Al Franken has assumed many titles over the years: comedian, failed radio show host, liberal activist, tax cheat (a requirement these days to be elected into Democratic office). Now he can add senator to that list. Yes, America, it's official. The left seeks to drastically alter every aspect of our life and now they have the support of a clown to help them succeed (GOP: we've officially hit the bottom).

It couldn't have happened at a worse time.

Democrats are poised to usher in a new era of nanny state governance through pivotal and preposterous pieces of legislation at warp speed. So fast, in fact, that nobody on Capitol Hill has had time to read these bills, tell us the details or give us the mounting price tag. Franken's victory puts the Democratic Party at that much feared 60 vote filibuster proof majority, even though Senators Kennedy and Byrd are on indefinite medical leave and are only likely to return for the most crucial votes. He could provide the key vote on the largest tax increase in history, the most radical overhaul of our healthcare system and the way we structure our financial markets.

It doesn't stop there. Also on the Senate's agenda are ratifying judicial nominees, immigration, and the pet project of organized labor: the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would give workers more power to form unions. (As if they don't have enough power already).

Some on the left are downplaying the difference he'll make, including Franken himself.

"I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator, I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota," he insisted.

Franken is a lot of things. A pragmatic, moderate maverick with an independent streak is not one of them. He is as far-left as they come, a unique strain of irrational progressive that can only be created by the world of celebrity, a la Jeanine Garafalo. The party infrastructure has spent millions of dollars and countless months working tirelessly to assure his election to office. He owes them. Big. And there is no question they can count on their newest member to repay the favors.

Democrats might, as Time magazine put it: "have added a famous face with a high TV-recognizability factor to help with fundraising -- and brought someone with a decent sense of humor to the world's most deliberative body."

The jury is still out on his sense of humor. But as far as his impact, the ruling is confirmed. No one's laughing.

.

When this situation occurs, as it regularly does, the public constantly finds itself debating hairsplitting, obscure theories of moral relativism --- but right or left, there is no question that adultery lacks party affiliation. It’s driven by power lust, or just plain lust, not political stripes. But what's the common thread, besides a complete lapse of judgment and perception of untouchability? Answer: they're all men. So should we be electing more women instead?

When it comes to females and elected office, it's typically about power, not sex. There are most certainly exceptions, and women absolutely aren't immune to cheating, but when is the last time you saw a pant-chasing woman politician admit to soliciting sexual services? Or one caught hopping a jet to South America to visit her Latin lover? The DC Madam's client list gone public didn't exactly have the Lindy Boggs women's lounge in the US House hiding for cover. Yes, Diane Feinstein likely faces jaw-dropping documents at her desk everyday. A Chippendale’s calendar is not one of them.

Men are genetically engineered to think about sex more than women. You don’t need a scientist to expound. Think of all the surveys and studies (or just think about your boyfriend or brother). Drug companies spend billions on drugs like Viagra for a reason. Playboy circulation: 2.5 million. Playgirl: zero (it went all web due to financial troubles). Now add power to that equation and you have aforementioned list of offenders.

Women morph into totally different creatures when granted authority. We get thick-skinned. Bossy. Bullying. Borderline masculine. We turn into Barbara “call me Senator,” Boxer, not Bill “call me daddy” Clinton. Women electeds don't typically have trouble keeping their zippers up, or their skirts down. We just have trouble. Period. And pun intended.

Which brings me to my next question:

Is more estrogen is the answer to an ethically ailing, morally decaying body politic? Would we be spared the slimy, disappointing marital disclosure with fewer men in control? An all female Congress would bring about snares, but think about what it would eliminate.

It’s true there are a disproportionate number of men in office than women. (For the record, I’m not debating the law of averages). However, there are more women in office than ever and still no salacious soap opera like sex scandals.

In fact, a 2008 Pew Research Center study shows that “when it comes to honesty, intelligence and a handful of other character traits the public values highly in leaders, they rate women superior to men.” When asked who makes a better political leader, 69 percent said men and women equally make good leaders (21 percent said men make better leaders, six percent said women) yet men still hold a majority of positions of power. Baby pressures and ole boys club aside, what gives?

Females arguably work twice as hard to achieve power than men do, even to this day. If we're smart but also attractive they call us bimbos no matter where we went to college, how many degrees we have, or how many languages we speak. If we're tough they call us bitches. Emotional equals weak. Passionate? Critics' code for crazy. And no matter what we look like you can bet we're getting scrutiny from both genders on our hair and wardrobe. Just look at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Would anyone argue they had it easy?

By the time women have risen to a position of power, we’ve invested far too much to blow it on prostitutes and private jets. We’re more careful with what’s at stake. Our intuition and perspective is driven by leadership, not libido, respect, not raunch.

Male or female, every elected official has the duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but when it comes to bedroom behavior, the guys consistently get it wrong. Would more women get it right? To sum it up: is the sad status quo more evidence that spatial judgment in government is desperately needed? Will high heels eliminate the real heels? Uncle Sam out, Aunt Samantha in? I’m just asking.

In the last two weeks we've seen President Obama endure treatment that he isn't exactly accustomed to: harsh criticism from his own party, a significant slip in the polls, and unfavorable headlines instead of glowing, inflated puff pieces. It seems that biting off more than he can chew when it comes to health care, government intervention into the private sector, and ballooning deficits have left him choking in what might be the first major sea change as his policy positions have started to eclipse his personal popularity.

Reality is creeping onto front pages everywhere. The Wall Street Journal recently reported "Rising Doubts Threaten to Overshadow Obama's Agenda;" Politico's above the fold headline trumpeted "Obama Health Care Plan Imperiled;" and the CBS News/New York Times poll inspired this headline in the paper: "Poll Finds Unease with Obama on Key Issues."

The Times specifically found "a distinct gulf between Mr. Obama's overall standing and how some of his key initiatives are viewed, with fewer than half of Americans saying they approve of how he has handled health care and the effort to save General Motors and Chrysler. A majority of people said his policies have had either no effect yet on improving the economy or had made it worse, underscoring how his political strength still rests on faith in his leadership rather than concrete results."

However, that faith is diminishing.

Though Obama's personal popularity hasn't plumetted (yet) but there are signs it's starting to suffer. According to last week's Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, "Thirty two percent of the nation's voters now strongly approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34 percent) strongly disapprove -- giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That's the President's lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama." Health care seems to be Obama's toughest challenge yet, and the impetus for the awakening. There are some political maneuvers that would that prevent politicians from being able to thread the needle and health care is one of them. If the public wasn't paying attention before, they are now as health care affects every single American. Obama's mantra might be change, but when it comes to individual's medical treatment, change isn't usually embraced. Especially change that's arrived this quickly, and is so costly and drastic.

The Obama administration has yet to tell us why the government can successfully run universal health care when we can't even run the socialized health programs we already have in place: Medicare (which is hemorrhaging money) and Medicaid (which is putting many states in the red). As new reports surface that Obama lacks the support in Congress to pass this behemoth bill, expect it -- and his popularity numbers -- to fall apart, and fast. Look for a White House that will begin to scale back expectations. Still, the lack of details and support will likely quickly trigger a collapse in confidence.

When the economy is in a recession, when spending is already out of control and when inflation is rising -- not even a popular president can ram through reforms at rapid pace. Without the protection from his own party, the support of a patient public and a complacent media with a man-crush, the politician who has been billed as "untouchable" will soon be revealed for what he is: an amateur who lacks the credible answers and ability to really lead. In other words, the honeymoon is almost over, history will point to health care as the reason.

President Obama is feeling the heat lately for his limp foreign policy postures, showcased now more than ever with the increasing violence and chaos following Iran’s presidential election. Surprisingly, the critique is stemming from both sides of the aisle and is beginning to crescendo. Since the announcement of Ahmadenejad’s victory, Obama’s response has been more than unimpressive, it’s been plain impotent. If Iran is the ringing red phone, Obama is putting the call straight to voicemail.

Apparently in this administration, forceful, timely responses have been reserved for houseflies instead of our most threatening enemies.

The president believes that we shouldn’t “meddle” when it comes to Iran (or anyone else for that matter). Obama doesn’t want to appear like he is directing the protests; but even so, the Iranian government has already accused America of “interventionist” statements. Remind me again why democracy promotion is such a bad thing?

President Obama: you aren’t the leader of some insignificant Caribbean territory. You are the leader of the free world.

The world expects you, like your predecessors, to lead. But the global community is quickly learning not to hold its breath. In mere months, Obama has transformed the United States of America from the world’s policeman to the world’s cheerleader. We’re now the Mr. Rogers of foreign relations. Even Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are urging Obama to toughen up.

How can someone so quick to meddle in private domestic enterprises — from insurance to banking to the auto industry — remain so hands off when it comes to our national security?

Iran needs some major meddling. The same goes for North Korea. In fact, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, North Korea is seen as a bigger threat than Iran, China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — surpassing Iran by a more than two-to-one margin on voters’ worry list.

The scariest part about both is that the two countries are intrinsically linked. Though the administration insists it’s keeping an eye on Iran, Iran is watching North Korea and how we deal with them. We deal with them through the Chinese. Problem is, our leverage with China is limited considering that they hold the bulk of our ballooning debt. Plainly put: if the North Koreans decide to sell a nuclear weapon the likely customer will be from Tehran. That is why sitting on our hands and spending our nation into an economic choke-hold will result in unprecedented American vulnerability.

This is one “holy crap” moment that photo ops and late night talk show appearances can’t fix. It’s time for the Obama administration to swat down stubborn, rogue regimes and anyone who seeks to threaten our safety. That’s what I call real pest control.

A growing media bloodsport seems to be emerging: From Perez Hilton to Playboy’s “Conservative Women Hate List” to David Letterman’s lewd comments about Sarah Palin, it appears that attacking women – specifically conservative women – is not only all the rage, but oddly, acceptable.

I’m not talking about attacks from bottom feeder leftist blogs either. Notable mainstream brands like the Miss USA Organization, “The Late Show” and Playboy magazine have all lost their sense of humor and their sense of decency by allowing conservative women to become a punching bag — and a punch line — for the left. Forgoing all boundaries, a party that once used to claim to own the violence against women issue has embraced it and let their politics run them when it comes to the issue of misogyny.

On its face, this isn’t even a political issue. It’s a women’s issue –- a human issue that transcends politics. But why, when it comes to the most serious and sensitive attacks against women the National Organization for Women spokeswoman warrants a missing person’s report?

Carrie Prejean was called the most offensive four and five letter words by Miss USA judge Perez Hilton’s after she expressed her traditional views on gay marriage. Was he scolded by one of the organization’s owners, Donald Trump? Hardly. Trump actually expressed willingness to allow Hilton to judge at next year’s competition.

And that’s just the beginning. Playboy magazine published a vile, incendiary list of conservative women it would like to engage in hate sex with, and it was only after public outcry that it pulled the article. Its response was watered down, to say the least. Where was that writer’s editor? (And that editor’s mind, moreover?) It doesn’t take an expert to know that the first stage of violence is thinking about it, then expressing it, then actually doing it.

David Letterman made a disgusting joke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s underage daughter and he didn’t stop there. He continued to make an off color joke about the Governor’s appearance making many want to invoke slaps but not against their knees.

Palin is apparently more popular than Letterman's pitiful, dysfunctional sense of humor. Thanks to growing pressure from viewers Letterman offered — not one — but two — mea culpas. But where was CBS from the start? It was only after the public got involved that the comedian began to react with some seeming sincerity.

But was it even sincere at all? It shouldn't have taken him two times to get it right and both aplogies were laden with excuses (something my mother always says "negates the apology in the first place"). Note the excuse: he meant to insult her older daughter. Frankly it's too late and the impetus wasn't guilt, it was the impending ratings dive and protests as a result of outraged females. In other words: money.

For the record, Palin should never appear on his show. Protests calling for his resignation should continue with a larger message to the general population and television executives everywhere: distasteful behavior against females of any age will not be tolerated.

The United States, a champion for women’s rights throughout the world, will have a tough time wagging it’s finger at countries that are less than progressive in their attitudes toward women and crimes against women all over the world when we tolerate hate speak at the expense of the American female, for a few laughs or fame, no less.

The First Amendment protects free speech but there is no reason that we, as citizens and consumers, should buy it. When it comes to those who want to disrespect any woman, we can take it to their bottom line and not only speak out, but also boycott their business.

Violence against women is wrong, no matter what party affiliation, not to mention it’s just not funny. The more acceptable it becomes to express violent, crass language against women in the public arena the more you can expect our country to fray at the seams.

The verdict is in: Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich think Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist.  Why? They start (and finish) with these remarks:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Yup, sounds like racism to me. And of course if any white man would have said the reverse he’d be vilified.

However, calling her a racist — though intellectually honest — is politically most unwise. The visual is even worse: two, old white guys angrily battling a minority female (I’m having flashbacks of the partial birth abortion bill passage when President Bush was flanked by all men in dark suits and grey hair. Not a woman in sight. It wasn’t pretty). This is not the picture, or the fight, we want.

The Republican Party is much smarter than to invoke the commonplace, language of the left. They are the ones that typically use words like “racist.” Since when did the GOP turn into the Democratic Party? Even they have moved on from the 1990s when Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle were their mouthpieces. This is beyond arrested development. We are regressing.

The GOP should structure its opposition to Sotomayor by focusing on two fundamental points. The first is her ability to thoughtfully interpret the Constitution.

Translation: fairness. She has made questionable statements and rulings in the past that warrant this inquiry. Specifically the comments she offered about ethnicity, whether or not judges can put their personal “sympathies” aside and do their job, and her ruling on the New Haven firefighters’ affirmative action case.

The second challenge should be directed at Obama: is Sotomayor a tool to advance the president’s world view that the irresponsible will be rewarded at the expense of the responsible? Obama’s vision is one that comes to the rescue of people who bought homes they couldn’t afford, companies who made terrible business decisions; a dogma that perpetuates weapons of class destruction, and the belief that a safety net should be the norm, not an aberration.

It is much like the “critical” legal theory that elite law schools like Harvard have been teaching for more than a decade. It’s a theory that both Obama and his nominee ascribe to and seek to put into practice.

The basis of critical theory is that there is no objectivity in the law. Legal positions are based upon one’s background, ethnicity, wealth (or lack thereof), etc.  The law is just an equalizer –- a power tool to be used by various groups and the key to good legal judgment is “empathy” with the poor, the downtrodden, etc.  The first commandment is: don’t let the powerful and rich use the law to their advantage.

The right must understand that if this theory has been taught for a decade in our nation’s most prestigious law schools, it will have political consequences. This is exactly what we are seeing today, which gives credence to an argument I have been making for months — the GOP needs to stop focusing on every little political fight and start to care about the culture.

Here are the professions currently dominated by the left: journalism, law, academia and the arts. In other words, they’re a force in powerful professions that  involve ideas and shape our culture. The conservative “movement” can’t keep moving when there is no intellectual engine behind it. It is exhausted. We are now using the terminology of the left (”racist”) to try to make our points. We should not have to stoop to the playing field of progressives. The GOP is better than this. The Party is smarter than this.  If the right doesn’t start to care about changing the culture, we are destined to lose – and not just this Supreme Court battle. We’ll lose the war.

The Obama administration triangulated the right with this raw, political pick to shore up its base with women, Latinos and liberals.  Any Republican assault that appears shrill to the electorate will backfire and damage our brand.  Though Bush left a leadership vacuum in his wake, we should not fill it with angry, Democratic rhetoric. Reagan certainly wouldn’t. We must be smarter than to fall into their trap.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and columnist. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com or www.foxnews.com/opinion.

Obama has announced his pick for the Supreme Court: Manhattan’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Sonia Sotomayor.

The pros: she's a real judge from an important circuit court with a stellar judicial pedigree. This one ain't coming from traffic court.

The cons: she could be a judicial activist who lets her own feelings impede on the role of the judiciary. In point of fact she has observed on tape that federal appellate courts "make policy."

It’s the job of the President and Congress to enact policy, not the judicial branch. Ms. Sotomayer seems perfect for Capitol Hill, but she’s apparently headed for the wrong building.

Sotomayer has also questioned whether or not justices can put aside their personal sympathies to do their jobs.

“I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Sympathies? Since when do we have our highest court in the land judge on feelings?

According to US News, "Obama was 'reaching for history,' says the AP. The Politico, meanwhile, says the President ‘has again swept away historic barriers of race and ethnicity.’ Calling Sotomayor ‘a proud project of the Bronx,’ NBC Nightly News said a ‘difference is being felt’ in her home borough ‘among those who dare to dream just like she did.’”

Touching.  But what does this have to do with being a judge? Once again Obama and his team are in pursuit of historic grandeur. Plus they get exercise raw politics – something that should never be a factor when it comes to the highest court in the land.  

Before she sails through the confirmation process, the real question that needs to be answered is: is she a mechanism for the left to use a far fetched interpretation of the constitution to enact laws they can't get through Congress?

If that’s the case, the nation is facing the most rapid cultural decay it’s seen in years. This battle is bigger than the bench, and much bigger than politics.

Barack Obama can’t seem to get his story straight when it comes to what he thinks will jeopardize the safety and security of our country and our troops, and what will prove most fruitful when it comes to political expedience. Just weeks ago Obama sanctioned the release of classified memos that provided graphic detail on how CIA interrogations were conducted despite repeatedly insisting that “we should be looking forward and not backwards.” (Loosely translated: we’ll look back as often when we need to deflect political heat away from me and onto my predecessor).

Just this week President Obama has pivoted yet again, this time with photos that the Pentagon had planned to release by May 28 in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, it’s an odd, dysfunctional world when the ACLU is calling the shots. (Who needs the Taliban when you have them trying to destroy the country in house?) In a sharp about face, the White House announced on Wednesday that it will not release hundreds of photos potentially showing U.S. military personnel abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

According to FOX News, President Obama told his legal advisers last week that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented in federal court. While I applaud his decision and his kneecapping of the ACLU, it’s frankly too little too late.

The previous and selective release of the interrogation memos, the photo kabuki dance, and vacillation on whether or not Americans – Bush officials intelligence or otherwise – will be prosecuted, have arguably made us less safe and have our allies scratching their heads and our enemies laughing or steaming mad.

In fairness to the president, he’s not the only the Democrat that can’t seem to stick to a story. For weeks, the No. 1 Democrat on Capitol Hill and the third in line to the presidency, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told multiple and conflicting tall tales regarding her knowledge of what she knew about the Bush administration’s information gathering tactics, when we know she was told about waterboarding in 2002, did nothing, and now has mislead the American people about it.

Many Democrats, including Pelosi, are calling for hearings about prisoner abuse on Capitol Hill that would create a circus — and distract us from what our representatives in Congress are really up to these days — all in an effort to appease the far-left. To them I say be careful what you wish for. Every day we learn of a new way Speaker Nancy Pinocchio has contradicted herself. It’s time her colleagues join the chorus in pursuit of the truth, and for her to step down as Speaker. She is a liability to her caucus and a liar.

Meanwhile, other Democrats on Capitol Hill like Dick Durbin, Carl Levin and Dianne Feinstein are crying that the CIA is “out to get them” because of the additional memos that were released this week. (Pssst! Senators: people have been put on medication for saying paranoid, crazy things like this.) Democrats have been trying to persecute Republicans on the interrogation issue for years. Now, when it appears to be backfiring due to their leader’s litany of lies, they decide to pull the victim card?

To summarize: in a post 9/11 world our classified intelligence and intelligence gathering community has been marginalized, publicized, politicized and compromised all because the Democrats want to score political points. Obama’s consistent inconsistency has sent a shaky and unreliable message to the country, the military, and the world.

Let me be clear: none of these memos should have ever been released, but now that the selective transparency of the Obama administration has opened Pandora’s box, he and the rest of his party owe us some answers. Will he release the rest of the memos that Dick Cheney is pushing to have made public? Or is his latest move a calculated maneuver to stop further memos from seeing the light of day? If he was going to obstruct the progressives like the ACLU, Soros, Moveon and others, he should have done it from the start.

Twisting and turning the truth has put our safety in a knot — one I’m not sure we can untie.

His administration has unveiled details of a $3.4 trillion federal budget for the fiscal year beginning in October, a proposal that includes substantial increases for a number of domestic priorities as well as a plan to trim or eliminate 121 programs at a puny savings of $17 billion -- amounting to only about one-half of 1 percent of the whopping $3.5 trillion total budget.

When President Obama was candidate Obama he promised us extraordinary change, as well as balanced budgets, the elimination of the wasteful spending of the last 8 years, corporate loophole closures and a unicorn for every voter. He set out to spend trillions to accomplish a very aggressive agenda that would empower government, not citizens. The math didn't add up then and it's not adding up now. As Republican consultant and Fox Forum columnist Christopher Coffey wisely observed back in September:

"Barack Obama has made some big promises over the past year, but none is more astonishing than his pledge to cut taxes, balance budgets and increase government spending.

"To cut taxes, he will have to abandon either his plans to increase spending and/or balance the budget. To provide universal health care, he will need to break his promise to provide middle class tax cuts and/or balance the budget. To balance the budget, he will probably need to abandon his tax plan and/or his promise for universal health. While he is surely capable of fulfilling any of one of his fiscal pledges, Obama cannot do all three at the same time. This is probably why Obama has started breaking these promises before Election Day and will continue to break these promises should he find himself elected."

The writing has been on the wall and they speak for themselves: he's out of control. Obama has not doubled, not tripled, but quadrupled the deficit. Yes, that means four times what it was under big spending Bush. We haven't even seen the biggest hole yet: universal healthcare.

In a statement delivered at the White House after the budget details were released, President Obama defended the cuts from critics on both sides: "We can no longer afford to spend as if deficits don't matter and waste is not our problem," he said. "We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the next budget, the next administration -- or the next generation."

So the alternative is to saddle future generations with crushing, colossal debt? I've seen some crass political maneuvers over the years but this one takes the cake. The plans that Democrats have passed in the first 100 days will add more to our nation’s public debt than all previous presidents combined in 200-plus years.

My next question: got inflation?

A few Republican familiar faces embarked on a listening tour over the weekend. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor held a town-hall style meeting at a restaurant in Virginia — kicking off the first meeting of the GOP group National Council for a New America which was created to rebrand the party’s image.

While this sounds nice, a listening tour is by definition a leadership vacuum. The GOP didn’t lose in wide margins this past election because we didn’t listen. We lost because we failed to lead. We acted like Democrats: borrowing and spending, and ultimately abandoning our core principles—fiscal discipline being first and foremost. And we heard the disgust of the voters on November 3.

The good news is Democrats were declared wounded and in critical condition after the 2004 election cycle and came back only four years later (arguably the shift began with the 2006 midterms). The GOP has rebounded before. The Reagan revolution revitalized Republicans almost a decade after Nixon.

The bad news is that the right is lost and lifeless because we failed to communicate a vision and plan to make it happen; this challenge still lingers. The party suffered from message constipation, used an outdated playbook and the regurgitated talking points of the last 8 years. Democrats, though misguided, at least appeared to have noble goals:  Everyone deserves a home — even if they can’t afford it! We’ll make decisions for you and your family! Free health care for everyone!

“Gimmie my damn tax cut” while inspiring and intellectually honest, isn’t the foundation upon which we should build our comeback. Tax cuts are a tactic, not an overarching theme. The benefits of a smaller government are an inspiring narrative but were tough to articulate in 2008 because of our behavior.

Now the Obama administration is making it their mission to desperately butt into the lives of individuals while simultaneously causing damage to the long-term economic health of our nation. The Republican Party should be able to coalesce around a cogent rebuttal but we haven’t a leader to line up behind. The Bush brand is what handed the government over to the opposition. Translation: Jeb Bush is not our messenger. No Bush is, or any old hand from his payroll.

Ten years ago, Barack Obama wasn’t a national figure. The next leader of the party has yet to emerge. Until then the tired faces of the party’s past will not do. We need a fresh figure that embraces our core conservative principles but also maintains a big tent mentality. One who focuses on the next generation – my generation – and like Reagan can motivate by reason and persuade through emotion. One who recognizes that what unites us is much greater than what divides us.

The party will re-emerge stronger, more viable and pronounced as a force. It’s just a matter of time. But we must be willing to give the party the purging it so desperately deserves. We hear the concerns of the country loud and clear. It’s time to lead, not listen.

Taxpayers have already shelled out roughly $36 billion to the auto industry as the government tries to make a winner out of structurally flawed companies. With the latest news of Chrysler's impending bankruptcy, taxpayers stand to lose about $6-8 billion more in the deal, and that's a conservative estimate. That doesn't take into account that according to the GAO report, government could be on the hook for billions more if Chrysler or GM liquidate. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation might have to intervene to pick up defunct company benefits and pensions. But does it have the funds?

Haven't we learned from history that throwing good money at bad turns up fruitless? All we need to do is look at the British to learn a valuable lesson about failed state intervention. The company became a leach on Britain’s government as well as a source of labor unrest and dissipated by the mid-1980s as its individual divisions were sold off.

Fiat's 20 percent stake in the move is also quite fascinating. Are we going to rely on the Italians and their unions to make a competitive car that people will want to buy in the US? Richmond isn't Roma.

While the UAW is rewarded with this deal the bond holders seem to be the ones really grabbing their ankles. Obama doesn't seem to want to honor their contracts, a growing theme of this Administration.

Though Obama insisted at his press conference on Wednesday night that he does not want to run auto companies or banks (just healthcare, education, energy and our private lives) he certainly appears to comfortable with taking the lead. With Justice Souter retiring, I dare ask what's next.

Love me or hate me, you can now follow me on Twitter.

@AndreaTantaros

In perhaps the boldest display of power lust and personal gain the Keystone State has seen in decades, lifelong faux Republican Senator Arlen Specter has officially shown his true colors and switched to the Democratic Party. But the only party he has really been concerned with for the last 19 years has been his own, and making sure it doesn’t come to an end.

For almost the past twenty years Republicans have watched in awe as Specter has rebuffed the GOP on some of the most serious and sensitive issues by siding with Democrats. A maverick? No. Manic? Maybe. An opportunist? Yes. The career politician has voted almost 60 percent of the time with the opposing party. These highly calculated snubs have only earned him the ire of Republicans, but also the distrust of Dems. Until today, he always had an “R” behind his name, after all.

Can the ultimate, finger in the wind, luke warm legislator actually win a Keystone State election in November?

Specter saw the writing on the wall when it came to his re-election. He knew he couldn’t beat the younger, more politically pure, fiscally savvy former Congressman Pat Toomey who announced just a few weeks ago. Specter was trailing some 20 plus points in the Pennsylvania primary last week according to some polls. His crucial votes on the stimulus and the massive Wall Street and Detroit bailouts sealed his fate with a Republican electorate that has been increasingly dissatisfied with the rapid growth of government. Plus, with Republicans defecting in droves to vote in the Democrats’ 2008 presidential primary, the pool has been skimmed of its lukewarm constituency. The current crop of registered Pennsylvania Republicans leans more conservative.

This begs the question: can the ultimate, finger in the wind, luke warm legislator actually win a Keystone State election in November? Not if he faces a tough primary challenge from a moderate; and in Pennsylvania there are plenty gunning for his spot. Specter likely cut a deal to ensure he’d have the backing and the funding of the national Democratic Party. But Pennsylvania is still somewhat of a purple place. Much to Obama’s dismay, many Pennsylvanians cling to our guns and our religion, unlike Specter who clings to power. Candidates like Senator Bob Casey, a socially conservative, left leaning politician has an easier shot than a turncoat, two decade Republican turned Democrat. Specter might be able to beat Toomey in a general election, but the he’ll have to face the fight of his life to get there.

Nobody wants to hear of people losing their jobs in these trying times. But when it comes to Arlen Specter, his political unemployment might just be the greatest boost Pennsylvania has seen in decades — no matter what the party.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and columnist. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com.