Last Thursday, Obama issued executive orders to, among other things, close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year. The president said the move was intended to return America to the “moral high ground,” which is certainly an admirable objective and undoubtedly the right direction this country should head in as a major player in global affairs.

Problem is, he’s not quite sure what to do with the remaining 245 inmates.

The assumption is that many of them will be brought onto American soil, but so far none of the Democratic lawmakers who supported Obama’s decision have offered up their districts or states. After all, the idea of promoting the moral high ground is a lot easier when you don’t have to relocate alleged terrorists near your constituents.

What’s more, instances of torture and violations of the Geneva Convention at Guantanamo do not negate the fact that many of the inmates are being detained because they pose a threat to the United States and countries around the world. One example of a former Guantanamo detainee who returned to terrorist activities following his release in 2005 is Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi.

Last April, he blew himself up in a suicide attack that killed 12 people in Iraq.

Or how about the two former jihadists who, after being released from Guantanamo and a Saudi rehabilitation program, joined the Yemini branch of al-Qaida and were subsequently arrested by Saudi authorities? Should men like these really be in our country? Or worse, should they be re-released into the world only to become suicide bombers and shed more innocent blood?

Obama’s motives are right: “Observe core standards of conduct not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.” But rather than impulsively issuing executive orders, the president can preserve those core standards by reforming the way we treat detainees: eliminate torture as a means of gathering intelligence; educate the guards who work at Guantanamo on ethical treatment of prisoners; work to expedite the legal process so guilty inmates like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed can be rightfully prosecuted, and innocent ones defended and ultimately freed. In short, have a plan of action.

But by all means, don’t sacrifice safety for a better night’s sleep just because taking the “moral high ground” feels right.  These are different times, and they call for a compromise between ethics and decisive action.

On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama frequently criticized Bush for being unprepared for war in Iraq. But now the new president is repeating the mistakes he once condemned by issuing executive orders without a game plan. In trying to distinguish himself from the very aspects of the Bush administration he campaigned against, Obama is irresponsibly placing the country, and the world, in harm’s way.

Could Bobby Jindal be the new face of the Republican Party? Photo by Marc V. Genre on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

Conversely, after eight years of a Republican-dominated Washington, Democrats across the country are elated by their return to power. Not since the early days of Bill Clinton have Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. This immense shift in power, however, is not just bad news for the GOP. It could potentially be detrimental to the entire country. For example, six out of the last eight years have been under Republican control in both Congress and the White House, and that full control threw the U.S. into controversial situations with little opposition. In a two-party system in which one party is virtually ineffective, balance of power becomes a moot point.

So how do the Republicans prevent the tables from turning completely? What does the ailing GOP do now?

With no clear leader at the helm and a major identity crisis looming, the Republicans are heading into an unknown abyss. Congressional races in 2010 will undoubtedly be an important opportunity to regain Republican control in Washington — after all, the incumbent president’s party has lost considerable strength in the House in 23 of the 26 midterm elections since the beginning of the 20th century. But the GOP will also focus on developing their candidates for the presidential election in 2012 to give the party a feasible figurehead.

The party’s 2008 presidential candidates arguably paled in comparison to the unprecedented field of Democratic candidates, which included an African-American, a woman and a Hispanic man. In contrast, the Republicans put forth the usual suspects in their primaries: older, uninspiring, white men who simply seemed out of date compared to the Democrats. But dissatisfaction with the Republican candidates was prevalent within the party as well. A battle raged between social conservatives and pro-business fiscal conservatives, with both sides represented by at least one candidate (Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, respectively), and no clear compromise between the two. McCain ended up assuming the role of the “compromise candidate,” but not before a frontal assault from the right.

In 2012, the GOP will need a candidate around whom the party can rally, but who doesn’t polarize independent or even Democratic voters. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, the 37-year-old Indian-American who is both a staunch social and fiscal conservative, has generated the most buzz. His youth and exotic background appeal to voters seeking a fresh face, and his conservative credentials would secure support from his likely voter base. United Press International has already called Jindal and his family “the other Obamas.” If they are to compete with what could very well be a successful incumbent candidate in 2012, the Republicans must put forth a formidable and competitive challenger.

Another option could, of course, be McCain’s former running mate, Sarah Palin. She isn’t necessarily damaged goods after her defeat in 2008, but she didn’t emerge unscathed. National focus on her “Troopergate” scandal and her constant lampooning on Saturday Night Live contributed to a somewhat negative reputation throughout the campaign, but, as Richard Nixon proved in 1968, presidential victory is possible even after previous defeat. Palin would first need to boost her political credentials before even considering another run at the White House, and the opportunity may present itself soon. As Alaska Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens seems poised to win reelection, he also faces probable expulsion from the Senate, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. If this is the case, Palin could very well run in a special election to fill the void – and in Alaska she would likely be the front-runner, touting her experience as both governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee. Time in the Senate would give her more foreign affairs experience and at least an introduction to Washington politics, both of which many considered her to lack during the general election.

After they find a suitable leader, the Republicans must also reconsider their voter base. Following the skillful assembling of a younger, more diverse coalition by the Democrats, the Republicans have no choice but to court potentially neglected voters– and soon– in an effort to expand their now-shrinking voter base.

Obama won the popular vote by almost eight million votes en route to winning the electoral vote 364-162, with Missouri still counting votes. Though the majority of white voters and Protestants still turned out to support McCain, fewer did than in the 2004 election, according to New York Times polls. Additionally, while 43 percent of Hispanic people voted for President Bush in 2004, only 31 percent supported McCain this time around. This, combined with overwhelming turnout among black and young voters, contributed to a rejuvenated Democratic voter base and, in turn, gave Republicans a grim look at a future of potential electoral disappointment.

Republicans, who usually best the Democrats in voter turnout, must first ensure that their base turns out more in future elections. Furthermore, reconciliation with certain alienated groups, like Hispanics, will be crucial to increasing the voter base and guaranteeing electoral victory. Inevitably, there will be some who are disenchanted with the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, so the GOP should try to attract those voters. But Republicans will also need to try to recapture the days of Reagan, when 59 percent of voters aged 18-29 chose the Republican ticket. In 2008, McCain was able to win the majority of voters aged 60 and older, but Democrats either beat or tied Republicans in the other three main age groups.

But perhaps the direst issue for the GOP to consider during this period of reconstruction is their ideology. In recent years the Democrats have run on a progressive platform of more modern policies. They have encouraged the advancement of alternative energy, stem cell research and developing science and technology to prepare future generations for a 21st-century economy. In contrast, the Republicans have focused too heavily on their traditional conservatism: second amendment rights, overturning Roe v. Wade and opposing stem cell research and gay marriage. The GOP’s positions on many of these issues are slowly but surely alienating a large population of voters who want to move past them.

This has been the trend since 1964, when southern Democrats abandoned their party after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and joined the GOP. Upon signing the bill, President Lyndon B. Johnson said, “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” Johnson was right in that “those sorts of states” would not adjust to the changing times. In subsequent elections, the Republicans capitalized on the southern Democrats’ disenchantment and eventually adopted them into their camp. Sadly, it seems to be those same sorts of voters that are holding the GOP back today, preventing it from adjusting to the times and becoming a more progressive party for the future. Granted they are the party of faith in tradition, but they must reconcile their conservative values with a changing world without deserting their basic platform.

These next few years will be telling for the once-grand Republican Party. A new wave of untapped politicians will surely be sent into battle to regain power, and the potential of a new, unifying ideology will help the party remain a viable contestant for years to come. The end result, ideally, will be a balanced and more effective two-party system.

When I think of female politicians, I typically don’t think “hot.” On the contrary, my perception of them is one of hard-nosed, pantsuit-wearing shrews – carbon copies of Hillary Clinton, if you will. Now that’s in no way meant to be misogynistic; I believe female politicians are often crafted that way in order to overcome age-old stereotypes and compete in the male-dominated political realm. But you sure won’t find any posters of Hillary or Nancy Pelosi hanging up in my dorm room.

During this historic presidential campaign, however, something unprecedented has rocked my world. Yes, Barack Obama became the first African American nominated by a major party for president, and yes, he is arguably one of the most inspirational politicians in recent memory. Hell, he’s the Democratic reincarnation of JFK and MLK – perhaps even with better oratory skills – and his impact on American politics is already substantial. But something far more significant has caught my eye: I’ve found an attractive female politician.

Sarah Palin is certainly unconventional. She’s a moose-hunting “Jane Six-Pack” from Alaska who woke up one morning and became the Republican vice-presidential nominee. But perhaps more noteworthy is that when Palin accepted her party’s nomination, she effectively became the country’s first attractive female candidate for major office – and a heap of young men across the land suddenly became a lot more interested in politics.

According to the Web site tracker Hitwise.com, “Sarah Palin” was the most searched-for political term on the Internet since McCain chose her in late August, and she has been the most searched-for political figure on the Internet in the last three years.

The blogosphere too has been replete with commentary on Palin’s aesthetics. Some blogs, like John P.’s “One Man’s Blog,” have taken the liberty of posting various “hot” pictures of the candidate, and encouraged other viewers to do the same, writing:

“If you come across any other hot photos please let me know and I’ll add them to the gallery here! And whoever said Politics couldn’t be exciting?!?”

Though John P. has evidently been spending too much time excessively punctuating his blog posts with one hand (and getting off to photos of Palin with the other), he certainly isn’t alone in his over-zealous fascination with the candidate.

The popular YouTube video, “Red State Update,” featuring Southern yokels Jackie and Dunlap, called Palin “hot as hell.”

“She’s got that Alaskan librarian, let-your-hair-down, take-her-on-the-tundra thing going on,” remarked Dunlap. The video has been viewed over 370,000 times.

With all due respect to Geraldine Ferraro and Clinton, Palin is another kind of woman. Whereas many female politicians remind younger male voters of their mothers, the former Miss Wasilla beauty queen is more like your middle-aged yet seductive next-door neighbor – Mrs. Robinson does politics. Sporting glasses, an updo, and above all, executive powers, Palin embodies the ultimate male fantasy: a dominant but feminine authority figure.

She is virtually untouchable, especially given her status as both a mother and the Republican vice-presidential nominee, but therein lies her appeal. As Slate’s Tom Perrotta puts it, “you get a wink along with the wagging finger.” It’s unorthodox for a vice-presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter, to moonlight as a sex symbol. God knows Dick Cheney and Al Gore certainly never did, and perhaps the closest we ever came was with Dan Quayle (joking). But Palin is inching closer to fulfilling the role, and that could perhaps tip the electoral scale come November. As young undecided males struggle to pick their candidate, they could potentially vote with their other heads and choose the McCain-Palin ticket simply because their libidos tell them to do so.

Of course there is no statistic of this phenomenon, but allow me to speculate and speak on behalf of my fellow young, undecided, and sexually aroused comrades:

Politics is an ugly game – especially during election season. Candidates thrust themselves into the ring to do battle with their partisan opponents, and it’s a bloody fight to the end. They argue about putting the country back on the right track, about ending these economically perilous times, about safeguarding us from the terrorist forces that lurk. And to the petrified and skeptical Americans watching at home, it’s not very comforting to see these out-of-touch political androids spewing out SAT words and promising a brighter future.

Enter Palin. Her beauty is a welcome anomaly in an ugly game, and her folksy colloquialisms add a comforting feminine touch. Who else, in the entire history of political debates, could pull off winking at the camera after saying “darn right” for the umpteenth time that night?

Following the debate, Rich Lowry, of National Review Online, blogged:

“I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’”

Of course, Palin and her winks also have their fair share of critics. In response to Lowry, one female blogger commented:

“I thought Palin’s performance at the debate was downright embarrassing and on top of that I have to read this clown’s blog, stating more or less that Palin gave him an erection?”

Some people assume she is simply a pretty face whose priorities revolve around looking good (à la John Edwards and his $200 haircut debauchery). Especially since Palin’s political acumen has become the subject of much scrutiny after her disastrous interview with Katie Couric. That, in addition to her minimal political experience, hasn’t helped her cause much. But while her attractiveness may very well exceed her political acumen, maybe all this country needs is a little beauty and some feminine love…

Or maybe I need to reconsider my priorities.