Newsweek. Oh, Newsweek, Newsweek, Newsweek. What were you thinking? Were the interns in charge when you made the decision? Has the media meltdown forced you to get rid of some of your best minds, people who would have said the cover of Sarah Palin was 17 steps past wrong?

I’m no fan of the Wasilla terror but have no problem with her being covered in the news. She is a major player in the GOP and attention must be paid. Also reliable sources inform she has a book out (while we are on the topic of books, I hope you do a major  review of  Teachout’s Pops). But your cover? Really? Her in running shorts? Come on! That’s soft and weak, and you know it’s bad when a commie pinko queen  takes up for “Mrs. Real America.”

Yes she was a beauty queen back in the day, and yes a few straight men want to know her in a familial way. Heck some conservative writer described his moment of bliss when she winked during her debate with Joe Biden. However, she ain’t a waitress from Hooters and we all know you would have never taken the same shot if she were a man.

Thanks much for making me defend someone I don’t like. Appreciate it.

“Our trust remains in God, not government,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who criticized an “ongoing effort of this administration and the liberal majority in Congress to take over our health care.”

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., predicted an “an avalanche of socialism” under Democrats and claimed they were “putting runaway federal spending on steroids.”

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared, “We cannot let a crippling debt or an ever-expanding government stifle the American dream.”

Republicans, and particularly the GOP’s right, are harnessing anger by using age-old us-vs.-them appeals and embracing issues like the economy, health care and big government to counter Obama in hopes of finding a winning strategy after consecutive losses in national elections.

By doing so, the party may have found a broader context within which it can fit cultural, religious and social topics that keep hard-core GOP voters happy but sometimes turn off moderates and independents.

During George W. Bush’s tenure, Republicans heavily promoted issues such as those dealing with God, gays and guns, and they got traction with religious conservatives. Speakers at gatherings like the Values Voters Summit, which got under way Friday, spent much of their time denouncing abortion, same-sex marriage and firearm restrictions.

But the narrow strategy had its limits because most Americans aren’t single-issue voters.

These days, such issues aren’t emphasized so much, though conservatives use the health care debate to fight abortion and government-mandated counseling in end-of-life decisions.

Enter the wider political opportunity created by a country that’s going through an acrimonious period in which people’s intense anger is motivated, perhaps, by fear of the economic recession, of the country’s uncertain future, of a new president who doesn’t look like others before him.

Reflecting the despair, 57 percent in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll said the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Despite evidence the recession is abating, many people aren’t sensing the economy turning around because job losses continue. Skeptical of both the public and private sectors, they are infuriated by government bailouts of the automotive, insurance and banking industries. At a time of huge budget deficits, they also have sticker shock over the president’s pursuit of health care and energy overhauls.

And, even though the nation elected Obama, many people still aren’t comfortable with the president who is biracial, who has a foreign-sounding name and who is trying to bring sweeping change to a country that instinctively cringes from it.

The anger has reached a boiling point. Consider Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” as the president addressed Congress, the tens of thousands who marched on Washington to protest Obama policies and the hostile questioning of lawmakers during health care events.

It’s under such conditions that populist arguments tend to resonate because they tug at a universal belief among Americans that government should be working for the people in a democracy.

Since the 1800s, populism has been a powerful political weapon – particularly for out-of-power movements – during periods when the public, correctly or not, believes the elites are taking away that ideal.

“There’s always a suspicion of the concentration of power out there, and the question is who can mobilize that fear best politically,” said Michael Kazin of Georgetown University, who wrote “The Populist Persuasion: An American History.”

Democrats generally, and the left in particular, did it in 2006 and 2008, embracing the public’s anger over Bush’s policies in Iraq, his handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economic collapse. These days, Republicans, and the right specifically, are wielding the power of populist arguments.

“They work pretty well now,” Kazin said. “There’s a kind of anger out there, based on a sense of ideal betrayal.”

Populism can broaden the GOP’s appeal because it cuts across all ideologies; most Americans view themselves simply as people who want a responsive government.

Also, issues that directly effect people’s everyday lives, like the economy and health care, seemingly give the GOP an even wider net. Bread-and-butter subjects have risen in importance while cultural issues aren’t resonating as loudly in part because of what appears greater acceptance among Americans and an unwillingness by Obama to incite fights on such matters.

Republicans face a delicate dance with the strategy ahead of next fall’s midterm congressional elections.

They want to tap into anger but don’t want to be seen as extremists inciting it. That may be why many mainstream Republican leaders have distanced themselves from far-right comparisons of Obama and Hitler, and the widely debunked allegations that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii and, thus, his presidency is illegitimate.

Populist arguments also can go too far, leading to cynicism and a lack of political involvement, meaning problems then don’t get solved. Democrats have accused Republicans of caring more about defeating Obama than actually serving the people.

And ultimately, there’s no certainty that this fickle public will continue to be angry and focused on broad-based issues. Republicans, particularly conservatives, are willing to take that chance.

On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government’s contribution to the District of Columbia’s city budget.

No way, Democrats said.

At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs – usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.

The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., insists the clampdown is to prevent debates from dragging on and on. Republicans, however, have agreed to limit the amount of time debating the bills.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes.

So instead of debating an attempt backed by House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio to allow more children living in Washington to receive school vouchers, the House will vote on a Quixotic attempt to eliminate the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“What they want to do is they want to avoid tough votes on appropriations bills,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, senior Republican on the Rules Committee.

Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party’s leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership’s new policy on floor debates “muzzles the voices of pro-life members.”

The process has become so relentlessly efficient that Democrats were actually forced to drag out action to Thursday on a $33 billion measure funding energy programs and water projects. The reason? They need to stretch the workweek into Friday to force lawmakers to remain in Washington for committee work on health care and other spending bills.

Republicans complain that unless a member of their party is one of the 60 members of the Appropriations Committee, he is essentially blocked from having any say in shaping the budget.

“That simply disenfranchises most of the members of this body,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Democrats say that months ago, they offered Republicans the chance for a more open process in return for a guarantee that Republicans wouldn’t drag things out. Republicans initially said no but recently have agreed to limit how long a bill can be debated. Too late, say Democrats.

“We offered Republicans the opportunity to work with us in a bipartisan way to offer amendments so we could complete the appropriations process in a timely manner,” said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “They rejected that offer and have repeatedly used delaying tactics.”

“I still have a lot of ideas and energies left, but being governor should not be a permanent position for anyone,” Pawlenty said, flanked at a Capitol news conference by his wife and two daughters.

He said he was focused on finishing the rest of his term strong, but added, “I don’t have any plans beyond that. I don’t know what the future holds for me.”

A conservative with blue-collar roots, Pawlenty, 48, has been considered a likely White House candidate for months.

His announcement comes as he’s in the middle of a prolonged dispute over one of the state’s U.S. Senate seats months after the election. The governor hasn’t issued an election certificate because Republican Norm Coleman, whose term expired in January, is still contesting the results that tipped the race to Democrat Al Franken by a few hundred votes.

Pawlenty’s success as a right-leaning Republican elected twice in left-leaning Minnesota marked him in national GOP circles as a young politician to watch. He gave his political profile a boost in 2008 when he endorsed John McCain early, then campaigned for the nominee around the country and in many national media interviews.

That work made him a top prospect to be McCain’s running mate and he was seen as one of two or three finalists right until the moment McCain upended the campaign by choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

If he seeks the presidency, Pawlenty could face a GOP field crowded with former and current governors. Among the potential candidates are Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

If running for president is his goal, there are numerous advantages to vacating the governor’s mansion. A 2010 campaign would be costly and potentially difficult. He also will be free to travel to political events and, more important, to key nominating states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.

“The Republicans are looking for leaders and his experience as governor gives him an entree,” said Merle Black, a professor of politics at Emory University in Atlanta. “One of the things that he would be trying to do is increase his name recogition and visibility throughout the country because outside of Minnesota he isn’t known at all.”

Pawlenty has taken a conservative’s stance on taxes, most recently holding firm against attempts by legislative Democrats to increase some taxes to fill in a massive state budget deficit. Failing to reach a compromise with Democrats, Pawlenty instead invoked executive powers that allow him to trim state spending without legislative consent.

Pawlenty strayed from his tax orthodoxy just once, when in 2005 he proposed and helped pass a 75-cent-a-pack “health impact fee” on cigarettes that critics said was just a creatively named tax.

The governor has followed traditionally conservative stances on most social issues, favoring freer access to guns and opposing abortion and legal partnership rights for gay couples. But he’s broken from party orthodoxy on a few issues, speaking out in favor of importing prescription drugs from Canada and promoting pro-environmental business initiatives.

The lawyer and native of South St. Paul served on the Eagan City Council before his election to the state House where he became majority leader. Pawlenty first ran for governor in 2002, and managed to win against a veteran Democratic legislator and a prominent former congressman running for a third party.

He was re-elected in 2006 in another three-way race; despite his two victories, Pawlenty has never exceeded 46 percent of the vote.

The group introduced a bill in the House on Thursday, hoping to thwart a city council vote this month recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Five states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont — allow gay marriage.

Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation’s capital, has until July to act against the district measure. Otherwise, it automatically becomes law. Some council members have said the legislation is the first step toward eventually allowing gay marriage in Washington.

More than 30 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of the House bill, said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. However, all but two are Republicans, and it will be a fight to get the bill approved in a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Obama publicly supports civil unions and believes states should be allowed to make their own decisions about marriage.

©365Gay.com 2009

At a press conference, GOP members from the House and Senate accused Democrats of wasting time when they should be concentrating on the economy, and urged Lynch kill the marriage bill now.

Republicans said the voters should decide whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

“Now is the time to allow the citizens of New Hampshire to vote on a same-sex marriage referendum,” Sen. Minority Leader Peter Bragdon (R) told reporters.

A same-sex marriage bill passed the legislature earlier this month, but Lynch said he would veto it unless it offered better protections to churches that oppose same-sex marriage.

The revisions approved Wednesday morning in the Senate by a 14-10 vote would have made it clear that churches, church organizations and staff are protected from lawsuits if they refuse to permit same-sex marriages.

But when it went to the House in the afternoon, it was defeated by only two votes – 188-186.

The revisions now go to a joint House Senate committee to try to work out a compromise acceptable to the governor.

If a compromise is reached and Lynch signs the bil, l it would make New Hampshire the sixth state to permit same-sex marriage and the fifth in New England.

“The president is free to nominate whomever he likes,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “But picking judges based on his or her perceived sympathy for certain groups or individuals undermines the faith Americans have in our judicial system.”

McConnell’s Republicans are turning to a conservative Southerner as their point man on Obama’s nominee, signaling that they won’t shy away from a protracted fight despite risks of being cast as obstructionist.

Sen. Jeff Sessions’ ascension as the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee comes more than 20 years after the panel rejected him for his own federal judgeship during the Reagan administration over concerns that he was hostile toward civil rights and was racially insensitive.

Coincidentally, Sessions, R-Ala., replaces Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a moderate who was one of just two Republicans in 1986 to oppose Sessions as a U.S. district court judge. Specter left the GOP last week to become a Democrat, creating the vacancy atop the committee just as Justice David Souter announced his retirement.

The choice of Sessions has excited conservatives who see him as a sharp lawyer with well-established legal views after a career as a prosecutor and Alabama attorney general.

“Any nominee must understand that the role of a justice is to be a neutral umpire of the law, calling the balls and strikes fairly while avoiding the temptation to make policy or legislate from the bench based on personal political views,” Sessions said in a statement Tuesday. “We must return to our original understanding that policy-making is reserved to the political branches and that courts serve the limited, but essential, role of disposing of cases and controversies based on a fair construction of the Constitution.”

Sheldon Goldman, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, agreed that Sessions has a firm grasp on the issues but said making Sessions “the face of the party” for the Supreme Court nomination might not play well symbolically.

Goldman, who has written a book on judicial nominations, said Specter’s defection resulted in part from the perception that the GOP has moved too far right.

“And instead of responding to that by placing a moderate as the ranking Republican, they go for a very conservative Southern Republican who represents everything that has driven Specter and other moderate Republicans out of the party,” Goldman said.

Sessions is among the most conservative senators, taking hard-line positions on issues such as immigration and affirmative action.

His nomination as a judge two decades ago ran into trouble when civil rights groups complained that he had pursued politically motivated voter-fraud charges against black leaders as a U.S. attorney in south Alabama. Others came forward to say he had made racially insensitive comments, including calling groups like the NAACP “un-American” and agreeing with someone else’s statement that a white civil rights lawyer was “a disgrace to his race.”

Sessions said the comments were taken out of context or fabricated. He and his supporters argued that Democrats were using the allegations to reject Sessions over honest ideological differences.

Sessions, from Mobile, later was elected Alabama’s attorney general in 1995 before winning his Senate seat in 1996.

“It’s a thrill as someone who spent 15 years full-time in federal courts to have this opportunity,” he said.

He said any nominee is entitled to a fair hearing but also should expect “probing questions,” and he did not rule out a Republican-led filibuster under the right circumstances.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he doesn’t expect a Republican filibuster. Democrats already have nearly enough votes to defeat that.

Reid paid tribute to Obama’s past experience as a law professor Tuesday and said he’s confident he’ll send a very qualified nominee to the Senate.

He said on NBC’s “Today” show he hopes Obama goes outside the existing legal system and finds a former governor or senator, or someone who has “real life experiences.”

Reid said that “I feel comfortable that his choice will be as good as his Cabinet choices.”

Sessions, who was confirmed for the new post Tuesday, is technically fourth in line in seniority on Judiciary, but the others are either restricted under committee term limits or would have to give up top positions on other panels to take the Judiciary spot.

Under an arrangement worked out to prevent a turf battle, Sessions is expected to keep the Judiciary post only through the end of next year. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa would then take the top GOP post at Judiciary, and Sessions could become lead Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance.

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

“This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage,” creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. Hard-core liberals support gay marriage, while others, including President Barack Obama, take a more moderate position of civil unions and defer to states on gay marriage.

Conversely, the GOP base is older, smaller and more conservative. Republicans have no place to shift on the issue but to the left, because the party has been identified largely with its rock-solid opposition to gay marriage and civil unions. Also, the GOP has no titular head setting the tone on this or other issues.

In recent months, proponents have used state legislatures and court challenges to legalize gay marriage, mindful that the majority of the public still isn’t supportive and successful ballot measures would be less likely.

Because of high court rulings, gay marriage now is legal in Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut. A Vermont law allowing gay marriage will take effect in September. New Hampshire and New Jersey, where same-sex couples can enter into civil unions, are considering gay marriage legislation. So are Maine and New York.

Political insiders no doubt will pay close attention to developments in Iowa and New Hampshire, early presidential voting states, to see how the issue plays out in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

Despite the changes, gay-marriage opponents are buoyed by a voter initiative in California that blocked the state from allowing gay marriage, and by the 29 states where voters have approved state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

For years, the GOP and its conservative base has used its opposition to gay marriage to drive Republican turnout in elections and marginalize party moderates. Measures defining marriage between a man and a woman that were on ballots in a slew of states in 2004 were widely credited with boosting the number of conservative voters, giving Republican George W. Bush an edge over Democrat John Kerry.

But there’s been conflicting evidence since then over just how much that contributed to Bush’s victory.

What’s certain is that opposition to gay marriage for decades has been a potent tool for the GOP in rallying social conservatives. They are critical to the party’s grass-roots organizing and small-dollar fundraising.

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.

Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it’s only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

Last month, John McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans: “Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds … that the party might be in the wrong on the question.”

The shifting landscape is emboldening the gay-rights’ movement, a pillar of the Democratic Party’s left flank.

“We are at a tipping point moment,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocate of gay rights. “The lingering minority that continues to think that the way to win is to hold GLBT people up as a wedge could not be more out of touch.”

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.

President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the decision to say the Democratic Party was “thrilled to have you,” according to a White House official.

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved, added the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party’s 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections.

He has publicly acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall’s presidential election.

“I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate,” he said in the statement.

Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, “I don’t have to say anything to them. They said it to me.”

In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. “He should give them the option,” Gleason said.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement: “Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let’s be honest: Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”

Specter has long been one of the most durable politicians of either party in Pennsylvania. In recent years, he has battled Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, but maintains a busy schedule that includes daily games of squash.

As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.

Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama’s economic stimulus legislation.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.

“Because I am a Republican,” he said at the time.

“I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.

A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: “Specter is announcing he is changing parties.” At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him “you have my full support” and that the Democratic Party is “thrilled to have you.”

Nine Republicans and 26 Democrats rejected Anchorage attorney Wayne Anthony Ross in a 35-23 vote by a joint session of the House and Senate. Ross had been criticized for, among other things, refusing to disavow his past characterization of gays as “immoral” and “degenerate.”

“The governor honored me by choosing me and I would have done a good job, and I would have enjoyed representing the people of the state of Alaska,” Ross said following the vote. Ross, a current director of the National Rifle Association, said he planned to return to private practice.

Palin was traveling and was not present for the vote. She was the headliner at a Thursday fundraising dinner in Indiana for an anti-abortion group.

“I believed I knew what Alaskans wanted when I selected an individual who is a strong backer of Second Amendment rights, a staunch supporter of the state Constitution and a defender of life,” Palin said in a statement.

“I’m surprised that legislators in this case really did not seem to represent their constituents and allowed themselves to be swayed by side issues,” she said.

Ross, a former two-time candidate for governor, served as an honorary co-chairman of Palin’s successful 2006 gubernatorial bid.

He ran into trouble with some lawmakers when he waded into the ongoing fray between Palin and Senate Democrats over filling Juneau’s vacant state Senate seat. She must choose a Democrat to replace the incumbent, but she refused to pick the choice of local party leaders and Senate Democrats have rejected her first two selections.

Ross said Democrats should fill the seat without arguing about whether the process was legal or illegal, drawing criticism that he was advising legislators to ignore the law.

Ross refused to say at his confirmation hearings whether his earlier opinions about gays and lesbians have changed.

“My job is to represent all Alaskans. My personal opinions have no place,” he said to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Many Alaska Native groups also opposed him because he opposes the federal law granting a rural preference for subsistence hunting and fishing.

Palin was once praised for her ability to work with Alaska Democrats to push through major initiatives, but since the bruising presidential campaign she has clashed with legislative Democrats and some Republicans over issues including her stance on accepting federal stimulus funds. Polls show she remains popular among Alaska voters.