Just in my opinion, it is someone that knows you can't have anything you can't pay for, no matter how nice it sounds.
That used to be my opinion too, Roger. But now the social conservatives have usurped the label, imo. I spent some time with my brother recently, who still considers himself a conservative - more in the "Goldwater Republican" meaning (libertarian on social issues) than the current manifestation which appears to driven by hatred and animosity towards anyone and anything that is "other".
Think on Boehner's vanishing act from talk radio for a moment and you will understand part of why the "base" seethed with anger towards the exiting speaker. It isn't hard to sense contempt and it is usually repaid in spades. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in stark contrast to Boehner, is an occasional if not regular visitor to the airwaves, and his leadership team of John Cornyn and John Thune are able and accessible stand-ins.
Boehner's team actively discouraged leadership from "running the risk" of talking to conservative thought leaders on air, and only former California Rep. and House Rules Chair David Dreier regularly rejected that counsel to enter the fray. Texas' Pete Sessions and Oregon's Greg Walden looked for radio opportunities in the past few years, but they had money to raise as successive chairs of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Get it? The House Leadership was willing to use the base for fundraising, but not talk to it or seek advice from it. The speaker couldn't be bothered. There were big donors to charm and big courses to play.
yes, most reps are going to be party supporters for the most part but i would have greater respect for a rep who bucked a party line if he/she felt strongly enough about a subject, i also have no use for a leader (like our dishonourable prime minister) who demands his members vote the party line or else don't vote at all
