Supreme Court Nominee.

President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court cannot be a big surprise to anyone. Of the serious contenders for the position, she was the one who best fit Obama's criteria. In other words, she was the gender and ethnicity he was looking for this year.

If there were more Republicans in the senate, Obama might have gone for an easier win with a "safer" nominee such as Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. But, with 59 or 60 Democratic senators - depending on when or if Al Franken is eventually seated - Obama was confident enough to go with a slightly more controversial candidate. Face it, Gov. Granholm only fulfills two-thirds of the Democratic trifecta. She is female and at least moderately liberal. But she is so obviously Caucasian that she could be an advertisement for sun screen.

Besides, Granholm has said she did not want the court position, preferring instead to continue trying to help her troubled state as governor - a personal decision that, if true, is principled and perhaps even admirable.

Still, Sotomayor is all but assured a seat on the Supreme Court, which is worrisome since she has taken several judicial stances that are troubling. She believes that the federal government should interfere in labor-management conflicts that obviously don't threaten public safety (witness her ruling on the 1995 Baseball Strike) and she has issued at least one ruling against free speech (Avery Doninger V. Paula Schwartz).

But, her most troubling position has been in the case of New Haven Connecticut firefighters - several Caucasians and at least one Hispanic - who scored well on a promotion exam only to find the results thrown out because no Black, and few Hispanic, candidates had passed. Sotomayor appears to believe such a procedure is okay, leading one to believe that - in her mind - racism in the name of affirmative action is permissible.

A lot has been made about Sotomayor's hard childhood - diabetes, growing up in a Bronx housing project, losing her father at a young age - and indeed, Obama displayed the judge's challenging background at Tuesday's announcement, as though they were reasons for supporting her nomination. It has been my experience, however, that such factors only come into play when a candidate already shares the supporter's views. Clarence Thomas had a hard childhood, but liberals didn't hesitate to vote against his nomination. Bill Clinton had a hard childhood, but several Republicans still voted to impeach him.

How the Republican senators handle Sotomayor's confirmation hearing will tell us a lot about the party's future strategy. If the senators question her harshly, that means the party is playing to its conservative base. If, on the other hand, they treat the nominee with kid gloves, then the party has decided to place pragmatist over principle and play to Hispanics, hoping that they become a part of some future Republican coalition.

The True Face of the Republican Party.

There is currently an ongoing contest for the newest representative face of the Republican Party. Right now there are two main contenders: Rush Limbaugh, representing the conservative, hard core values wing of the party, and Colin Powell, representing the moderate, big tent faction.

The race is, of course, not official. Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. But, instead the competition is being played out in the media and on the blogosphere and has been pulling some big names into the debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, has weighed on the Rush side. I have not heard anyone pipe up for Colin's side of the competition, but I'm sure there are many supporters out there somewhere.

The debate, of course, clouds three significance points. First, virtually all Republicans share some values with Powell and others with Limbaugh. Second, a terribly important wing of the party is missed in the debate. And third, and probably most significant, both Powell and Limbaugh have missed a vital fact: they are still debating 20th century issues while the world has moved into the 21st.

Very few Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats) are whole-heartedly conservative or liberal, Limbaugh or Powell. Some members of the party, for instance, support abortion rights or affirmative action, while believing in free trade. Others, believe in protectionism in international trade, but believe that abortion is murder and/or affirmative action is a racist policy.

Many see the intelligence and logic behind the Powell doctrine of warfare. And many of those same people are offended by the former Secretary of States' approach to social issues.

Considering that "mix and match" approach to party politics, most Republicans would fail the litmus test of either Rush or Colin. Rush would likely frown upon those party members who see a difference between abortion in the first trimester and partial birth abortion in the third. Likewise, I can't imagine Powell taking kindly to anyone voicing the belief that racial preferences fail the "equal protection under the law" test of the constitution.

This, of course, leads me to my second point: the Libertarian wing of the Republican party is represented by neither Limbaugh nor Powell. Except for Ron Paul, this has been a neglected faction, one that is likely offended by at least some of the beliefs of both Rush and Colin. Limbaugh sees nothing wrong with imprisoning literally millions of drug offenders, while Powell quite obviously sees nothing wrong with the federal government telling employers who to hire and how much to pay them and encouraging public universities to drop color blind admissions policies.

Lastly, neither Limbaugh nor Powell seem to realize that the world has changed. International commerce now requires that Americans must be continually educated and retrained in order to compete on the world market and that requires a healthy dose of public education (a blind spot of Limbaugh). In the modern world, infrastructure is no longer limited to highways and bridges. It now means a readily accessible information highway and a highly trained work force.

Likewise, Powell believes the racial makeup of a school is more important than a meritocracy which ensures that the best and brightest are admitted. A level playing field does not necessarily mean equal representation in a college graduation class. But, it does mean offering the most capable and educated American employees to compete with foreign workers.

In summation, a debate over the "face" of the party may be a good mental exercise, just as disagreement over the party's platforms can be healthy. But, we all need to keep in mind that this particular debate may be most significant in what it reveals about the current state of the party and in what it neglects to address.

The Old Double Standard

Hidden somewhere in the recent barrage of news stories about the Swine Flu drifting north from Mexico is a little noticed story about racial discrimination. It seems that New York Governor David A. Paterson has settled a discrimination case brought against him by a Caucasian staff photographer who claims he was fired two years ago so that Paterson could hired an African-American. This all took place when Paterson ousted Sen. Martin Connor as minority leader.

Paterson has maintained that it was all just "politics," that the white photographer was simply a hold over from the Connor administration who had to be replaced because he wasn't a member of the Paterson team. Race, Paterson claims, had nothing to do with it. However, he has agreed to use $300,000 of New York citizens' tax money to make the case go away.

Imagine the out roar if the races had been reversed, if Paterson had been white and the fired photographer black. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the national media would all be calling for Paterson's firing, if not for his imprisonment. It would be the lead story on nightly news broadcasts and the cover story on national news magazines. As it is, it has to be the most ignored story of the week.

A double standard is obviously in place and the mainstream media need to answer for it. Elected officials - whether they be white, black or any other conceivable color - are legally bound to not base their hiring decisions on race and the media are honor bound to give discrimination stories fair, objective and equal coverage.