of whether the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community should march on Washington. The main event is scheduled for October 11th and it is highly anticipated by a new breed of Internet-age activists.

There is, however, opposition from many local GLBT organizations and movement activists who believe that resources spent in Washington would be put to better use fighting battles in the states.

I am highly sympathetic to statewide leaders who have performed heroic work, even though they lack crucial resources. And they are correct that the GLBT movement needs to continue fighting and educating at the local level.

fThis will not only bring us victory in the states, but will change the facts on the ground in congressional districts, increasing the chance Congress will vote for equality.

Still, I agree with Equality Across America organizer Cleve Jones and long-time activist David Mixner that now is the time to go to Washington. No matter how much state organizers would prefer we march on state capitols, it is not the same. A rally in sleepy towns like Tallahassee or Albany changes your afternoon plans, while a trip to DC changes your life.

Detractors of the big march say that not enough organizing has been done to lobby members of Congress. But, what exactly would these citizen-lobbyists say that has not already been said by Human Rights Campaign lobbyists 1,000 times before? Besides, those who come to DC can always lobby the Representative in their district when they return home.

The march is really about inspiring a new generation. One of the highlights of my young activism career was attending the 1993 March on Washington. It moved me to a lifetime of advocacy and I believe that today’s youth deserve the same opportunity I got to come to DC and be counted.

Let’s not be jaded and forget how mesmerizing it was to step on the lawn and witness a sea of homosexuals and their allies campaigning for equal rights. I think those who oppose the march should close their eyes and relive the experience.

This march will likely be smaller than those in the past due to the economic recession. It will likely not spur an overnight legislative victory. But, it will invigorate and initiate a fire inside thousands of activists that will burn long after the last candle is blown out on the National Mall. And, as a bonus, compared to the crazies who marched last week, a gay pride march will finally seem positively boring.

“Our trust remains in God, not government,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who criticized an “ongoing effort of this administration and the liberal majority in Congress to take over our health care.”

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., predicted an “an avalanche of socialism” under Democrats and claimed they were “putting runaway federal spending on steroids.”

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared, “We cannot let a crippling debt or an ever-expanding government stifle the American dream.”

Republicans, and particularly the GOP’s right, are harnessing anger by using age-old us-vs.-them appeals and embracing issues like the economy, health care and big government to counter Obama in hopes of finding a winning strategy after consecutive losses in national elections.

By doing so, the party may have found a broader context within which it can fit cultural, religious and social topics that keep hard-core GOP voters happy but sometimes turn off moderates and independents.

During George W. Bush’s tenure, Republicans heavily promoted issues such as those dealing with God, gays and guns, and they got traction with religious conservatives. Speakers at gatherings like the Values Voters Summit, which got under way Friday, spent much of their time denouncing abortion, same-sex marriage and firearm restrictions.

But the narrow strategy had its limits because most Americans aren’t single-issue voters.

These days, such issues aren’t emphasized so much, though conservatives use the health care debate to fight abortion and government-mandated counseling in end-of-life decisions.

Enter the wider political opportunity created by a country that’s going through an acrimonious period in which people’s intense anger is motivated, perhaps, by fear of the economic recession, of the country’s uncertain future, of a new president who doesn’t look like others before him.

Reflecting the despair, 57 percent in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll said the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Despite evidence the recession is abating, many people aren’t sensing the economy turning around because job losses continue. Skeptical of both the public and private sectors, they are infuriated by government bailouts of the automotive, insurance and banking industries. At a time of huge budget deficits, they also have sticker shock over the president’s pursuit of health care and energy overhauls.

And, even though the nation elected Obama, many people still aren’t comfortable with the president who is biracial, who has a foreign-sounding name and who is trying to bring sweeping change to a country that instinctively cringes from it.

The anger has reached a boiling point. Consider Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” as the president addressed Congress, the tens of thousands who marched on Washington to protest Obama policies and the hostile questioning of lawmakers during health care events.

It’s under such conditions that populist arguments tend to resonate because they tug at a universal belief among Americans that government should be working for the people in a democracy.

Since the 1800s, populism has been a powerful political weapon – particularly for out-of-power movements – during periods when the public, correctly or not, believes the elites are taking away that ideal.

“There’s always a suspicion of the concentration of power out there, and the question is who can mobilize that fear best politically,” said Michael Kazin of Georgetown University, who wrote “The Populist Persuasion: An American History.”

Democrats generally, and the left in particular, did it in 2006 and 2008, embracing the public’s anger over Bush’s policies in Iraq, his handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economic collapse. These days, Republicans, and the right specifically, are wielding the power of populist arguments.

“They work pretty well now,” Kazin said. “There’s a kind of anger out there, based on a sense of ideal betrayal.”

Populism can broaden the GOP’s appeal because it cuts across all ideologies; most Americans view themselves simply as people who want a responsive government.

Also, issues that directly effect people’s everyday lives, like the economy and health care, seemingly give the GOP an even wider net. Bread-and-butter subjects have risen in importance while cultural issues aren’t resonating as loudly in part because of what appears greater acceptance among Americans and an unwillingness by Obama to incite fights on such matters.

Republicans face a delicate dance with the strategy ahead of next fall’s midterm congressional elections.

They want to tap into anger but don’t want to be seen as extremists inciting it. That may be why many mainstream Republican leaders have distanced themselves from far-right comparisons of Obama and Hitler, and the widely debunked allegations that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii and, thus, his presidency is illegitimate.

Populist arguments also can go too far, leading to cynicism and a lack of political involvement, meaning problems then don’t get solved. Democrats have accused Republicans of caring more about defeating Obama than actually serving the people.

And ultimately, there’s no certainty that this fickle public will continue to be angry and focused on broad-based issues. Republicans, particularly conservatives, are willing to take that chance.

According to a Washington DC council member he has enough co-sponsors for a bill legalizing gay marriage  in the nation’s capitol.

The District already recognizes gay marriages performed in other states;  if passed the proposal, called the  “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, would make D.C. the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to recognize full marriage rights.

“I think it is very important for people to realize we are talking about a civil marriage, not a religious marriage,” said David A Catania, one of the openly gay members of the Council and the bill’s author.

If passed, Congress and the White House will have to jump into a contentious social issue. I imagine those working at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will do their best to keep  the topic at arms length. Obama’s White House will make a muted case that local municipalities should be allowed to support marriage rights if they want to. House and Senate Republicans will typically freak and remind D.C.’s fate is controlled by Congress.

If the Council votes for the bill, I don’t expect to read how black elected officials came out to support marriage rights, although seven of the 12 council members are African-American.  There will be attention to the yahoos (like that minister from Maryland and Council member Marion Barry), but nary a word will be uttered about other black pols who stepped up and did the right thing.

As a rule I have no problem with calling out the nut cases (no matter the color), but what unnerves are the racial theories that support most of our conversations about same sex marriage, assumptions that have been in the open since the failure of Prop 8. Somehow the folk in DC are navigating  through those dangerous waters and finding common ground. I’ve asked it before and I’ll do it again: what is going on in D.C. that the rest of us can learn from?

First there is this clown screeching about death panels. Here is another Republican operative asking New York  Representative Anthony Weiner, who is 44 years old, why he isn’t on Medicare if the program is so good.

Like any talker CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo, when caught minus a fact in her head,  barrels on as if the problem is with the congressman. There is nothing wrong with debate about health care and insurance, but if basic information gets in the way of a talking point, why are you even in the game?

We all know the deal. Bartiromo will be hailed as some role model for Republican women (special plea to all Republican young girls: forget Bartiromo, Palin, McCaughey. Set your sites on either Maggie Thatcher or Jeane Kirkpatrick). Her opinion on health care will still be sought. Heck given the tenor of the times, one of the Republican talking points will soon be if Medicare is so wonderful why isn’t the  fascist/socialist/Nazi/Muslim/gay (that last one was for our own “genius” Ms. Menstruator) Obama using it.

At some point we citizens need to stop talking heads from playing us for chumps. That does not imply we  all need to agree (small d democrat baby!), but it’s not asking much to have a serious conversation about serious issues. Bartiromo only offers pretty hair. We can get that from any reality show.

“Due to recent events, I have decided to focus my full attention on my family and resign my Senate seat effective August 10,” Republican Sen. Paul Stanley wrote in his resignation letter.

Court records show that Stanley, 47, told agents investigating a blackmail case that he had a sexual relationship with intern McKensie Morrison. Her boyfriend, Joel Watts, is charged with trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Investigators say Watts demanded the money in exchange for not releasing to the media explicit photos of Morrison that Stanley had taken in what appears to be Stanley’s apartment.

The senator, a married father of two who represents suburban Memphis, had signaled he would remain in the legislature, but he said Tuesday that he decided to step down about an hour before submitting his resignation letter. Stanley, who was elected to the Senate in 2006 after serving six years in the state House, had resigned last week as chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee.

A special election will be held to fill the seat in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Stanley’s legislative proposals were largely focused on pro-business issues, but he also sponsored failed measures to ban gay couples from adopting children. He also spoke out against funding for Planned Parenthood because he said unmarried people should not have sex.

“Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true,” he said during an interview Tuesday with Memphis radio station WREC-AM. “And just because I fell far short of what God’s standard was for me and my wife, doesn’t mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit.”

Morrison’s phone numbers are redacted from her legislative internship application, and efforts to reach her were unsuccessful Tuesday. Her father said he didn’t want to talk about the situation.

“It’s a family matter, and I’m going to approach it that way,” Will Morrison said.

According to court records, Morrison is married to a man who is serving a seven-year prison sentence in Florida but that he has filed for divorce.

Watts said in an interview with a Nashville TV station last week that he blamed Stanley for taking advantage of Morrison

On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government’s contribution to the District of Columbia’s city budget.

No way, Democrats said.

At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs – usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.

The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., insists the clampdown is to prevent debates from dragging on and on. Republicans, however, have agreed to limit the amount of time debating the bills.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes.

So instead of debating an attempt backed by House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio to allow more children living in Washington to receive school vouchers, the House will vote on a Quixotic attempt to eliminate the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“What they want to do is they want to avoid tough votes on appropriations bills,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, senior Republican on the Rules Committee.

Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party’s leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership’s new policy on floor debates “muzzles the voices of pro-life members.”

The process has become so relentlessly efficient that Democrats were actually forced to drag out action to Thursday on a $33 billion measure funding energy programs and water projects. The reason? They need to stretch the workweek into Friday to force lawmakers to remain in Washington for committee work on health care and other spending bills.

Republicans complain that unless a member of their party is one of the 60 members of the Appropriations Committee, he is essentially blocked from having any say in shaping the budget.

“That simply disenfranchises most of the members of this body,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Democrats say that months ago, they offered Republicans the chance for a more open process in return for a guarantee that Republicans wouldn’t drag things out. Republicans initially said no but recently have agreed to limit how long a bill can be debated. Too late, say Democrats.

“We offered Republicans the opportunity to work with us in a bipartisan way to offer amendments so we could complete the appropriations process in a timely manner,” said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “They rejected that offer and have repeatedly used delaying tactics.”

I tire of Republicans and their racial miscues. I take them at their word when they announce the party is ready to start a new chapter when it comes to racial politics; however, the talk is just that.

Take this story. Audra Shay, an up and coming young Republican operative has a Facebook page. A yahoo left some kooky words about “mad coons, illegals, Obama bin-Laden, and warning blacks not to allow the sun to set while they are in southern towns.” Shay typed  LOL and told her Facebook nut to keep up the good fight. People expressed dismay she would tolerate such language and Shay defriended (I love how that is a word) them. The racist nut remained a dear buddy. Finally after 36 hours of  inside baseball buzz, Shay sent out an email proclaiming how racism offends her sensibilities.

You would think after a beat down in last year’s election and a party leader who looks like one of the “mad coons” Shay’s Facebook friend despises, the GOP would do its best to clean house and kick all the crazies out. And even if you don’t want to do that, how about a lesson in how this internets thing works. For instance, if you have some great “darky joke” you need to share, it’s probably best not to send it out via your work email.

I’m not a party member but these troglodytes take the spotlight off the folk who are doing the work to expand the base. At some point the GOP is going to have to walk away from its diet of intolerance (Republican ranks would swell if it gave up its anti-gay stance). If not, Republicans will be on the losing end of all future national elections.

P.S.: For some giggles here are some recent GOP racial gaffes. My personal favorite is Carol Carter from Florida. She sent out some bigoted email right before Barack Obama’s inauguration. When she got called on it, she initially complained about the people who made it public. According to her they were “not team players.”

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara is dismissing the case, saying it’s improper for the court to get involved in a legislative tussle. He recommends the legislature resolve the question of who’s in charge of the chamber.

Meanwhile, Gov. David Paterson says he’ll step into the Senate session and run the chamber as he did while lieutenant governor. He says that will temporarily help Republicans and Democrats pass critical bills.

One of the two rogue Democrats who helped Republicans seize power returned to the Democratic fold Monday, putting the Senate in a 31-31 split between the Democratic conference and the uneasy coalition.

“We need to take back the Senate,” said Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens, insisting Democrats were united.

A seven-day stretch that began with a shocking parliamentary revolt orchestrated by a coalition of Republicans and the two rogue Democrats – Monserrate and Sen. Pedro Espada – resulted Monday in a 31-31 split between the Democratic conference and the uneasy coalition.

Republicans and Espada held a brief session, but no other Democrat showed up, denying a quorum.

Although there was no agreement on how to share power, Democratic Gov. David Paterson stepped in Monday to try to broker a deal. A state court that threatened to mandate a power-sharing structure, heartened by Paterson’s involvement, gave senators until Tuesday morning to agree on a way to share power.

But Republicans and Espada say the coalition created a week ago remains firmly in place, with Democrats unable to muster a 32-vote majority to undo the action.

Espada, of the Bronx, maintained Monday that he is majority leader, the Senate’s top position, because 32 senators voted for him during the takeover a week ago. Even though Monserrate has since rejoined Democrats, the party has only 31 votes, not enough to overcome what Espada says was last week’s legally binding vote.

Democrats claim the coalition’s parliamentary revolt was done after shocked Democrats hastily adjourned the session, making it invalid.

The 31-31 tie is possible in the 62-seat Senate because there is no lieutenant governor to break deadlocks. Paterson was lieutenant governor in 2008 when Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace amid a prostitution investigation.