Now, with Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tells us we have to tread lightly in daring to oppose her. You'd expect His Shillness to take that position, but how about Republican politicians and "conservative" commentators? Why do we have to tread lightly at the prospect of the appointment of a radical leftist activist judge who believes in rewriting the Constitution on the fly to achieve the policy results that she and the Appointer in Chief desire?

I swear; sometimes our side acts as oblivious as liberals about the indispensability of our system of checks and balances to the preservation of our liberties. If the integrity of the Constitution isn't worth fighting for, what is?

Just what would Obama have to do to warrant our criticism? Just how radical and in your face would he have to be before people quit falling for his empty bipartisan rhetoric?

There will always be those who stubbornly cling to the misguided notion that Republicans could build a bigger tent through caving on 90 percent of their supposed principles and offering only Democrat lite. But the only chance we have for a Republican resurgence is if Republicans return to their conservative roots and offer a real, stark alternative to the unfolding Obama destruction.

If they roll over instead of vigorously opposing this madness, they'll have no legitimacy to mount an alternative case in 2010 and 2012. Thus, pragmatism versus principles is a false choice. It's more pragmatic, not to mention more honorable, to stick to your principles.

If the GOP continues to surrender its principles, however, it won't matter if it wins, because it will have morphed into that which it has professed to oppose.