Today President Obama announced his choice to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor is a dream candidate and likely to be quickly approved what with the overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses. She was first nominated to the bench by a Republican, the first President Bush, and she had the wisdom never to have children, which eliminates the otherwise automatic nanny-gate fiasco any time a woman is nominated for anything.

She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.

But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.

How did she manage to graduate with highest honors (N.B.: TH.com doesn't allow the Latin version) from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.

Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.

Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the highest court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.

Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.

But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.

In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....”

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.

With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.

There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.

During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [Audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.  If the Republicans -- those few left in Congress -- have the stomach for a battle.

Minnesota is not considered a conservative state by any means, having elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura its governor and Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken as a senator (give or take fifty votes). Yet, when it comes to the Internet, Minnesota is making a move that will bring the ACLU knocking faster than you can say, “yah, sure.”

Today, state officials from the Department of Public Safety have aimed their sights on an area which they believe threatens the safety of their citizens. Child porn, drug dealers, gangs? Nope something even more insidious -- Internet gambling. Yep, the full force and power of the state government of Minnesota is rallying to protect us all from the scourge that is online gambling.

According to a news report in the Star-Tribune, the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division has instructed 11 national and regional telephone and Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access by all Minnesota-based computers to nearly 200 online gambling websites.

The article quotes John Willems, the director of the agency instituting the crackdown, as saying, "We are putting site operators and Minnesota online gamblers on notice and in advance. State residents with online escrow accounts should be aware that access to their accounts may be jeopardized and their funds in peril."

According to the article, Willems does not know how much Internet wagering is going on in Minnesota either in the amount of dollars or the number of players, but believes that the amount of gambling going on in his state over the Internet “is fairly large.”

What has motivated this decision? That can be deduced fairly easily as Willems notes that the Canterbury Park in Shakopee has said that its casino-style games have been hurt. Once again, protection of the local state gambling operation, and not any issue of law or morality, carries the day. This is a near replay of the efforts in Kentucky to protect their online gambling site, TwinSpires.com, by attempting to seize the domain names of gambling sites used by residents of that state.

Here, the state of Minnesota is not trying to seize the websites – a wise move as the Kentucky appellate court halted the seizures there ruling that the state misapplied its seizure laws. Instead, the state agency sent notices to ISPs ordering them to block their sites to Minnesota residents. But the move would have the same effect -- probibiting what is otherwise legal conduct.

The state is apparently relying on a 1961 federal law that gives states the authority to control illegal gambling, yet how that gives them the right to interfere with free speech and violate interstate commerce is another question. One I hope will be answered in favor of online gambling.

To me, it's a basic Republican position to want as little governmental intervention in our lives as possible. I should be free to decide how I want to spend my free time and my money, without unnecessary governmental interference. Poker is not a crime and should not be treated like one. The citizens of Minnesota, like those of Kentucky, do not need their government to act as their babysitter. And they certainly don't need their states interfering with their free speech rights for the sole purpose of protectionism. This is just censorship, plain and simple, and as a Republican I don't need the government stepping in to stop every form of communication they don't agree with. While I'm not often on the side of the ACLU, I'm looking forward to their weighing in on this issue.

In the meantime, the Poker Players Alliance has already issued a statement objecting to the Minnesota’s anti-online gambling efforts, writing:
Matt Werden, the Minnesota state director of the Poker Players Alliance, the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, and more than 21,000 in Minnesota, today issued the following statement following the press announcement by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that they are attempting to block citizens from accessing any commercial gambling sites, including online poker sites.

"This isn't simply a heavy-handed tactic by the government; this is a clear misrepresentation of federal law, as well as Minnesota law, used in an unprecedented way to try and censor the Internet. I don't know what U.S. Code they're reading, but it is not illegal to play this great American pastime online, and we're calling their bluff.

"The fact is, online poker is not illegal, it's not criminal, and it cannot be forcibly blocked by a state authority looking to score some political points. What are they going to do when this fails, ban poker books and burn our players at the stake?

"We see headlines like this coming from communist China but never expect that it could happen here in Minnesota. The good news is groups like the Poker Players Alliance are here to protect the rights of poker players and set the record straight when government reaches too far. But this is more than just protecting poker – this is about keeping the internet free of censorship and ensuring that law abiding citizens can enjoy a game of Texas Hold 'Em in the comfort of their own home, whether it's online or with a group of friends.

"The PPA will take any action necessary to make sure our members and the general public are aware of these oppressive and illegal actions, and to make sure the game of poker – in all its forms – is protected in the state of Minnesota."

 

We all remember Michelle Obama’s statement in early 2008 that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”   I am sorry to say that after fewer than one hundred days into her husband’s administration, I am not proud of my country. At least, not proud of the America that Obama and his administration represent.

In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).

Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.

And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation.  Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.  

Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S. 

I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America.  Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.

 I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012. 

President Obama's first trip to Europe has been hailed -- as pretty much everything he does -- as an enormous success. The media applauded his humility and conciliatory approach. They cheered the end of the age of arrogance, the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.

Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.

He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.

This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.

Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?

Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.

Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.

Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.

France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.

And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.

After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.

So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.

I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.

When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.

Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.

I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.

The commonwealth of Kentucky is known for three things – bourbon, tobacco, and horse racing. So it may come as a surprise that Kentucky is taking on the role of the temperance police in the Court of Appeals as they attempt to confiscate the Internet domain names of over one hundred online poker sites. But in a fifty-six page brief, the sanctimony – along with the hypocrisy – comes dripping off the page as the Commonwealth warns of the “particularly harmful” nature of Internet gambling.

The background of this dispute is as follows. After the Kentucky governor Steve Beshear was unable to follow up on a campaign promise to bring casino-type gambling to Kentucky, he decided to marshal his forces behind closing 141 Internet gambling sites that were available in – though not located in – Kentucky. His secretary of justice and public safety brought a criminal seizure action against 141 Internet domain names pursuant to Kentucky statue 528, which provided for seizure of “unlawful gambling devices” operating within the Commonwealth.

In a closed-door hearing, the Commonwealth was able to convince a judge to order the seizure despite the fact that the domain names had not been notified, had not had an opportunity to object, and were not located in the state. At a subsequent forfeiture hearing, lawyers representing the domain names, the online gambling industry, and other free speech organizations objected to the seizure on a number of grounds, including that domain names are not “gambling devices” (defined under the statute as being a device such as a slot machine or roulette wheel. They also argued that the Commonwealth improperly used a criminal forfeiture statute in a civil proceeding, and improperly ordered seizure without first finding a criminal violation.

Those representing the defendant domain names lost at the trial court, but were successful in bringing a writ prohibiting the trial court from following through with the forfeitures. The Commonwealth appealed this decision and last month filed its mammoth brief. Despite the fact that the governor of Kentucky had run for reelection on the promise of bringing casino gambling to the state, and despite the fact that the Kentucky-based online gambling site TwinSpires.com was excluded from the seizure and forfeiture order, the Kentucky brief wraps the Commonwealth in all that is good and pure in its fight against the evils of demon-gambling.

The brief calls the world of online gambling an “illegal racket” which is particularly dangerous because it is easy, available and anonymous, operating in an “unregulated underworld” where gamblers can gamble in relative isolation and “instantly wager and lose retirement savings or college funds in secrecy.”

Putting aside the over-wrought, hysteria in this loaded language, what the brief fails to do is explain how that differs from the Kentucky-based TwinSpires.com, the online gambling site of Churchill Downs, where the first button on the home page is “wager now.” If their complaint is that these gambling sites are located off shore, then welcome them to set up in Kentucky. I’m sure they‘ll be happy to.

But this case is not about protecting the citizens of Kentucky from the sin of online gambling at offshore sites, but about protecting the business of Churchill Downs from losing money to competing online gambling sites. The Commonwealth’s attack on online gambling is about two things – protectionism and money. They want to protect their own gambling interests and hold these off shore sites hostage in exchange for monetary payoffs.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will see through the hysteria and evaluate the legal issues at the heart of this case and affirm the order prohibiting the seizure of the domain names and letting them operate free from protectionist interference.

“You’re not a Republican, are you?”

That question has been asked of me quite a bit lately, and always with a mixture of shock, horror, and pity. I can’t possibly be a Republican! I’m walking upright, knuckles well above dragging-on-the-sidewalk length. I speak in complete sentences and otherwise appear to be in possession of my faculties. I’m well-educated, irreligious, and I live in Los Angeles. So how can I possibly be a Republican?

It's insulting, narrow-minded and condescending to believe that no intelligent, rational person can be a Republican in 2009. Yes, I'm a Republican, and even after eight years of George Bush, I'm still proud of my party.

It's so easy for people to forget the roots of the Republican Party. The Republicans were once the holders of the moral high ground, the carriers of the torch of freedom and equality.

It was the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, which, as former slave and the first African-American to serve in Congress from South Carolina, Robert Smalls, said, "unshackled the necks of four million human beings."

It was the Republican party that worked to pass the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery, the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the laws, and the 15th Amendment, secure voting rights for African-Americans.

It was the Republican party that took the lead in working for women's suffrage. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917. The Republican Party was first to put equal rights for women in their party's platform.

It was the Republican party that elected Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive, conservationist who called for protection of our natural resources. He fought against corrupt corporations and for a "square deal" for both the average citizen and business. He was the first American to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

That is a proud tradition.

Then came the Depression and FDR and suddenly the Republican party was the party of the mean, out-of-touch, anti-poor, fat cats who would kick widows and orphans out onto the street.

Why does no one mention George Wallace -- the pro-segregationist governor of Alabama -- was a Democrat?

Or the fact that Robert Byrd -- a former KKK member who filibustered to try and stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is a Democrat?

The Republicans are the pro-war party, or so they say. Oh, really? Who was it who embroiled us in the Vietnam war, escalating our troops, and causing untold casualties of bodies and minds? Lyndon Johnson -- a Democrat. Who ended the war? That's right, a Republican. Who went to China and the former Soviet Union to build better relations and promote peace? Hint: not the Democrats.

What are the core Republican values? Smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal accountability, strong national defense, freedom and equality. When did these become anathema?

What has caused the Republican Party to suffer, I believe, is their movement away from these value. George Bush greatly expanded the size and involvement of the federal government, and did not promote fiscal responsibility. The Party's obsession with interfering with women's reproductive rights is unfortunate and antithetical to what the party stands for which is, or should be, freedom of choice and freedom from excessive governmental intrusion into our lives.

The Republican core values are ones I am proud to hold and hope can once again come to national power and prominence. I hope for a resurgence of the Reagan Revolution, when government wasn't the enemy but neither was it the wet nurse to keep the poor needy and the middle class from becoming too successful.

The Republican Party doesn't hate the poor, but it does not believe that the answer to poverty is handouts. Sorry for the digression, but I was watching a show where they were talking with teen mothers and this girl mentioned that with welfare and whatever other money she was getting, "they" (meaning the government) were making it too easy for her. She said because of that, there was no motivation for her to get a job. Bingo! Isn't that what the Republicans have been saying since FDR, that the welfare state is a prison, a form of slavery. My cynical side thinks the Democrats perpetuate the welfare state to keep their voting base.

The Democratic Party needs to be needed. It needs poor, desperate people that it can promise the moon to and ask for nothing in return. That is their core group of voters, the voting bloc who keeps them in office. Add to that those who think of themselves a caring and compassionate and vote not in their own best interest but to feel good about themselves, you have the current Democrat majority.

So, put away your shock, horror, and pity -- yes, I'm a Republican. And perhaps if you thought about it rationally, you might be one too.

According to a recent Rasmussen survey, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is currently hovering around 33.6%, compared with 40% who identify as Democrats. There are a number of reasons the Republican party is currently the minority party, not the least of which is the public's perception of what a Republican is -- a white, middle-aged, right-wing, Evangelical, gun-toting, uneducated fascist.

But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.

Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.

You might be a Republican if:

You love and are proud of America.

We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.

Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.

You don't hate the wealthy.

Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.

Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.

Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.

You believe charity begins at home.

Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.

Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.

Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."

It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.

You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.

One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.

Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.

You don't expect government to have all the answers.

You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?

The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.

What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?

Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.

The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.

After selling himself to the American people more relentlessly than the Geico gecko, ETrade baby and FreeCreditReport troubadour, could some of the luster be off the Barack Obama brand? Is it possible that the country could be starting to question exactly what it was they bought when they elected him four months ago?

First, Obama has had a great deal of trouble in just assembling his cabinet due to poor vetting and lack of focus. Though, considering the nominees were about to work for the least vetted president ever, it should have come as no surprise. Then you had the fact that he and his administration set the wrong tone from the outset, scaring the American people when they needed to be assured.

But things are unraveling for the president at a fast pace -- and what he's losing is his mystique, his allure, his messiah-like glow. It is not surprising that his Vice President is already mocking his Christ-like image, explaining at the 124th annual Gridiron Dinner in Washington, D.C. that Obama was missing the dinner because he was preparing for Easter, “because he thinks it’s about him [Obama].”

There was, of course, his unfortunate attempt at humor on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno when he inserted his foot in his mouth more deftly than any Bush had in the past, saying he bowled so poorly, "it was like the Special Olympics or something."

Then last night, 60 Minutes broadcast a twenty minute interview with the president, conducted by Steve Kroft. Now, 60 Minutes is not known for a conservative bent, nor have they ever been associated with any vast right wing conspiracy. Yet, their reporter observed something very odd in the demeanor of our 44th president during the interview. Obama had the giggles.

During an interchange on bailouts,Obama said, "I just want to say that-- the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry."

He continued laughing and Kroft commented on the awkwardness of the president "laughing about some of these problems." Kroft imagined the viewers might be taken aback seeing the president "sitting there just making jokes about money." Kroft then said, after being interrupted again by Obama's laughter, what many of us were thinking, "Are you punch drunk?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's suffering from extreme flop sweat and is experiencing the nervous laughter that comes with it. After all, he has no clue what he's doing, and everyone is looking to him for answers. You could laugh or you could cry. Obama has chosen to laugh.

But the missteps from Obama don't stop here. There is the letter he wrote to former French president Jacques Chirac which used the type of diplomatic formality more appropriate if Chirac were still president, and not Nicolas Sarkozy. This unfortunate breach of etiquette is more troublesome because Sarkozy already has felt snubbed by Obama and his extending his offer of friendship and work to Sarkozy's predecessor could only exacerbate his feelings.

Obama has already upset another of our most significant allies, snubbing Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this month. When Brown traveled to D.C. to meet with the president, Obama rejected the idea of a joint press conference, instead letting the media in for a quick meet and greet. It was expected that the U.S. President would have wanted to stand side-by-side as Presidents and Prime Ministers have time and again. But, he relegated Brown to the back room, while making time to meet later with Boy Scouts.

It's amateur hour in Washington, even the most rabid of his supporters must see that now.

We know, intellecutally, that we shouldn't treat a campaign for president like an extended QVC episode -- but we did, and now we're stuck with the product that had the best pitch, but didn't deliver what it promised.

President Obama is one of the most skillful politicians we've seen in a long time. His "Blame me," speech earlier this week is a prime example. Obama managed to portray himself as George Washington, Harry Truman and Mahatma Gandhi all rolled into one when addressing the AIG bonus fiasco.

Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."

He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."

That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.

Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.

So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.

It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.

Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.

Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.

There is a website called boycottliberalism.com and it lists, among other things, the top 25 liberal musicians. Sadly for me, my favorite band, REM, is there along with other bands I enjoy. I've been thinking about this conundrum for some time -- what if your political beliefs are radically different from your favorite artist? Do you reject them or just agree to disagree? Do you support them with your dollars -- buying their CDs, going to their concerts, seeing their movies, watching their TV shows?

This is an issue I struggle with quite a bit, being a Republican who leans towards liberal artists. I had originally considered naming this blog after one of REM's song lyrics, instead it's named after a play by Lanford Wilson, who, based on his writings, I can only assume would disagree with almost everything I write. It's confounding for me that the artists who I connect on one level, I am diametrically opposed to on another.

So what to do? In the past twenty-five years I've gone to too many REM concerts to count and have had to put up with anti-Bush Sr., pro-Clinton, pro-Gore, pro-Kerry, and rampant anti-Bush Jr. orations in the middle of most of them. I've sang along to Ignoreland, realizing it was an attack on the Reagan and Bush administrations. I've listened to him denounce the Republican nominees for president for over a quarter of a century, even just last year threatening to leave the country if McCain won.

I'm sure over the decades, some percentage of all the money I've spent on REM has gone to support some candidate I oppose, some cause I don't believe in. I've indirectly furthered the Democratic agenda by supporting one of their most staunch allies, one of their most fervent banner carriers. Yet boycotting them because of differences of political opinion seems un-American to me. They have a right to their wrong opinion and the have a right to express it.

I also have a right to express my opinion by not giving them my money. It is a two way street -- they have a right to speak, and we have a right to respond. I wondered, would they be horrified to discover that some of their fans may be -- gasp -- Republicans? Conservatives, even?

I was actually heartened to see Stipe say that there was no inconsistency in his mind behind a "right-winger" liking the music of a liberal group, addressing the rumor that Tory leader David Cameron and former Bush ally Tony Blair were fans of REM. He dismissed as silly the idea that a liberal artist should be displeased to discover they had conservative fans.

But others realize that with taking a political stand comes a risk. Death Cab for Cutie's frontman Benjamin Gibbard told Morphizm.com back in 2004, "I think art and politics are directly related to each other, and people that deny the cross-influence are kidding themselves. So I can understand why people tend to be annoyed by people like ourselves getting up and taking a political stand."

Similarly, REM's Mike Mills said during the pro-Kerry 2004 Vote for Change tour, "We may alienate some fans over this. I don't like that - I prefer to have music stand apart from political feelings. But this is so important, it's worth it. If I p*ss a few people off, good."

Now, I was surprised to see liberal artists worry about taking liberal positions. To my knowledge, the only recent artists who risked anything by their liberal stance were the Dixie Chicks and that was because country music is thought to be more of a Red State thing. Usually, being a liberal artist is redundant and not likely to inflame any negative passions.

So where does that leave the conflicted fan? In my case, REM's music means more to me than anything this side of the original liberal-musician, John Lennon. So do I sacrifice my love of their songs, or Lennon's, because of jarring political disagreements? How far would they have to go for their politicizing to outweigh their music? I'm not sure, but I know they haven't gone too far. Yet.

"Take away their money and you take away their power" is the motto of the boycottliberalism.com website, and I know that there is some truth to that. I do worry about financially supporting those who want to take the country in a direction I'm opposed to. And I worry about giving too much power and voice to those who argue against what I believe to be best for the country.

Philosophically, they're the enemy and, to them, I'm the enemy as well. I don't want to sound like a Christian, especially since I'm not in the least bit religious and if I were I wouldn't be slanting in that direction, but maybe there is something to loving your enemy. So, for now, I continue to agree to disagree.

Timothy Geithner should be out at Treasury by the end of next week. How do I know? Look at the following statements made today by President Obama about his Treasury Secretary:

"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."

"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."

Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."

Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.

Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.

Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.

It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.

Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.

This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.

This might take more than one post.

We Republicans are fast becoming a memory, to be thrown in the trash heap of passe political parties along with the Federalists, the Whigs and the Know-Nothings. We see it in the November election results and hear it on the airwaves: we are out of touch with the American populace, our core values have been rejected, we have no unifying theme, no strong leader. Stick a fork in us, we're done.

A recent Gallup Poll survey showed an average of 36% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and 28% as Republicans in 2008. Add independents to the mix and you have a clear majority -- 52% of American voters -- identifying themselves as Democrats or leaning to the Democratic Party, compared with just 40% who identified with or leaned to the Republican Party.

Not since Ronald Reagan's reelection have the Democrats enjoyed such a favored position with the American people. Four years of the Bush Administration, coupled with the star power of Barack Obama, has elevated the Democratic Party to new dizzying heights and made Nancy Pelosi popping-out-of-her-chair ecstatic.

But the Republican Party does not have as far as some may think to regain its popularity. First, it needs to reclaim its position as the party that will fight earmarks, pork, every form of excessive and wasteful spending. Over the last eight years, Republicans have failed in this regard and have forgotten that they are supposed to be the gatekeepers of the money we send them and not profligate spenders rivaling their Democratic counterparts.

Second, stop scaring potential voters away with a platform long on social/religious statements and short on what really matter to the future of our country. Yes, I know that for some abortion is murder -- but that does not have to be a core belief of the entire Republican party. The party should stay out of the abortion debate all together -- those morally opposed to abortion in any form, at any time, are not going to flock to the Democratic party should we Republicans remove the issue from our platform. And those who support a woman's right to choose should not be told in unsparing words, you are not welcome in this party.

Similarly, the party should not focus on prayer in school, opposition to gay marriage, teaching of intelligent design, or any other religious right position that serves only as a lightning rod to alienate ourselves from the majority of American and runs counter to what should be our focus -- freedom and less government intervention in our lives.

Third, we need to better articulate why capitalism is the best economic system for all Americans and why moves in the direction of socialism (though appealing to some on the surface), would spell disaster to the future of our country. Right now we're the Scrooge party and can't compete with Santa. We need to explain how Obama's plan to limit itemized deductions discourages charitable donations, for example. We need to explain when the stock market plunges, as it continues to do, those who would spend, thereby keeping businesses afloat and workers employed, will simply keep their money to themselves. We need to explain how government handouts do not spur economic growth, build anything, create anything, or have any lasting impact.

We need to remind people of some basic rules their mothers should have taught them -- you can't live beyond your means, you can't take what isn't yours, you should save up for what you want, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Listen, I'll give it to the Democratic party. The managed to nominate a rock star for president, someone without a record of his own, who could mount a brilliant grass roots/youth driven/internet campaign based almost entirely on bashing the very bashable Bush administration. Obama's election was based on two things -- George Bush and Obama's ease in front of a teleprompter.

The Republicans are going to have to work a lot harder in 2010 and 2012 if we want to turn the tide back. Unless there is some novice state representative out there who gives great speeches and has a catchy slogan, we are actually going to have to sell the American people on our beliefs. But I think after watching the economy collapse after the administration makes business and high wage earners the enemy, Americans may be receptive to bringing back solid economic values. If it isn't too late.