House and Senate Republicans should back away from the bloated, pork filled spending bill that Democrats are masking as a stimulus. New computers for State Department bureaucrats? Food stamps? $335 million to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (someone please tell me how preventing the clap is going to revive the economy)?

The New York Times, likely in jubilation, reveals exactly what many opponents have been arguing (and fearing) for a long time in a front page headline today: "Stimulus Plan Offers Road to Retooling Social Policy." With expanded entitlements and experiments in socialized medicine — don't forget the family planning money that was recently stripped — the bill is the largest, liberal spending boon this nation has ever seen.

The key to a successful stimulus is one that puts money directly into the hands of the people, not borderline bankrupt states and the bureaucrats who run them to pay off debt. Besides creating a lobbyist feeding frenzy, the bill does little to create long term jobs. It might create short term work, but that is what we saw with the New Deal, and that is why it failed. While new roads are nice, you can't rebuild a road five times.

While it's true the bill doesn't contain earmarks — as Obama likes to boast — the money gets directly funneled to the states and the bureaucrats decide how to best spend it (with the help of overzealous and overpaid lobbyists). This makes it extremely challenging for the American people to maintain oversight, something we desperately need. The Democrats have perpetrated a fraud: there is nothing that remotely resembles change in this excessive, leftist boondoggle. As the Wall Street Journal said today: "only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus" and that it appears to be comprised of "every pent up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."

Almost as troubling as the contents of the package and how it will be spent is the speed at which the left is attempting to jam it down the throats of the American people. "It's urgent," they howl. What's urgent is the need for Democrats to ram this thing through so Republicans have little time to publicly oppose it. Whenever the opposition starts obstructing, the media gets involved and constituents begin to pay attention, giving the opposition — and their arguments — traction. The bill was written in the House under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, with zero Republican input. I caution Republicans: do not fall for Obama's eleventh hour plea to get on board. You might appreciate his overtures to you but his motives are transparent. To Obama, GOP support is only ideal so Democrats aren't solely to blame when voters see that almost $1 trillion of their taxpayer money was used to lavishly reward our new president's supporters and advance a radical agenda instead of helping struggling businesses and families.

The crux of our problem is a credit crisis. This bill does absolutely nothing to fix that. And though what's about to happen on Capitol Hill is frightening, it presents an opportunity for the GOP. We were thrown out of the White House because we acted like Democrats. It's time to stand up, stand strong, and return to our principles of low taxes for everyone, private sector growth, and long term job creation through incentives that aren't handouts for a select few. There is no better time than now.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and Fox News.com contributor. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com and www.FoxNews.com/opinion.

In perhaps the most absurd move yet by the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is defending her move to include hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money in the stimulus plan to expand family planning services — arguing that it will help financially strapped states.

Yes folks, her brain has now officially gone numb.

"…this is a, to stimulate the economy, is an economic recovery package and as we put it forth we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. Believe it or not, they're the right thing to do but they also stimulate the economy," Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week," who unsurprisingly didn't press her on how exactly she deduces this notion.

In Pelosi's world, less mouths to feed equals less money states will have to spend. Show me one economist that says that we are in an economic crisis because of a birth control shortage, or one that says more contraception (aka: population control) will get us out of it faster. What's next? Federally funded euthanasia? Pelosi mind as well tell anyone currently contemplating suicide to just go ahead with it.

Republicans aren't the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief at Pelosi's latest perplexing policy push. She will likely make many Democrats horribly uncomfortable. It's one thing to be pro-Choice; it's another to spend tax payer money on abortions at home — and abroad — in the middle of a financial crisis. And it's my hunch it won't take the American people long to figure out what's going on. This means big problems for our new president, who just last week reversed the Mexico City policy which federally funds overseas abortions.

As I've argued before, Obama's biggest short-to-medium-term problem isn't Republicans — disorganized, dispirited, and unsure of their footing and without decisive leadership — his problem is the members of his own party who are determined to implement a radical agenda that will eventually alienate middle America. It is a stale, shopworn agenda that is bereft of new ideas, and it could end up creating major problems for the president and the Democratic Party by ultimately wakening conservatives from their stupor.

Rise and shine, Republicans. My prediction that Obama, Reid and Pelosi would present an opportunity for the GOP has already come true.

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

First off, it is highly unlikely that after all the doubt, drama and delay -- and now conflicting reports that Kennedy doesn't want the slot -- that she would actually get it. Politics is full of surprises. But when this kind of thing spills into primetime cable TV, it's usually true. (That's besides the fact that she has created a drastic, democratic divide over her candidacy. For someone whose only qualification is being born, her Big Apple roll out was quite rotted, and did nothing to silence her critics).

Why not current NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo? Besides being far too obvious, selecting Cuomo over Kennedy would be more than an affront to Camelot. It would invoke a gesture that reveals only one choice finger to a prominent, political dynasty.

Politically, Kennedy never made any sense for the current Governor, who some hypothesize would have stuck a deal with Kennedy to garner her family's heft when he runs in 2010. But that type of quid pro quo would likely be less than fruitful for Patterson. Just ask Andrew Cuomo who ran for New York governor in 2002 when he was married to a Kennedy. The "power" was with him. But sadly, the votes were not. Not only did Cuomo not win the Republican line on the ballot, he only garnered roughly 15,000 votes on the liberal line. So much for Kennedy clout.

Gillibrand makes total sense. Why? She's a solid, blue dog. A conservative Democrat from an expansive, rural county in Upstate New York who boasts far-reaching money ties into downstate, money rich New York City. Geographically, she's ideal. She represents Delaware County, the stomping ground of Clinton predecessor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Though Moynihan's wife endorsed Kennedy, naming a local democratic daughter would be a hat tip to the leftist legend. Patterson could also appease liberal, pro-women groups who demand that Clinton's successor wear high heels (many have endorsed Upper East Side Rep. Carolyn Maloney) by electing a female -- and not just any female -- a young, energetic, mom who was reared in political roots.

Gillibrand would be a savvy, logical move for Patterson, if it's true. For now it's just a hunch, but a darn good one.

The first 100 days of a presidency is a critical time for any commander in chief and will be no different for Barack Obama.

President-elect Barack Obama is prepping to jam another massive stimulus plan down our throats. Lately the president-elect has been hitting the media circuit to sell this monstrosity and each time he launches into his pitch he proves that what he lacks in actual specifics he makes up for in vocabulary. But is this bloated bill just a ruse for another big, federally funded bailout for struggling states?

Who needs network reality TV when you can watch the Democrats disgrace themselves in a show I like to call Pay to Play. The latest episode features former New Mexico Governor and Obama pick for (ironically) Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson, who stepped down from his nomination amid reports he is under investigation for another seemingly all too common political quid pro quo.

Between Illinois Governor Rod, to Rangel, to Rezko (I could go on) a theme is developing: Obama's got some ethically challenged friends and the Democrats don't bring reform, they bring scandal.

Never before has a party caused such controversy between Election Day and the start of a new congress than the Democrats have in the last eight weeks. It's unprecedented, and unsettling for the nation to watch yet again.

I'm not saying this is strictly a partisan problem but it's certainly distracting and tarnishing the President-elect, his brand, and gives the appearance that he's the steward of a culture that America has no tolerance for.

Obama is a product of the deeply corrupt Illinois political machine. Have we ever heard him emphatically point the finger at its moral failings? No. Was his gut reaction to chastise his pastor, spiritual mentor and "uncle" Reverend Wright for white hate, sexism and anti-American rants? Nope. Has he called for disgraced Congressman Charlie Rangel to step down from his powerful committee chairmanship? Not once. It took him days to denounce Blago and when he did he was "saddened." His response to Richardson? More melancholy. This is the future office of the Presidency, not a Hallmark after school special.

Does this make Obama a criminal? Not technically. But it's criminal, and cowardly, that he doesn't stand up to these offenders. By locking the door and pulling down his shades when trouble arises, Obama reveals his ambivalence to ethics and an obvious aversion to conflict.  When the going gets tough, the tough…get bummed out? Obama doesn't represent change at all. He represents emotional impotence.

Obama's victory wasn't a vote against the GOP. It wasn't a re-alignment of the country to the center left, either. It was a vote against the incumbents. Obama wasn't part of a political dynasty or related to a former political power player. He was billed as an outsider and the mainstream media ignored any questions about his past that might unveil any sort of shadiness.  He was packaged and sold as immune to impropriety. Now we know he's just unwilling to stop or stand up to it.

For all the pretty language Obama fed us during his campaign about changing, things have only gotten worse. We're still weeks out to his actual inauguration and the beginning of unilateral Democratic control of Congress. Now his team is blaming Richardson when they dropped the ball in the vetting process. If this is foreshadowing into how he'll govern we're in for a tenure worse than Bush.  In the meantime America continues to tune in to the show, Pay to Play, filled with Democratic debauchery, hoping desperately for the sake of the nation, it won't be renewed for another season.