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.