Republican Criticism of Sotomayor is justified on the basis of her ill-judged comments and likely policy positions

There has been criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor from Republicans such as Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Quite frankly this is justified.

In a California speech in 2001 she stated that, on a court, "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."
On the basis of these statements she has been labeled a “reverse racist" by Gingrich and Limbaugh. It was Sotomayor who introduced racism into the political mix. Any opposition worthy of the name is duty bound to grill her on these comments. Failure to do so would be a dereliction of duty.

However critics must ensure that criticisms cannot be misconstrued as a ethnic attack. Democrats and their friends in the liberal media will of course seek to misrepresent the facts and paint the GOP as anti Hispanic. It is the duty of an opposition to ask the hard questions.

There are risks for conservative Democrats who fail to challenge Sotomayor on her comments. Support for an activist judge could be very costly in electoral terms.

It is highly likely that Sotomayor will adopt a liberal position on abortion. Obama would not have chosen a judge who is pro life. A pro abortion position is at odds with the views of the majority of Hispanics. Here Republicans will be operating on fertile political territory and will be at one with most Hispanics. Republicans with a modicum of common sense can outwit Obama on this issue.

Hillary Clinton's stinging criticism of Barack Obama

The ad features just some of the many negative comments Senator Hillary Clinton made about Barack Obama.

Palin's ABC comments on Russia misrepresented in new smear-Palin did NOT say that she would attack Russia

Some Democrats and their allies in the liberal media and leftist blogosphere have begun to spin a new smear against Sarah Palin on the basis of comments made in an interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC.
This interview was laced with booby traps.

In the interview Palin stressed her support for Georgian membership of NATO. Barack Obama and Joe Biden also support Georgian membership of NATO. Now it is important to bear in mind that NATO policy, states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Obama and Biden obviously agree with this.
GIBSON: "And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: PERHAPS SO. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

It is important to consider Palin's words carefully here. Her reply is nuanced. She holds to NATO policy. However she uses the words PERHAPS SO. This is the mark of a skilful politician. She did not state that she favoured an attack on Russia. She left open the possibility. She has wriggle room. The word "Perhaps" according to Websters dictionary means any of the following: possibly but not certainly, maybe or something open to doubt.
If she had not held to NATO policy she would have given Russia the green light to attack NATO countries such as Poland. Russia has already threatened Poland.

Russia respects tough opponents. Russia will not risk adventurism if it knows the likely consequences. It will risk adventurism if it detects weakness. Sarah Palin did not say she would go to war with Russia. She said PERHAPS SO. JFK adopted the same policy. Remember Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the interview also:
PALIN: "We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. "

Democrat smear merchants omitted these comments.

She clearly has a strong grasp of foreign policy detail and has the pragmatism to accompany it.

Irish No vote:Unhelpful comments from Mandelson and d’Estaing hinder resolution of difficulties

Today the King of spin EU Farm Commissioner Mandelson made a slashing attack on the Irish Yes campaign. He said in reference to the debate in Ireland “All of those fears should have been addressed all those misrepresentations should have been corrected. Frankly, the untruths that were put out by some of the propagandists should have been rebutted right at the beginning of this campaign. [By the Yes campaign]
If you don't defuse it and demolish it instantly, it gets its skates on and it's around the country and everyone is assuming it's right before the other side get up on their soapbox."

Peter Mandelson should look closer to home. His behaviour at the WTO talks triggered a massive rural backlash and protest vote at the polls. This came not alone from farm families but from small businessmen dependent on farming and food processing workers. Has he forgotten the destruction of the sugar beet industry? He appears well on the way to destroying Irish agriculture. Spin Mr Mandelson does not put bread and butter on the table.
Mandelson could show his bona fides at the WTO talks and desist from lecturing the Irish electorate.

Today former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing said that Ireland must either hold a second referendum on the EU reform treaty or negotiate a special accord with the European Union in the wake of its No vote last Thursday.
Giscard d'Estaing was the chairman of the Convention that drafted the EU constitution, which collapsed when French and Dutch voters rejected the text in 2005.
He said in an interview to RTL radio. "A country that represents 0.7 percent of the European population...cannot decide for the others." Once more he is dictating to the Irish.
This intervention is unhelpful and displays arrogance typical of an out of touch liberal. This is par for the course with d’Estaing who was critical of “mistakes” made by French and Dutch voters when they rejected the EU Constitution in referenda.

Whether elitists like it or not a large segment of the Irish electorate has major concerns with the Lisbon Treaty. It is time to address them now. Cast iron guarantees from the EU on Corporation Profits Tax, neutrality and abortion-with no loopholes Mr d’Estaing- are essential, allied to a change in policy by Mandelson or his successor at the WTO talks. Otherwise this crisis will persist. It is time to put d’Estaing and Mandelson out to pasture.

Obama calls reporter Sweetie and refuses to answer her question on how he would help Detroit auto workers

Here Obama patronizes a female reporter who asked him how he proposed to help autoworkers in Detroit, Michigan. Barack displays his usual smugness and arrogance which puts him at odds with blue -collar voters.

It is an echo of his bittergate comments in San Francisco "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," .................................they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama as usual avoided the hard question. He has no solutions to the problems of the Michigan autoworkers.