During to the 2012 presidential campaign, Republicans made this argument to Latino voters when talking about immigration reform: It was President Obama’s fault why any reform wasn’t signed into law during the president’s first term.

"I think one of the reasons Candidate Obama got so much support from the Hispanic community in the [2008] election is that he said in his first year, among his highest priorities would be to fix the immigration system," Mitt Romney said at a Univision-sponsored town hall in Sept. 2012. "But he never even filed a bill. He never tried to fix the immigration system."

The line of attack might have been somewhat unfair -- after all, Republicans in Congress who had previously supported comprehensive immigration reform backed away, even when it came to the more limited DREAM Act. And the president did take executive action to no longer deport qualified young illegal immigrants.

Still, the argument was something the GOP could wield to Latino voters (who still broke to Obama by a 71 percent-to-27 percent margin in 2012).

But after the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration reform legislation by a 13-to-5 vote, and now as the bill heads to the Senate floor with prospects for passage likely, Republicans might not be able to use that argument any longer.

If the legislation goes down to defeat, Republicans would get the lion’s share -- if not all -- of the blame.

And that reality could provide the GOP with an additional incentive to help pass immigration reform, especially when the legislative action moves to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"The onus is on the Republicans,” says Frank Sharry, a liberal-leaning immigration reform advocate. “If reform tanks, Republicans can try all sorts of excuses -- the president didn’t want to upset the unions, the Democrats demanded too much, the bill was too big and wouldn’t have worked -- but these won’t work outside the conservative media bubble."   

Indeed, Democrats have already swallowed omitting an amendment that would have granted immigration rights to gay and lesbian couples. Organized labor and big business are in agreement on the legislation. And Obama has largely remained on the sidelines to give Congress more breathing room to negotiate.

A Senate Republican aide whose boss supports immigration reform agrees that Republicans would be blamed for defeat of the immigration legislation.

"It would have negative ramifications for the party, absolutely.”

Yet the GOP aide adds that if the Senate “Gang of Eight” legislation gets as many as 70 Senate votes, it would force House Republicans to take up legislation -- even if it’s not supported by a majority of the caucus.

"The goal here with this effort is to get upward of 70 votes,” the aide said. “It would put pressure on them to engage and not find a reason to say no."

That said, getting 70 votes isn’t sure thing; it would require ensuring that the legislation attracts enough Senate Republicans without losing Democratic votes.

Perhaps more importantly, conservative opponents see no political upside to achieving immigration reform. Their argument: While they might get blamed for the legislation’s defeat, they would get little benefit from the bill’s passage.

"There is no evidence to support this idea that Republicans will pick up a lot of votes if we give amnesty to 11 million folks," Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) recently said, according to Reuters.

There’s also the possibility these members could receive conservative backlash from their constituents if they support the legislation.

And that’s the challenge for House Speaker John Boehner. What’s a bigger concern for him -- upsetting his conservative members or the party potentially getting blamed for the legislation’s defeat?

For now, he says the House “will work its will.”

“We’re not going to be stampeded by the White House or stampeded by the president,” Boehner told reporters last week. “The Senate is working its will, a lot of good work that’s gone on over there, but the House — the House will work its will.”

NEW YORK -- Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told New York Republicans on Wednesday night to remain optimistic about the country’s future because a new generation of leaders -- "the children of Reagan" -- have taken over to lead the fight for conservatives.  

“If you sit back and you list who are the brightest stars in the Republican Party, who are the most effective advocates for free-market principles, you come up with names like Marco Rubio, like Mike Lee, like Rand Paul, like Pat Toomey, like Scott Walker,” Cruz said as a man in the audience at the New York State Republican Party dinner yelled his name. 

“You have to go back to World War II to see such a transformation of the people leading the fight, leading the argument for conservative principles, being an entirely new generation of leaders stepping forward.” Cruz continued, describing the men who grew up while Reagan served in office. “In this new generation of leaders, you see the echoes of that same communication, that same love story of freedom, echoing we are right and all of us together are working to communicate that message.”

The outspoken senator from Texas spoke for more than 30 minutes on a variety of topics -- the debt-ceiling battle in Washington, his desire to repeal the federal health-care law, and the need to simplify the tax code and grow the economy.  

“You know, a lot of Republicans have been agonizing why the November defeat turned out the way it did. I am going to suggest that the last election can be explained in 2 words: 47 percent,” Cruz said. “The national narrative of the last election was the 47 percent of Americans who are not currently paying income taxes; who are in some ways depending on government; we don’t have to worry about you. That’s what was communicated in the last election. I’ve got to tell you that as a conservative I cannot think of an idea more opposite of what we believe. I think Republicans ought and should be the party of the 47%.” 

Wednesday night’s speaking engagement in New York City only continues to fuel speculation over Cruz’s future political plans, even a run for president in 2016. He recently traveled to South Carolina to headline a party fundraiser and has been invited to speak at a dinner in New Hampshire this fall -- two important early presidential voting states. Roughly 500 people attended the dinner with nearly $750,000 dollars raised, according the state party’s spokesman.

The invitation to the $1,000-a-plate party dinner notes that Cruz is appearing at the event “only as a featured guest” and “is not asking for funds or donations.”  Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gave the keynote address at last year’s state dinner, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour spoke in 2011, and it was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's turn in 2010. 

Several dozen protesters gathered outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel holding various signs opposing the Texas senator’s stance on issues, including immigration and gun control. Some top New York Republicans refused to attend the annual party dinner, because Cruz did not vote for the Hurricane Sandy relief bill after the storm devastated much of the East Coast, including New York.

“I don’t think we should be acknowledging people who are voting against us in our hour of need,” Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told Buzzfeed Tuesday. “Once I found it was him, I decided not to go. I don’t know if I would have gone or not because of scheduling things, but that made it easy once I found out it was Ted Cruz.” When asked prior to the dinner about Rep. King not attending, Cruz told NBC News: “I have not met Mr. King but I think it is unfortunate he couldn’t join us tonight.”

Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) is a member of a dying breed -- he's one of just nine Democrats to represent a congressional district that President Barack Obama lost in 2012.

In fact, Mitt Romney carried Barrow’s Georgia district with more than 55 percent of the vote last year, and John McCain did the same four years earlier.

But as Republicans seek to maintain control of the U.S. House in 2014, Republicans are hoping to make Barrow, who is running for a fifth term, and his fellow conservative-leaning Democrats completely extinct.

“The district is in the conservative to very conservative range, though on social issues it would definitely be considered very conservative,” said Lawton Sack, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party in that district. “We have very active Tea Party and Liberty groups throughout the district as well, so fiscal and constitutional issues are fairly important.”

Indeed, as NBC’s Jessica Taylor recently reported, the National Republican Congressional Committee has started a new initiative -- “Red Zone” -- that dedicates staff and resources to defeat Democrats like Barrow who represent conservative-leaning districts.

How have Barrow and these other Democrats -- like Utah’s Jim Matheson, Minnesota’s Collin Peterson and West Virginia’s Nick Rahall -- survived so far?

One explanation, Republican strategists say, is these politicians’ skills.  

“My guess is, by and large, the politicians who have been elected in these districts have understood the feel of them and been able to temper their ideology,” said Tom Rath, who has served as a senior advisor to several Republican presidential campaigns. “They get it. They do a lot of work in terms of communication and interaction.”

In particular, Sack of the Georgia Republican Party says Barrow has nailed his advertising, citing one TV ad Barrow aired in 2012 that boasted his opposition to gun control.

In the spot, Barrow displayed several guns from his family’s personal collection, saying, “I approve this message because these are my guns now, and ain’t nobody gonna take ‘em away.”

“I have had several conservative Republicans say to me that Barrow is not that bad and that he is really a conservative Democrat,” Sack added. “Time after time, I overheard people repeating things that Barrow said in his ads. They really seem to resonate with voters.”

Another advantage Democrats like Barrow have had: their GOP opposition.

In Georgia, Sack explains, Republicans had a field of candidates running to unseat Barrow, which took up time and resources that could have devoted to defeating the Democratic congressman. The last Republican standing after the 2012 GOP primary, Lee Anderson, had the fatal political flaw of being a poor public speaker, Sack says.

“He was wonderful one-on-one, but he could not speak publicly. He also refused to debate John Barrow, which was both a wise and poor decision,” he said. “Barrow would have beaten him solidly, but his refusal to debate painted Anderson as being scared of him.”

The Cook Political Report notes GOP recruitment problems in four of the other of these “Red Zone” districts.

Despite being unable to defeat Barrow and other Democrats from conservative-leaning districts, Republicans believe they have an important edge looking ahead to 2014 -- redistricting.

“They got redistricted, the effect of which was to make these districts even more competitive for Republicans to take a shot,” said Alex Vogel, a Republican strategist. 

Annie Kelly, director of the NRCC’s “Red Zone” effort, believes that just because these Democrats survived in 2012, doesn’t mean they’ll win in future contests.

“Sometimes it takes a couple of cycles to get these entrenched incumbents to a point where they can be beaten,” she said.

Yes, the last two weeks haven't been kind to the Obama White House. Yes, the administration has found itself on the defensive -- regarding the IRS, Benghazi and leak-investigation controversies. And, yes, those stories aren't going way.

But it's also unclear if these controversies are political winners for the Republican Party.

In addition to new polls showing that President Obama's approval rating remains above 50 percent after these stories first surfaced, a Washington Post/ABC survey suggests that Republicans are suffering from a focus deficit.

According to the poll, just 33 percent of Americans believe congressional Republicans are mainly concentrating on matters that are personally important to them, while 60 percent say they aren’t.

By comparison, 51 percent say Obama is mainly focusing on things important to them, versus 44 percent who disagree -- matching his approval rating in the poll

And 43 percent of respondents think congressional Democrats are concentrating on matters of importance, compared with 50 percent who say they're not.

Bottom line: The public believes that Obama and the Democrats are focusing more on the issues they care about than Republicans are. 

Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru reaches a similar conclusion in his latest column.

[Republicans] have no real health-care agenda. Voters don’t trust them to look out for middle-class economic interests. Republicans are confused and divided about how to solve the party’s problems. What they can do is unite in opposition to the Obama administration’s scandals and mistakes. So that’s what they’re doing. They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.

Congressional Republicans were right to press for hearings on all of these issues. But investigations of the administration won’t supply them with ideas. They won’t make the public trust Republicans. They won’t save them from themselves.

Political observer Charlie Cook adds:

But at what point do [Republicans] decide that maybe voters might be more interested in other issues or worries than about politicians on one side pointing fingers and throwing allegations at those on the other side?

Yet a problem for Republicans -- if they decide to turn their attention to other issues -- is that Republicans really care about these controversies.

According to a separate Pew poll, 37 percent of Republicans are following the IRS story very closely (compared with 21 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents), while 34 percent of Republicans are following the Benghazi investigation closely (versus 18 percent of Democrats and 26 of indies).

So Republicans might find themselves trapped in this box: They really want to focus on these controversies, and their voters do, too. But others want the GOP to concentrate their attention elsewhere.

When the Tea Party movement made its official debut on April 15, 2009, it made quite a political splash with events across the country protesting President Obama's policies on that Tax Day.

Four years later, that splash looks more like pebble thrown into a pond.

Yesterday, Tea Party groups held events tied to this year’s Tax Day. The group FreedomWorks, for example, organized an "action day" at the U.S. Capitol (which took place before the Boston bombings).

But judged by its sparse attendance -- dozens, not thousands, attended the FreedomWorks rally -- the Tea Party is no longer a national force shaking American politics, although it has continued to influence today's Republican Party.

Over the past four years, Tea Party's political impact on the Republican Party and conservatism has been a mixed record.

There is little doubt that the Tea Party injected energy and enthusiasm into a Republican Party and conservatism after losing the 2008 presidential election. And that helped Republicans win the U.S. House and pick up Senate seats in the 2010 midterms.

The Tea Party also shaped the platform that the GOP's presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, campaigned on. (Look no further than these remarks from Romney's presidential kick-off speech in June 2011: "I will insist that Washington learns to respect the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment. We will return responsibility and authority to the states for dozens of government programs.")

But the same energy and enthusiasm that moved the GOP to the right also contributed to the party losing winnable Senate seats in 2010 and 2012 (like in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, and Nevada). 

And the platform Romney campaigned on in 2012 turned out to be the losing one.

One reason why the Tea Party, four years later, has moved from a political force to relative afterthought is its unpopularity. According to a Jan. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll, only 23 percent of Americans viewed the Tea Party positively, versus 47 percent who viewed it negatively – down from its net-positive 28 percent-to-21 percent rating in Jan. 2010. (But the same 2013 poll found the Tea Party still remains popular among GOP respondents.)

Another reason was a story like this one -- about FreedomWorks -- from late last year:

“The day after Labor Day, just as campaign season was entering its final frenzy, FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization, went into free fall. Richard K. Armey, the group’s chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the group’s Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armey’s enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks’ top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.”

Yet perhaps the biggest explanation for the difference between four years ago and now is because the Republican Party essentially co-opted the movement.

Consider the Tea Party's calls for balanced budgets, liberty, states’ rights, and the elimination of earmarks -- they're all staples of today's GOP.

(Of course, this isn't too dissimilar from how some of Occupy Wall Street's populist rhetoric and language was co-opted by Democrats and President Obama during the 2012 presidential campaign.)

And that's what often happens to social movements, according to some political scientists: The major political parties co-opt them.

So while attendance at a Tea Party rally might decline four years later, its ideas and platforms have become fixtures of American politics.

NBC News has learned the following 12 Republican senators will attend tonight's dinner at the White House with President Obama, according to sources familiar with the dinner: 
 
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
John Boozman  (R-Ark.)
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
Marco Rubio (R-Fla. -- he was invited but may not be able to attend)
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)

Isakson was the one who organized the guest list.

Alaska Rep. Don Young, R, issued a new statement late Friday formally apologizing for his use of a slur to describe immigrant laborers.

Young, who had endured demands by Democrats and other fellow Republicans -- including House Speaker John Boehner -- to apologize for the use of the term "wetbacks" in a radio interview on Thursday, issued a statement doing just that.

Young said in a statement:

"I apologize for the insensitive term I used during an interview in Ketchikan, Alaska.  There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words. That word, and the negative attitudes that come with it, should be left in the 20th century,  and I’m sorry that this has shifted our focus away from comprehensive immigration reform."

Young had appeared on KRBD radio on Thursday, where he made his initial remark.

"My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," Young said. "It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine."

The 21-term congressman issued a statement that evening explaining that he meant no offense by using the ethnic slur, which he said he had learned during a childhood on farms in California.

But Republican leaders, who must repair the party's dismal image among the increasingly influential Latino voting bloc, were quick to distance themselves from Young, and demand a fuller apology.

"I don’t care why he said it – there’s no excuse and it warrants an immediate apology," Boehner said.

After their losses in last year’s elections, Republicans from across the country admitted they have a problem with African-American, Latino and minority voters.
 
But the GOP’s problem also extends to female voters, especially after President Barack Obama beat challenger Mitt Romney by 11 percentage points among women. 
 
“When you have senators who don’t even know the anatomy of a woman, you have a problem,” said former Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md.). “They need to keep quiet.”
 
The Republican National Committee responded last week by releasing its Growth and Opportunity Project, which included recommendations to provide training programs for potential female candidates, to employ more female surrogates and to implement sessions educating members on the best ways to communicate with women.
 
“Communicating, organizing, and winning the women’s vote should be part of all activities that the RNC undertakes,” the report stated. “Women are not a ‘coalition.’ They represent more than half the voting population in the country, and our inability to win their votes is losing us election.”
 
Current and former female GOP officeholders believe the RNC’s actions are a good start, but they disagree over whether the party needs to change its communications strategy, its policies or both.
 
“[The RNC report] has the right message, but we’re still not meeting women in the right places,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who recommended using media outlets like women’s magazines and programming to better communicate with them.
 
Morella adds that improving the GOP’s performance with female voters involves following through on the RNC’s plans to recruit and then support female leaders to increase the party’s desirability. When she entered national politics in 1987, there were equal numbers of Republican and Democratic women in Congress. Democratic women now outnumber Republicans by a 3-to-1 margin.
 
“Pictures of the Republican Party seem to be all men,” Morella said. “Let some women into the picture!”
 
“I think our party thinks in terms of the man who will run instead of the women who have more experience,” Blackburn adds. “Women generally don’t raise their hands to run, but wait to be called on.”
 
Adding more female candidates and surrogates, however, will do little to help the party if it’s not accompanied by more a substantive change to policy, says former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.
 
“It’s not about the messaging; it’s the message,” she said. “We are perceived as being unsympathetic to the needs of the most vulnerable.”
 
Whitman, for example, cited the 138 House Republicans -- including a dozen women -- who voted against the Violence Against Women Act’s reauthorization for a variety of reasons, such as opposition to new protections for gays.
 
Another example is last year’s political debate over contraception. “The most conservative position you can take is to get the party out of the bedroom,” Whitman said. “But instead, you’re getting into that issue and it really turns people off.”
 
Morella agreed that the last election highlighted the need for Republicans to update some of their policies to attract -- not alienate -- new groups.
 
“The issues have gone so far to the right, there’s not much appeal, especially for younger women,” Morella said.
 
The process of attracting women voters is likely to be a slow one, no matter how the party approaches it, notes Karen O’Connor, Director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University.
 
Republicans, O’Connor says, will need to convince women that they are acting in their best interests in order to retain the House and pick up Senate seats in 2012, O’Connor said.
 
Morella, the former Republican congresswoman, is optimistic if only because the party cannot do much worse.
 
“As Abigail Adams said to John, ‘I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors,’” Morella said.
 
“Who would have thought it took this long! History keeps repeating itself.”

Should conservatives shoot all the consultants now?

Top GOP strategists like Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie might want to watch out, because there was at least one apparent yes on Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
 
“Politics is like war. If you can’t win, get the hell going,” said Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who also has been critical of President Obama and the Democrats. “It’s personally offensive when the GOP establishment throws away a win like they did in 2012.”

Caddell, a Fox News contributor, joined a handful of Republicans on a CPAC panel entitled “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” to discuss how the party managed the 2012 campaign.

There was no clear consensus, except that Caddell was the most critical person in the room.
 
“I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers,” he said. “It’s time to stop being marks. It’s time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real.”
 
Consultants have had overwhelming power for a long time, added Republican National Committeeman Morton Blackwell. He maintained that this influence hurts the party, because there is a strong incentive for consultants to spend money on advertising where they often receive a 15% commission. Ad buys, therefore, often take priority over “people-intensive activities” centered on grassroots organization.
 
But the sole consultant on the panel was more skeptical about directing the blame at one group. 
 
“Consultants are either geniuses or idiots every two years,” said Jeff Roe, founder of Axiom Strategies. “Consultants’ role on this is somewhat overstated.”
 
There are many other factors that set the campaign’s tone, agreed Brian Baker, president of the End Spending Action Fund. Everybody who is a part of the campaign is responsible for its failure, he said.

But Caddell had harsh words for Team Romney. “The Romney campaign is the single worst campaign in the history of the United States,” Caddell said. “[Chief strategist Stuart] Stevens had as much business running a campaign as I do sprouting wings and flying out of this room.”
 
He predicted that the Republican Party would become extinct, unless it became the anti-establishment, anti-Washington party.
 
“In my party, we play to win. We play for life and death,” said Caddell, who served as Jimmy Carter’s pollster. “Your party has no problem playing the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters.”

Other panelists, however, were more optimistic about the GOP’s future.
 
“I think he’s dead wrong,” said Baker, arguing that the party was still successful, especially outside of Washington.
 
“There are 30 Republican governors -- highest in the party in 12 years,” he said. “The Republican Party won over 700 seats in state legislative races in 2010 and there are now more Republican state legislators than in any time since the 1920s.”

Gay Republican groups like GOProud were not invited to the Conservative Political Action Convention this year, but that didn’t stop them from making an impact at the annual confab. 

Speaking in a tiny but packed conference room just down the hall from the main CPAC stage, GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia urged activists to help the group broaden its reach within the Republican Party. 

“How can we build a new, modern coalition that can win? Well, we bring together conservatives and libertarians and social conservatives and everyone who shares our vision of a government that puts freedom first,” he said. “Millions of Americans, including gay Americans, will join us if we ask them and welcome them.” 

The other speakers at the panel discussion, sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which hosted GOProud as their guest at CPAC, said GOProud and similar groups have demographics on their side, citing statistics showing a majority of Republicans under 30 support gay marriage. 

LaSalvia also emphasized that pro-gay GOP activists should not reject Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage -- but he did skewer those within the party who he said “just don’t like gay people.” 

“And in 2013, that’s just not OK in America anymore. Because gay people are in every family. Every community. Every circle of friends,” he said. 

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this article.

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan was asked why his latest budget repeals the 2010 federal health-care -- despite the results of last year's presidential election -- the former Republican vice-presidential running mate gave this answer.

"So just because the election didn't go our way," he told National Review," that means we're supposed to change our principles?"

But on the eve of the three-day Conference Political Action Conference (CPAC) that begins on Thursday in the DC area and that will hear from countless Republican politicians, Ryan's answer raises this follow-up question:

What principles -- beyond opposing President Obama's agenda?

Is the GOP a free-market party, or one that's willing to federally bail out the banks if the country is on the brink of another Great Depression?

Is it a party that believes in strong national defense, or is it willing to wage a nearly 13-hour filibuster to highlight how drones could infringe on civil liberties?

Is the GOP a party that stresses deficit reduction and balanced budgets above all else, or is it one willing to support unpaid-for wars and unpaid-for new entitlements?

Is it a party that favors comprehensive immigration reform, or that opposes it?

Does the GOP oppose tax increases, or will it vote for raising rates on the wealthiest Americans?

And is it a party that opposes gay marriage, or one that's becoming more accepting of it?

Yes, the GOP believes in lower taxes and less government. But as Politico's Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write, many of the tensions above will be on display at CPAC as the party -- after its second-straight presidential loss -- finds itself in the midst of an "identity crisis."

"The pillars of the conservative era ushered in by Reagan — a muscular defense, traditional cultural values and devotion to free markets – are being questioned by leading Republicans, and what could take the place of the Gipper’s trinity is now being openly debated in a fashion more reminiscent of the famously fractious Democrats of yore."

Ryan, who speaks at CPAC on Friday, embodies many of these very tensions. He warns of deficits and debt, but supported the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. He believes in the free market, but voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (or TARP). And he now supports comprehensive immigration reform (and maybe even a path to citizenship), but was on a presidential ticket opposing it.

Of course, it's only natural for a party outside the White House to experience an identity crisis. After all, there's no one true leader to unify the different constituencies. And the one unifying force is opposing the president in power -- and that's true whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the Oval Office.

Indeed, after their second-straight presidential loss in 2004, Democrats faced a similar identity crisis. Should it strenuously oppose the Iraq war, or support it? Push for universal health care, or ignore it? Disagree with the Bush-era tax cuts, or call for them to expire?

Yet by the time the Democratic race for president began, the top candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson -- were unified on all the big issues. They opposed the Iraq war; they supported universal health care; they were against the Bush tax cuts. That's why the Democratic primary was fought over the margins (like whether there should be a mandate for health insurance).

And for Republicans, that's the story to watch over the next couple of years. It's one thing for the party to experience an identity crisis in 2013 and 2014. It's another thing -- as Obama prepares to exit office -- to experience that in 2015 and 2016. 

GOProud, a Republican gay-rights group, is still not officially invited to attend CPAC, next week's conservative conference in the D.C. area -- but it will be on site.

Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud's co-founder and executive director, will be participating in a panel happening at the same time as CPAC, in the same building as CPAC, sponsored by one of the same hosts of CPAC.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is sponsoring the panel entitled “A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet.” As of this morning, panelists included Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Liz Mair and Jonah Goldberg.

Today, however, the group added LaSalvia to the group, as well as conservative writers Margaret Hoover and Jennifer Rubin.

LaSalvia is excited to participate, and says his understanding is that CPAC is unhappy with the additions.

The panel is not an official CPAC event, but does appear on the master schedule that will go out to CPAC participants as one of many available options to attend on the first day of the conference -- March 14 -- at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Md.

“CEI is interested in advancing the cause of smaller government and liberty, and looking for ways to reach out to new constituencies,” says Christine Hall, director of communications for CEI. “To the extent we can partner with groups like GOProud and people who share our values and goals -- we want to be able to do that.”

Hall says that CEI has been a co-sponsor of CPAC for many years, and has not gotten any pushback since making the GOProud addition.

The American Conservative Union, the main group that organizes CPAC, confirmed that.

"CPAC sponsors are provided use of our facilities for a two-hour period during our three-day conference to discuss issues of their choosing. We don’t select nor censor the content of their panels. There is a requirement of all of our participants: civility and decorum toward the host, participating organizations and our guests," said ACU Executive Director Gregg Keller in a statement to NBC News.

GOProud had previously participated at CPAC, but was uninvited this year and last year, sparking controversy among gay-right supporters. CPAC Chair Al Cardenas said in an interview last week that GOProud has acted inappropriately as guests in years past.