I will agree with the vitriol on one point. So far as I can tell, the only reason she is given a platform is because of her last name. That she is at all prominent appears to be pure nepotism. I can see where many conservatives would find that frustrating.

However they use it as an excuse to not address a point that is valid, whether it comes from a rich heiress or a young hairdresser. A bulk of the young people of America simply don’t feel the same way on many issues as the conservative base of the GOP, and this will hurt them more in every election if they don’t adapt. There appears to still be a receptive young audience for economic conservatism, but social conservatism, particularly as it refers to gay issues, is another matter. The GOP doesn’t even have to become ardently pro-gay, it would suffice if it stopped making anti-gay rhetoric such a prominent part of their platform.

Parties can change and continue to exist. The Democrats used to be pretty appallingly racist and yet they changed. It isn’t easy to strike a balance between loyalty to core principles and flexibility to changing times and demographics, but if the Republicans think greater purity will help them, then they will run a tiny-government social conservative in 2012, and perhaps after being crushed they will get the message.

What are the accomplishments of this young woman? What economic/sociological paper has she written? What Company has she created?