It's fun to watch liberals and Democrats give the Republican Party advice. It's as though no one notices that they're liberals and Democrats, and therefore have little interest in seeing our party succeed.

It's with this in mind that I've noticed a number of "analysts" giving advice to the Republican Party to distance itself from the Americans choosing to speak out against high taxes and intrusive government through the Tea Party movement.

My response to that advice: thanks, but no thanks. Americans who are concerned about skyrocketing taxes, unsustainable debt, and wasteful government spending have a natural home in the Republican Party and they are welcome.

Politics is about addition. Yet here's the advice one Berkeley professor offered our party in a San Francisco Chronicle story this weekend:

"I don't see where reaching out to the tea party people helps. That's the fringe of the far right," he said. "They need to reach out to the decline-to-state voters in the middle."

"The fringe of the far right?"

Really?

I've been active in the conservative movement for twenty years, including in think tanks, taxpayer groups, and of course the Republican Party. The modern tea party movement has activated hundreds of thousands of Americans who are not "the fringe of the far right" whatsoever.

Most are everyday Americans now active for the first time, concerned that Barack Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in the wrong direction, saddling future generations with higher taxes, spending and debt.

Liberals who neither understand nor support the objectives of this movement seek instead to delegitimize it by declaring it "extreme," and then dismiss it.

Successful political parties are broad based, bringing together people with different issues bringing them to the same political party. Many in our party are motivated by family issues, others are brought to our party by economic issues, and yet others are primarily concerned with national security concerns. Yet, they all arrive at the same Republican Party.

Californians motivated by concerns over rising taxes and excessive government spending are welcome in the Republican Party, and their presence strengthens it.

The Berkeley professor quoted above poses a false choice. It suggests that the interests of the "center" are by definition at odds with those active in opposing higher taxes and excessive spending. Yet, we have seen that the majority of Californians, including those in the "center" oppose higher taxes, and believe California's budget should be balanced mainly through spending cuts, not tax increases.

In other words, the sentiments of many in that "center" are in line with so many of those who have chosen to voice their concerns through the Tea Party movement.

Liberals have been lecturing Republicans for years about how our party cannot possibly appeal to centrists and conservatives at the same time. Yet, the assertion flies in the face of reality. The California Republican Party is the party of choice for Arnold Schwarzenegger as it is for Tom McClintock. Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Tom Campbell have different ideas, yet all call our party home.

At the end of the day, Californians who want to bring taxes down to Earth, save our children from trillions in inter-generational debt, and limit the intrusiveness of government to protect our liberties are natural allies, and have a home, in the Republican Party.

On Friday I learned that my doctor, who is Persian, has been a strong supporter of the freedom movement back in his native Iran. My response: fantastic!

America supports freedom movements around the world in a very unique, although under reported, way. Immigrants succeed in America, usually well beyond what they might achieve back in their native country. Their success proves that the American combination of free markets and democratic governance works for everyone.

Immigrants' success in America -- people like my parents, who came from Germany in 1961 -- specifically disproves one of the excuses used by dictators in other countries: that somehow free markets and democracy only works for some groups, but that "their" country is different and somehow their "system" is better for their people.

Of course, one look at the Korean Peninsula at night, with the bright, prosperous South providing a stark contrast to the dark, backward North, disproves this argument as well. One people, one ethnic group, two systems: failure under socialism, success with freedom.

As they succeed in America, immigrants often become strong advocates for freedom back home. Experiencing first hand the success freedom can bring, they support spreading those benefits back in their native country.

Another benefit of the American system.

Today the California Republican Party remembers those who died, were injured, or whose loved ones were lost in the terrorist attacks on America eight years ago today. Our commitment to vigilance in the global war on terror remains steadfast, and the grief we still feel inspires us to maintain that vigilance. The tragedy of 9/11 proved the resilience of the American character, the American spirit, and the American commitment to freedom and liberty throughout the world. Our men and women in uniform had thrust upon them a new challenge on 9/11, one they have met with distinction and valor that continues to this day.

The state of American politics is today fundamentally different than when President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became the triumvirate of the legislative and federal branches of our government.

Less than a year ago, Barack Obama and the Democrats won a national election giving them total control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. With Al Franken's belated Minnesota victory, they even have a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house.

It's an enviable position.

Or at least, it was.

In the months since, President Obama has experienced the steepest decline of public support for any modern president other than Gerald Ford following Watergate, as columnist Charles Krauthammer observes.

Meanwhile, the public's incredibly sour view of Nancy Pelosi has turned her into such a liability she is turning up in Republican television ads in much the same way Democrats featured Newt Gingrich in their messaging in the late '90s.

As a direct consequence of the pubic turning against the majority party, their legislative agenda has become mired in a morass of conflicting interests and a leadership vacuum. Democrat House members who would like to keep their jobs next year but represent conservative districts have suddenly become unreliable supporters of the liberal agenda. In the other chamber, their 60-vote majority hasn't produced much.

America remains a center-right country, yet the liberals in control of Washington assumed last year's election represented a fundamental leftward realignment of the electorate. If that were the case, the President would have had his health care bill signing ceremony by now.

Clearly the American people wanted a change in direction and perceived priorities, yet the current state of politics makes clear they did not suddenly embrace a left wing view of the role of the federal government just because they had differences with President Bush. Americans want a government that will get the economy on track, make government less of a burden, and defend the nation from those who would do us harm.

If the other team had focused on those priorities, they would be in a stronger position today.

The response we've seen from the majority party to their train coming completely off the tracks has been all too predictable: blame Republicans, and if you can find a way to blame President Bush too, so much the better.

It's a losing strategy, but the only one immediately available to them that does not involve adopting a more centrist policy agenda.

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a "New Democrat" distinct from the party's liberal wing and demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to changing political circumstances. First, he championed his wife's plan for a complete federal takeover of health care in America, only to later declare the "era of big government is over."

While Clinton demonstrated flexibility, Obama and his team exhibit a more dogmatic approach that they believe they have the majority, they're not going to have it forever, and they're going to plow through to get their agenda passed now while they have the chance.

It's a blunt-force approach.

And it's failed. Concurrent with the President's plummeting approval ratings, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows 51% of Americans believe Congress is too liberal, while only 22% believe it's too conservative.

Health care marks the end of this phase of the Obama presidency.

Next week the President will attempt to reshuffle the deck with a speech to a joint session of Congress. With broad majorities in both chambers it's something he shouldn't have to do, yet it's something he must do, for while the liberal leadership in Congress may support the health care plan, the American people do not. The President will attempt to change the terms of the debate to get his way despite the objections of so many Americans.

Going into 2010, Republican victory is not yet assured. We have to work for it. The President's numbers are unlikely to remain in the tank forever, and when they tick up a bit there will be a long line of liberals in the media to talk about the "comeback."

That comeback, however, is likely to be limited by what Bill Clinton possessed and Barack Obama lacks: an ability to put aside liberalism when it's a loser with the public. It was in 1994, and it is today.

While sitting in the doctor's office I took a few minutes to consider how different it might be if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are successful in giving the federal government even more power over our health care options.

I paid a reasonable co-pay, was seen without much of a wait, etc. Now, listening to the Democrats, it would seem my experience was unusual. In fact, it's much more the norm: the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive.

The key issue is whether more government involvement of the type the liberals are advocating will make the situation better for those who are uninsured, without making care worse for the vast majority of Americans who carry health insurance and are generally satisfied with their level of care.

Instead of advancing narrowly tailored legislation aimed at expanding health insurance coverage opportunities and lowering costs by expanding competition, the health care "crisis" is instead being taken as an excuse for a massive expansion of the federal government's involvement in our health.

The so-called "public option" is the most obvious abuse of this excuse. Liberals argue having the government compete directly with private insurers is important to driving down costs and increasing competition. What a misguided assessment. In fact, there is plenty of competition among private insurers today, and the easiest way to expand that competition without a big new federal bureaucracy would be to allow private insurers to compete across state lines, something the Democrats refuse to allow.

Some tort reform would also help bring down the cost of "defensive medicine," but the Democrats are reluctant to take on their masters in the trial bar.

Instead, they want the feds to offer the same kind of insurance policies to citizens that private insurers currently offer. Of course, government would then be in the position of both setting the rules, and competing by those rules. This is the equivalent of the Chargers playing the Jets while all the referees are employed by the Jets. Additionally, the federal insurance "company" would have one thing the private insurers do not have: access to the U.S. Treasury for whatever subsidies Congress decides to provide.

Liberals argue that because the government would not take money "out" of the system for "profits," more money would go to providing health care than under private insurers. Right. Let's see how that worked in Germany: Volkswagen takes money "out" for profits, while the East German government took no profits for their "Trabants." Which car would you rather drive?

To be even more practical, take the argument to its logical conclusion: what if the federal government ran the entire health care system, as many liberals want? How would your health care experience change? I kept having images of sitting around a DMV office, or the pleasant experience of the U.S. Post Office, popping into my head while in the doctor's office.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of improvements that can be made to America's health care system, and many of the problems are the result of government involvement in the first place. More competition, more transparency, and more options on a level playing field are the way to get there. Those are some of the solutions Republicans are advocating. Democrats should listen.