If Sarah Palin was trying to make news today, she had odd timing. At a time when Farah Fawcett and Ed McMahon’s deaths paled -- almost as much as another recently departed celebrity’s skin -- into insignificance, perhaps she hoped her resignation on a holiday Friday would pass unnoticed. But that isn’t really her style, which makes today’s abrupt announcement seem more like a whim -- a characteristic her detractors worried about during the campaign. 

I suspect the media is both concerned and delighted by her news. On the one hand, she’s great material -- ridicule sells, and if she really does exit the stage, they’ll have to find someone else to pick on. On the other hand, the great 2012 GOP nominee chess match has already started, and this ensures that her name will be in the mix, even if she has no plans to launch a campaign.

Here’s something I’ve always thought -- if a major television network pre-empts regularly scheduled programming to run its anchor comedy show during prime time, and you are the butt of their jokes, you have a serious problem. And I’ve never felt that politically she could ever recover from the 2008 campaign.

While we all speculate about this, it could be that she’d just had enough and wants her life back. Who could blame her?

I wish her well.

Rich - What's Charles K's argument?

Now that strikes me as beltway talk, even micro-beltway talk. Schmidt's behavior would not be excusable even if the thing's he said we're proven true (and I don't think they have been). Schmidt was given a monumental privilege, to essentially run a presidential campaign for a candidate who, despite his flaws, was about as honorable a politician as we've seen in a very long time (yes, sometimes McCain's honor crossed the line into vanity). Schmidt's leaking and self-aggrandizing during the campaign and after reflects poorly on him, and needlessly embarrassed the candidate -- regardless of the merits of his complaints. The man is not a journalist, he's not a priest, he's not Thomas More. He's a very, very partisan campaign functionary and his behavior has been tacky, his judgment questionable and his loyalty beyond dubious.

I don't mean to single him out in this regard. Many, if not most, campaign flacks have these qualities to one extent or another. But Schmidt couldn't do what the really talents flacks do -- hide his tracks. Schmidt couldn't manage that, which compounds his failures, not exonerates them.

It has to be about '16 or beyond, not '12.

That's my takeaway from today. Not too long ago, "President Barack Obama" was far from "inevitable," while the current secretary of state was. A year ago, the resignation of the Alaska governor would be far from breaking news. A day ago, I thought the July 4th weekend Friday afternoon newstory would be Sanford's resignation. A month ago, Jenny Sanford wasn't a obvious candidate for a Vogue profile. 

Have a happy Independence Day. God's speed if you're fighting for our continued independence. 

Whatever you think of Palin, there is a lot of truth to this statement, isn't there? "Don't explain: Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it anyway."

has some Palin updates.

People who liked Palin's statement tend to say she was "speaking from the heart." But if this decision is about running for president, the speech wasn’t quite speaking from the heart.

The title of that last Geraghty post is "Steve Schmidt wins." I note that only because a smart, pro-life, conservative said to me earlier today after listening to the Palin statement: "this statement is bizarre -- is she trying to prove Steve Schmidt right or something?!"

From The Campaign Spot: 

On the theory that the scrutiny of her children was the straw that broke the camel's back, the consultant said, “From the interaction I’ve had with her, that would make some sense.” He noted that Palin had been “really down” at one point after the 2008 convention, largely from being separated from Todd and her children for days at a time; the campaign leadership was nudged to have the family traveling with her as much as possible, having a major impact on her morale. “They finally let her be a mom,” the consultant said.

If she's running for president, I have no idea whether this was shrewd or not. But I'm pretty sure Steve is wrong that if she's running this is a longterm run for 2016 or 2020. If it's 2016, why on earth do you resign now? Why invite all of the criticism about being a "quitter" and so on if you're not running -- and therefore don't need to raise money -- until 7 or 11 years from now? No, if she's resigning to run it seems it has to be for 2012.

Palin speculation jumps the shark: CNN's Rick Sanchez wonders if she's pregnant. 

Wow.  Not sure what to make of this.  Perhaps she's trying to one-up Michael Jackson in taking the heat off Mark Sanford.  ("Take that, Jacko!"  Which Republican governor will step up next?)

This could be, as Bill Kristol suggests, part of a risky but shrewd long game, not for a run in 2012, but way off in 2016 or 2020.  Some folks have mentioned Nixon, rehabilitating himself in the 1960s, and skipping the 1964 election.  She may have the self-awareness that she's taken big hits below the waterline, and that her best course is the patient rebuilding of her political life over a decade rather than the next two election cycles.  Now she'll have the time to read and study and cultivate wider portfolio as Jonah and others have suggested.  But even if she wants to run in 2012, it is certainly the case that it is hard to be a player on the national stage while being governor of Alaska since it is so remote, even in the jet age.  (It take longer to get to Alaska than Europe from the east coast and midwest.)  If so, she should say this openly.  Make a virtue out of it.

Then, too, I wonder, and am slightly hopeful in fact, that she is indeed doing this for authentic family reasons.  Political life is hell on decent family life.  I have a hard time thinking of a single politician, at any level, who has a happy family life.  Kids are usually a mess; non-messed up kids are the rare exception.  Whenever I talk to someone about whether to run for any office, that's the first and last aspect I bring up.  You shouldn't do it until your kids are grown or off to college is my opinion.  This might really be a case of where she has reckoned the cost to her family of near-term political ambition, and chosen her family.  Good for her if so.  

From an Alaskan in Palin circles: 

many are writing her political obit now but in the past she's always 
risen from the ashes because she "connects" so well w/ ordinary people.  

will she run for prez?  I would say "probably" just because that's her 
history/pattern.  she ran for lt guv in 2002 and no one thought she had a 
prayer.  she spent pennies compared to the other 4 and came in 2nd.  
then she took that job at the oil & gas commission but quit that to run 
for guv. no one gave her a chance and yet she won the primary then went 
on to beat Tony Knowles.

honestly, I have to take the resignation at face value -- she was weary 
of the unending ethics complaints that she had to defend personally -- 
they are not wealthy people and the debt was staggering.  This allows 
her to finish her book, go on tour, and never have to worry again about 
being a state employee subject to the Executive Branch ethics laws.  she 
can hopefully knit her family back together and then after the 2010 
election, see how she's polling and how much $$$ she's raised.

My Alaskan adds: "she has seemed tired ... not having any fun anymore. The Auburn thing was such a shot of adrenalin. Why stick around here?"

Palin is running for president, get used to it.

No way around it.  She has just labeled herself a "quitter."  Someone who doesn't finish what she started.  What in the world is wrong with Republican governors?  One self-absorbed politician after the next.  Governors: "It's not all about you!" 

And her bit about polling her kids on her decision to resign was also egregious.  We women abruptly quit our public responsibilities because our kids don't want mommy working anymore?  This is from the woman who wore a black business suit while she baked hotdogs for her kids.  (One of the many weird moments in her "Home with the Palins" Greta van Sustren interviews.) 

Here's a suggestion.  How about a Ensign/Sanford/Palin YouTube mash up to the tune of "Another one bites the dust."  Disgraceful. 

Here.

Here.

Here.

I think I have pretty well-established credentials when it comes to being charmed by Sarah Palin, but that statement, as a statement, was simply terrible. Rambling and not at all persuasive as an argument for her decision. More Gibson/Couric than GOP convention speech. She shouldn't have said a thing without getting Matt Scully--or some similarly talented speechwriter--on the case first. As to how this decision plays out ultimately, we'll see. There's plenty of time if (as I assume) she wants to run in 2012, and she obviously has plenty of capital with Republicans. But not an auspicious start.

Via e-mail: 

Republican Governors Association Executive Director Nick Ayers issued the following statement in regards to Sarah Palin’s announcement today that she will not seek reelection in 2010 and will step down from the governorship.

“While we regret the news announced by Governor Palin today, Alaska will continue to have a Republican governor through 2010 and we are confident the state will elect a Republican in next year’s election.

The RGA’s focus remains firmly on the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia this year, and the 37 gubernatorial elections that will take place in 2010. We know that winning these races is the most important task facing our Party over the next two years.”

The Republican Governors Association press office has been working overtime on surprise announcements lately.

The woman in question, meanwhile, tweets: "We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned"

Jim G. and I have been doing some Palin tweeting.

I'm gonna need to write "A Letter To Barack Obama."

Anchoress has a very mom reaction.

Who knows all the reasons -- Todd and Sarah Palin, presumably fully understand. 

Listening to her, it seems like this is a combination of stepping back and moving forward. Stepping back, because it's way too overwhelming to be Sarah Palin, political phenom, Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, and Sarah Palin, wife and mother. I don't know that anyone can fulfill all those roles well, simultaneously. And we're unrealistic, I think, when we assume people can or should.

One reservation I've always had about Sarah Palin has to do with her family. If she is stepping down because of what politics has done to her family, because of something in her family life she doesn't want to see as David Letterman fodder, because it's impossible to be governor, a star, and a mom to an infant ... this is good. It demonstrates good judgment and priorities. 

When I wrote "Move over, Sarah Palin?" I didn't actually think that was about to happen in any way.

Well, aside from my timing being impeccable, the best I can say is I'm flabbergasted.

Not running again could make sense as a pre-presidential move. Resigning strikes me as very strange. I do hope all is well with her family and that there's the best possible reason for this fairly shocking news.

Oh and: It's not my fault!

Palin, from Alaska.

Jim Geraghty on Palin.

MSNBC is speculating it's a scandal. 

Or it's a brilliant way to keep people guessing about you, perhaps? 

Mickey makes a good point:

According to National Review's impressive indictment, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill has this payoff for organized labor:

Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete - and ensuring that these "investments" pay out inflated union wages. And it's not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.

Stick the equivalent provision in a health care bill--requiring government-administered union wages for hospital janitors and uniform-launderers as well as nurses--and you can kiss Obama's curve-bending health-care cost-savings goodbye. ...

A lot of these folks are angrily writing in to dispute that I ever supported her. For those interested, here's the archive of Corner posts written by me mentioning Palin. Here are longer pieces published on NRO that I've written about her or mentioning her. That's not everything, of course. It doesn't include USA Today stuff, TV appearances, speeches, etc. But I think it rebuts the idea that I've always had it in for the woman.

Update: Folks who want to hash this all out might check out the comments over at Hot Air.

As I expected, the e-mail in response to my column is all over the place this morning, but there's a heavy dose of sophomoric name-calling. Here's a smattering (all asterisks are mine):

Jonah,

How about you go back to your basement apartment and shut the f**k up. Maybe study up on
the fact the nobody gives a rats a** what you think about Palin.

What a bandwagon rider you are. You write nothing new in this recent little spewing that wasn't spat
out by the Vanity Fair article. If anyone is tarnishing their reputations by opening their mouths it is
pompous pieces of s**t like yourself.

You and the rest of the "elite" may have a problem with her defending herself from ...well...from people like you, but the rest of us have tired of the Grin and Bear it technique which has done nothing but failed. ...and sorry someone, even a comedian comes out and makes Jokes about my kids on National TV, I am going to have something to say about it...If people from my campaign start leaking innuendo to the media about me and the campaign...I am going to have something to say about it.

Where is your letter to Huckabee? Romney? You are dickhead.

Bottom line you article wreaks of sexism, elitism, and arrogance. You may have your panties in a bundle but luckily the only weight you carry is also held by those same panties.

Okay, before I proceed. Just a few quick points, because I think this e-mail represents, in its purest form, everything I was talking about in my column. Lots of others make similar, some less vitriolic, arguments about "blue bloods" like me ruining the party. Others insist she has perfect political instincts and doesn't need any advice at all.

If Sarah Palin follows the advice of readers like them, she's doomed on the national political stage. She'll make a great Joan of Arc for a certain segment of the public, but she'll never go beyond that. And I think that would be a shame. The upshot of a lot of e-mail is that she hasn't done a single thing wrong -- at least nothing that warrants criticism. The idea that she's, in effect, done everything right, baffles me. Palin has lost a huge chunk of her popularity over the last six months. Some readers say that's because the media has been unfair to her. And that's true! The press has been unfair. But guess what? The press isn't going away and successful politicians learn to deal with the reality of liberal media bias. You don't get extra points or extra votes because the press slimes you. What Palin needs to do is figure out how to win back the people she lost, not elicit more cheers from the folks she already has. That's how politics works.

What baffles me even more is the idea that politicians -- any politician -- doesn't need advisors or advice. Reagan had fantastic political instincts. He also had some of the savviest and most sophisticated political advisors in modern political history. Good politicians know how to take serious advice. Now, maybe my advice is wrong. It's been wrong before, to be sure.

But the idea that a political columnist shouldn't offer advice and observations is just silly and to suggest otherwise bespeaks of a certain thin-skinnedness on the part of some of the fans shouting at me.

Still, the question: "Where is your letter to Huckabee? Romney?" is a good one.

What this reader, and many others, fail to understand is that I haven't written columns like this about other candidates is because I either don't think they need the advice (Romney) or because I have no interest in seeing them succeed (Huckabee). The retreat to charges of sexism is as absurd as it is convenient. As is all of this knee-jerk junk about elitism and snobbery. If I was an elitist and snob of the sort these people claim I am, then why did I ever support her in the first place? Why did I tout her for the job? Is it all part of some elaborate ruse?

Again: If Sarah Palin becomes nothing more than expression of populist resentments of a certain portion of the base she will lose the ability to persuade anybody who isn't already a diehard fan. That is not the route to success.

Anyhow, some more e-mail:

Jonah,

You and Krauthammer are two of my favorite commentators but I have a bone to pick with both of your recent critiques of Palin.

You both essentially say that one cannot get elected POTUS by just peddling platitudes, cliches and truisms. Call me crazy but didn't we just elect a man who did just that!!??

Deep down inside you are probably correct in much of your assessment but you and the great Krauthammer (and a few others at NRO) should guard gainst drifting into snobbery and esotericism.

Perhaps we conservatives need to learn what the Schumers, Durbins, Leahy's, Kennedy's etc etc have learned so well. Never give an inch!! ATTACK, ATTACK toujour ATTACK!!

Respectfully,

[name withheld]

#more#

And:

Jonah,

I am a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin and as such I want to thank you for the advice you're giving her. It was hard to admit at first but you are spot on. I think you're right that she has "it" but I also think that the Republican party does need someone who is serious because we do not elect lightweights like Obama and feel proud of it. She needs to study, get serious and don't engage the haters. I was happy that she made Letterman apologize because there's just so much abuse one can take. President Bush was very good at staying above the fray but it cost him a great deal. So, that fine line of standing up for your family and beliefs and ignoring the small minds is a tough one, especially when they are set on destroying you. But, she does have a lot in common with another "commoner" and that's Margaret Thatcher IF and only IF she gets serious and starts studying and, like Dr. Krauthammer said, stop talking in platitudes and bumper stickers. I hope she will follow your advice and come back and show "them" that she can be a serious contender. It would be wonderful to have our first woman President be a Republican because it would mean she has earned it and not simply because she's a woman married to a good politician.

And:

You are probably going to get a lot of angry emails from Palin supporters. Just wanted to write and say I agree with your article and it was well argued. Conservatives must be honest with ourselves.
Keep up the good work!

And:

me thinks thou doth protest too much jonah...therein lies the "IRONY" of your column...sounds to me like you and the rest of the media elite crowd are the ones who are doing the whining...palin is only defending herself...and stating fact...that is not whining...it's getting the real story out...you dufus...wah, wah, wah...what in the hell is the media elite's obsession with constantly harangueing this woman?..oh..i forgot..this will get you some pats on the back from your friends in the media, some real "atta boys"...you self serving jerk...this is how it works...media elites like yourself whine and whine, blah, blah, blah, about how palin "whines" in a commentary...then, at the next cocktail party you will get all kinds of bravo's jonah, from the rest of the members of the "club"...and you do not even see the riony in the fact you are the real whiners jonah...just stop and think about it for a minute...really think about it...and that's what is so funny..you don't recognize yourselves as the real "WHINERS"...we're on to you...what a joke you and the rest of the media have become..i got news for ya JG...here's a big 411...the laughin' stock in case you haven't noticed is you guys...not palin..narcissistic, whining, pompous, arrogant, condescending, self rightetoeus phony indignation... yep, that's pretty much sums up the traits of the media....

^And:

Well what a piece of s**t that uninformed letter was. You've just humiliated yourself beyond repair. You have no f**king idea what you're talking about. How embarrasing that letter must be for you. Perhaps you should stay home and do you homework.

I'm not going to do your homework for you (I've done mine) and fisk your out of touch with reality letter, but I will tell you one thing I know. Sarah Palin will be the next President. That is almost a certainty. Why? Because that is what the base wants. You remember the base? Yeah, that's correct...those people in "fly over country" who actually choose who they want to run. I'm one of those and let me be clear: We want Sarah. Not Mittens. Not Huckster. SARAH,SARAH, SARAH. Didn't you listen to the chants?

If you continue on the path you have chosen, then Barry the Con Artist gets eight years. If you do your homework and research Sarah Palin's accomplisments and get with the program, then you will know that Sarah is the only republican who can beat Obie.

It might be too late for you. Fly Over does't care what you have to say after that shitty commentary that just came from your apparently small brain. You might just be talking out of your ass to your elitist colleagues at this point. I suggest you stop reading the biased media and watching the edited tv and get out in the real world and do actual research on Sarah Palin. Jesus Christ...what a lazy piece of s**t you are.

You can begin your research at conservatives4palin.com. You dumb f**ker!!

And:

Jonah: I have great respect for the points of view and clear writing that I see daily on NRO. However, many of you at NRO (Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru and you) talk rather condescendingly to us plain-old folks out here who have no connection to D.C. Sarah Palin does not travel the country whining about her press coverage. /[For starters, every time I see you on TV, you’re whining about unfair press coverage] /Your exaggeration does not help make your point. / / She also rarely leaves Alaska and seems to be running her state just fine.. As a matter of fact, recent press coverage has noted just that. She and her family have been subjected to the most vile media coverage I have seen in my 55 years of life on this planet. How in the world can you say she's been playing the victim when you have no frame of reference for a politician taking the shots she has? If she had remained silent about the David Letterman "jokes" I would have lost a great deal of respect as most people would have. She garnered very little support from NRO after those abhorrent remarks. For you to pick this time and place to decide that Ms. Palin needs an open letter of advice on NRO reflects an odd disconnect that your publication has with outside the beltway Republicans. She has again been attacked, anonymously throughout the national press in the last week because the inside-the-beltway - RINOs - are afraid of her. That is why they are tearing her down. She has done nothing to deserve it and the recent press stories are not based on recent events but are recycled garbage. Your letter should be targeted at the McCain and RINO crowd - they are trying to bring Ms. Palin down. Some of your advice is solid regarding honing her knowledge in certain areas but your tone remains condescending and ill-timed when this good woman has been attacked in the last 3 weeks more viciously than you and I - or any D.C. politician - can imagine. Poor time to join the chorus from within the D.C. echo chamber, Jonah.

Thanks for your time,

And:

Jonah,

I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your article on Sarah Palin. You gave her some wonderful advice. I just hope that she reads it and follows it.

And, last but not least:

Well said Jonah.
 
She needs to keep Alaska’s house in order, and prepare for the ugly, ugly fight in 2012.  I hope that she does.  I feel strongly that she would be an excellent President, but she has to earn it.
 
I have a theory about Mrs. Palin - that I can tell just about all I need to know about a person’ character by how they voice their opinion about her.
 
If they resort to calling her unqualified (as opposed to who, exactly?), stupid (because she is not a graduate of an approved college, as an Alaskan politician she was not instantly an expert on every area of potential interest to a hostile national media, or believes things all self proclaimed intelligent people quit believing in 1968, etc, etc) or a crazed religious fundamentalist, I know the person I am dealing with is an ass.
 
If they disagree with her policies or question her judgment on particular issues, fine, that is why there are different political parties.  If they disagree with her politics without belittling her life, family, intelligence, clothes, fact that she is from Alaska, etc, then I can say that person is a Democrat (i.e., ignorant of how the world works but at least potentially reasonably intelligent and well mannered).
 
I first became familiar with Governor Palin on a series of trips to Alaska in the winter /spring of 2007.  I was browsing a hotel book shop when I saw a strikingly beautiful woman on the cover of a magazine, and to my surprise the magazine was “Alaska Business Monthly”, and to my further surprise the lady was the Governor of Alaska.  My respect for Alaska instantly went up.  I read the article and interview, and was greatly impressed by the Governor’s attitude, accomplishments, and expressed political philosophy.
 
She was not prepared in 08, and some very poor decisions exacerbated that fact.  She is ultimately responsible for what happened and she needs to do better in the coming years.
 
Just think of it, a politician and potential President who is not a lawyer or Ivy League graduate-someone who actually worked for a living without the benefit of a powerful family.  It has been a long time.  What a great day for the country that will be!  Something to look forward to in 2012.
 
Happy Independence Day!
 
Regards,

One last thing: It's a holiday weekend. I don't plan on posting Palin-related e-mail all weekend. Feel free to send your thoughts, but I don't expect to run a Palin seminar all weekend.

My column on Sanford and Sons and the woman in their life is here.

Krauthammer on Ricci.

Dave Kahane on the frogmarch to the progressive future.

Jonah writes to Sarah.

Rich goes to the Founders.

Mona on Obama's cap-and-trade humbug.

Pryce-Jones on the Times and the times.

Reihan on scoring "reform."

DC Examiner:

At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport.

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific,” MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton later told The Examiner.

It’s clear that the current crop of congressional leaders want no part of Reagan’s grand conservative vision for America, but erasing all trace of his memory from an airport that’s already been named in his honor is about as petty as you can get.

Basic hygiene accounts for a big chunk of physical well-being, but it's one of the first things to fall by the wayside in socialized systems, which is why they become hotbeds of C Difficile, MRSA, and the like. From the Daily Mail:

Hospital Patient So Shocked At Dirty Ward She Climbed Out Of Bed To Clean It Herself

Roger Kimball diagnoses the Salon Sale at the Washington Post. Priceless.

The figures show the extent to  which Brown’s “boom” was a mirage built not just on debt, but foreign labour. Most seriously, we can see a deep dysfunctionality in the UK labour market. Our system keeps millions on benefits (never less than  5 million have been on some kind of benefits since 1997) while meeting the needs of expanding the economy with a limitless supply of industrious immigrant labour. This means that the direct link between a growing economy and combating poverty is broken. . . .

 

At no point in the boom did the number on out-of-work benefits fall  below five million souls. Almost half have been on welfare for five years or more – and are, therefore, statistically more likely to die than to work again. As I say, were it not for immigration, we’d be forced to confront this problem or our economy would not grow. When I was a business journalist in the late 1990s, I remember writing stories about how bus companies were recruiting in homeless shelters because they couldn’t find the staff. The people in those shelters were being offered structure to their lives, from an employer forced by economic conditions to deal with the greater risk they pose. It was a sign of economic growth addressing social problems – as it should be.

But mass immigration has broken this link. It meant Gordon Brown could actually afford to keep so many million on benefits, as tax receipts  were being generated by comparative newcomers. It was a lot easier than trying to reform welfare. Scandalously, that’s what Brown did. To my mind, it is the most contemptible failure of his time as Chancellor. He had the money, the economic boom, to sort out the welfare dependency that afflicts so many communities in Britain. But he took the easy, short term route.

It's worth noting that Mr. Nelson describes himself as a "supporter of immigration."

Food for thought -- and not just in the U.K.

This piece in the State (h/t RCP) on Sanford's mental state reads a little like a parody:

Psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who work with behavior disorders were reluctant to diagnose Sanford based on what they have seen on television or read in newspapers.

 

But a few were willing to offer theories as to what could be driving the governor’s behavior.

 

Susan Hardwicke, a licensed social worker who runs a clinical practice in Columbia, said Sanford could be under the influence of brain chemicals that fire when a person falls in love.

 

“People do crazy things for love,” Hardwicke said. “That’s what all the songs are about. Nobody in their right mind would do what he’s doing.”

 

This behavior is temporary, she said. Research shows romantic love lasts less than two years. (Sanford’s term as governor has 18 months remaining.)

Megan McArdle:

I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation:  that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.  Yet somehow, this appears nowhere in any of the analysis. 

Wal-Mart is always going to have a seat at the table when employer mandates are discussed, because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest private employer. Target and Macy's probably won't have a seat at the table. So Wal-Mart can influence the rules in ways that benefit Wal-Mart at the expense of the competition. This is partly because the regulators often cycle into jobs at the firms they regulate, but also simply because the regulator's attention is finite, so being consistently at the table allows you to shape their views over time.

Doc Bainbridge has much more. An excerpt:

In fact, however, Wal-Mart has been suckling at the government teat for decades, transferring costs to the tax payer whenever possible.

Indeed, Wal-Mart is heavily dependent on government subsidies. Wal-Mart routinely gets sales and property tax abatements when it opens a new store, to cite but one example. According to a 2004 study (albeit one funded by a union) the subsidies can amount to as much as 12 million dollars per store. Additional de facto subsidies come when uninsured or under-insured Wal-Mart employees get health care at government expense. Supporting government-run health care looks like a sop to the politicians who control the subsidy tap.

I examined Wal-Mart's dependence on government subsidies back in 2006 for TCS Daily, writing that:
... both the left and right implicitly cast Wal-Mart in the role of free market capitalist. What's missing from the debate is the extent to which the Wal-Mart story really is the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism. When you look under the rug, it turns out that Wal-Mart is a beneficiary of corporate welfare.

When Wal-Mart plans a new store, it typically asks local and county governments for an array of benefits, principally in the form of various economic development subsidies:

Infrastructure assistance in the form of new or expanded roads and utilities servicing the store location.
Sales tax abatements.
Property tax abatements.
Income tax credits.
Enterprise zone treatment for the store location.
Eligibility for job training programs.
Eligibility for tax exempt industrial revenue bond financing.
Economic development loans and grants.

Radio Derb is ON THE AIR, though for subtle technical reasons, we can't post a notice on the NRO home page.

It's always a bit difficult not to be sappy about the Fourth, which I insist on calling The Birthday of the Modern World. But a reader sent me a letter that contains two great paragraphs:

Long before the modern rationalizations for the "benign" nanny state, Confucius had given his own vision of the perfectly ordered pyramid with the emperor at the top, talking to God, and most of the rest of us at the bottom, lucky for the privilege to talk to their dog.

The bulk of human experience is tyranny, whereas liberty is the ultimate unprobability, a.k.a., America.   Government of the people, for the people, by the people cannot survive unless the people has enough intestinal fortitude to make it work.

Which is so true. Remember it. And fight.

From the Washington Post:

Obama Administration to Involve NSA in Defending Civilian Agency Networks

The Obama administration will proceed with a Bush-era plan to use National Security Agency assistance in screening government computer traffic on private-sector networks, with AT&T as the likely test site, according to three current and former government officials.

President Obama said in May that government efforts to protect computer systems from attack would not involve "monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic" and Department of Homeland Security officials say that the new program will only scrutinize data going to or from government systems.

But the program has provoked debate within DHS, the current and former officials said, because of uncertainty over whether private data can be shielded from unauthorized scrutiny, how much of a role NSA should play and whether the agency's involvement in warrantless wiretapping under the Bush administration would draw controversy.

"We absolutely intend to use the technical resources, the substantial ones, that NSA has. But . . . they will be guided, led, and in a sense directed by the people we have at the Department of Homeland Security," the department's secretary, Janet Napolitano, told reporters in a discussion of cybersecurity efforts.

A Texan reader suggests the Gonzalez Flag. "A bit more defiant, in my opinion," he says. He's right!

Who will Nina Totenberg consult for the conservative point of view now?

is going to Malta. He's been nominated as Obama's ambassador there.