It appears that Obama has picked a moderate to replace a moderate. Actually, a quite good strategy, since it is highly likely he will get to make other picks in the next 3+ years. There is no point in picking a fight now with all of the other issues facing the country.

What is most important is who he nominates if looking for a replacement for one of the more liberal or conservative justices in the future. Would he replace one of the more liberal justices with someone of similar disposition? More importantly, would he replace one of the more conservative justices with a moderate or liberal, thereby actually changing the current balance of the Court?

This actually may be a brilliant piece of strategy. It is clear that the GOP is over-reacting to Sotomayor. If they continue in this vein, they may be seen in the future as the boy who cried wolf when Obama finally picks someone who is a real "radical left-wing activist".

As you've noted, the reality of Sotomayor's record and qualifications is irrelevant to a party who's most recent leader was wholly disinterested in reality, and proud of it.

This is the same group of people that have taken to describing Arlen Spector as a left-wing radical.

There is still a sizeable minority out there that lives by the gospels of Rush and Fox, and no amount of actual fact will stop the emails about the danger Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will visit upon the country. I can predict them now: "Sotomayor in favor of allowing quickie abortion clinics in local CVS stores;" "Sotomayor in favor of work-release for GITMO prisoners;" "Sotomayor has ties to FALN." These folks have their own reality, and you can send them rebuttal arguments 'til you're blue in the face. You will be dismissed as someone with an obvious liberal agenda, peddling lies to cover up their own distorted "truth."

In the end, however, Sotomayor will be confirmed. And if it's any consolation, they'd be doing the same thing to whomever Obama nominated.

The overnight flight to Europe is the only way to go.

While you can't get solid, tucked-into-bed sleep, I've always managed to get some substantial napping. And while you may not be able to check into your hotel, you can always drop your bags at the desk. This way you can spend a little time getting familiar with the neighborhood in which you're staying and have a late breakfast or early lunch. Circle back to the hotel for check-in, take a short nap and maybe a quick shower, and back out for an early dinner. Get to bed early that night and you're all set.

So much better than wasting prime sight-seeing daylight hours on a plane!

If the Republicans were serious about halting the "march to socialism" they would come out in favor of eliminating Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

What's that? Those are popular programs and voters would hound every last GOP officeholder into obscurity if they did that? Golly. You mean most folks here in the US are perfectly fine with socialism if you actually explain that it doesn't mean the Russkies are gonna take over?

Damn.

OK, then, how's this: Look, Nancy Pelosi's had a face lift!

What a bunch of boobs.

Famous get-away state with attractive ski resorts and gambling centers seeks business executive with deep pockets and Democratic sensibilities to mount primary campaign for US Senate seat against prominent incumbent. Must have spine and functioning brain.

Look, they have to say something bad about everything Obama does. It's in their charter somewhere, I imagine.

When they can't find anything objectionable, they're forced to resort to the type reasoning you hear from the average sixth grader when he's asked to turn in his social studies assignment. They have no compunction against just making shit up. And they often don't even bother to make it at least sound plausible. They know their acolytes will lick it up, and the rest of the world was already inclined to ignore them anyway.

"If you go to the basic beliefs of the Republican party -- keeping the government out of your life -- why can't that include marriage?"

Because, dear Meghan, the basic belief of the GOP is to keep the government out of THEIR lives. They're perfectly happy to have the government all over "someone else's" life. Gays, liberals, folks with whom they just generally disagree, you know -- the OTHER. The GOP basic tenet is not libertarianism, its xenophobia in its broadest sense.

In re DeMint's statement, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that a man who eschews science also has no appreciation for math. I would have to ask, at least out of morbid curiosity: What good does your moral purity do if you cannot exert one whiff of influence on the nation's laws and policy?

While I have no use for much of what passes for the GOP's current platform, I do believe our nation requires at the very least a two-party system to ensure that the checks and balances designed into our government by the Framers remains an effective tool against oppression (or at least stupidity and hubris). DeMint's idiocy serves neither his party nor his nation.