Imagecolumn: 

It seems that every time we have a contentious judicial nomination process, especially for the Supreme Court, a great fuss is made over not asking certain questions.  More to the point, we're told that nominees should not answer questions that could disclose how they may rule on certain issues in the future.

Hogwash.

The problem with this notion is that the federal judiciary has grown ever more powerful over the years versus our other branches of government.  Further, the Supreme Court is held to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually "means" at any given point in time - information that's surely useful to the people that document is meant to govern.

This being the case, it's ludicrous to suggest that the US Senate, to say nothing of the American people, should not have a good idea "what" these would be solons will say the Constitution means once they're given a lifetime appointment.

Can you imagine a candidate for President telling voters that he can't answer specific questions about incredibly important (even constitutional) issues, and that they shouldn't even be asked such questions, but rather we should just trust that they're a wise, experienced and empathetic person?  (Insert laughter here...)  read more »

Imagecolumn: 

When it comes to the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Republicans have an opportunity to do something that would benefit both themselves and the nation.  That is, they should use the process as a chance to hold forth on the meaning of the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary in our political system and society.

Three main areas are ripe with opportunity for Republicans if they have the nerve to play hardball.

First, the notion that "empathy" should play any role in American justice.

Obama previously stated that he wanted judges that had "empathy" when it came to how they made their decisions. But empathy is merely a euphemism for justifying politically liberal results.

It is a legal pseudo-philosophy that inherently means being un-empathetic to someone else's claims based on nothing more than one's own feelings, as opposed to applying the law as it is written and leaving elected legislators to channel society's collected empathy.  read more »

It has been more than a little amusing lately to watch politicians, interest groups and media types criticize South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for saying "no" to spending an additional $700 million in federal "stimulus" money on anything other than state debt reduction.  read more »

Barack Obama has now been in office for one-hundred days, a length of time the media first began to use to measure early presidential success back in the first administration of FDR.  This is appropriate, given our current President's ambition to increase the size, scope and cost of government beyond the wildest dreams of the man who laid the foundations of the modern welfare state - and American statism in general.  read more »

Dear Michael,

Keep quiet.  That's the best advice anyone could give you right now.

For someone who was presented to his party as a "great" communicator, you have developed one serious case of foot-in-mouth.  To make it even worse, your offending remarks have been aimed at the core of our party, in terms of both people and principles.  read more »

But to what extreme do you take the notion of "no safe level"?  read more »

Julius Caesar once said that the only thing necessary to conquer the world was men and money. Add message to that list and you've got the fundamentals of politics - as in organization, fundraising and communications.

And our party has problems in at least two of those areas.

The first problem is principles, which goes to our message and not adequately communicating our conservative philosophy - or living up to it.  read more »

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum, but you can't prove it by the space between the ears of some in the Republican Party today, or in the conservative movement for that matter.

Take columnist Kathleen Parker for example, who in her most recent column lamented the presence of "oogedy-boogedy" religious conservatives within the Republican Party and derisively referred to them as the "low brow" crowd.  read more »

As the old saying goes, "when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade".

Herewith, a list of some of the lemons from the recent election and the lemonade they could offer.

Election return lemons: the race is over. Obama won. The liberals have two out of three branches of government...with the third (the judiciary) hanging in the balance. Those are pretty big lemons.

Lemonade: conservatives have an opportunity to re-focus our message on our principles and define ourselves in stark relief to the inevitable liberal overreach...and then be positioned to catch those folks in the middle who will soon come down with a case of buyer's remorse.

Strategy lemons: McCain's strategy of "reaching out" failed, (reliable red states turning blue?). Lemonade: "reach-across-the-aisleism" as a strategy is now thoroughly discredited. Good riddance.

Our path is clear: sharpen the differences between ourselves and liberals. Give the public reason to support us by offering a clear, principled vision for conservative governance that applies our principles to the problems of the day. As Ronald Reagan suggested, we have to hold our conservative banner high and define the differences between ourselves and the opposition in bright, bold colors - not pale pastels.  read more »

Knowledge, as they say, is power. Well, if you still lack enough information to decide which of the candidates for President will do the most damage to your values, prepare to be empowered.

Consider the following€¦

Unbridled liberalism: With Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Americans will be riding in the equivalent of a car with three gas pedals and no brake. Not a recipe for a safe ride. The only way to stop is to get into a crash.

And, to whatever degree you may feel Obama to be more moderate than the current Democrat leadership, (however you got that idea), make no mistake about who will be calling the shots the newly empowered Democrat leadership. And there's no way Barry will buck his own party's base so soon after them having given him the White House. For all the bi-partisan blather, Obama has no record whatsoever of "reaching across the aisle" and working with Republicans€¦much less conservatives.  read more »

So what's all the fuss about ACORN, and why should it matter to anyone? Well, if you're an American citizen, and you take citizenship seriously, it matters because our electoral process is being compromised.

As recent press reports have shown, ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been hard at work registering voters in all of the key battleground states for the upcoming election. And, as many of these same reports attest, they're busy being investigated for possible voter fraud.  read more »

Let's get one thing straight. The government and its misguided housing policies caused our current financial mess. And, as a result, the government should help fix it.

That said, exactly "what" should have been fixed, "how" and for "how much" are the right places to focus our attention. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure everyone knows exactly how we got in this mess.  read more »

The game has changed. In an election of McCain vs. Obama, the race was all about Obama. Not anymore.

Win or lose, picking Sarah Palin will go down as the greatest single thing McCain has done for his own campaign, as well as for the conservative movement. Conservatives are rallying like never before to her presence on the ticket.

She's a fiscal conservative who favors tax cuts and has actually used a veto pen. She's a born-again Christian, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun€¦she hunts, she fishes, baits her own hook, has five kids and doesn't look like a member of the NOW gang. What's not to like? Indeed, that, plus a record of conservative reform and demonstrated political skills on the stump and I'd say we've got ourselves a star. And at age 44, one with a potentially long future at that.

While attending the convention, one of my fellow delegates remarked that his young daughter, after seeing her speak, said that she was glad McCain picked a "regular" woman, and not one of those "angry women" presumably teen-speak for an angry feminist.  read more »

Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety. The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".

A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships". He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".

Of course this is all well and good. Candidates who expect the votes of any Americans should make an attempt to address their concerns. The reality however is more blatantly political in that, on the fundamental cultural and moral concerns of evangelicals, he has very little in common with them at all.

The differences are greatest on two fundamental issues: abortion and gay marriage.  read more »

Quick history quiz. Who said the following: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."?

That was Ted Kennedy on the floor of the US Senate in 1986, pushing for legislation that successfully granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens that year.

There you have a good example of why the word "amnesty" is such a hot-button with politicians and the American public. Because the only thing that bill did successfully was grant amnesty.  read more »