When a public figure like Sarah Palin drops a bombshell resignation on the public without providing a reasonable contemporaneous explanation, the public figure should anticipate that public reactions will include speculation about the reason for her decision. Given the questions Wayne Barrett raised last year about the relationship between materials used to build Palin's house and materials used on state projects by contractors who received lucrative state contracts, it isn't surprising that some people wondered whether Palin's resignation was related to a criminal investigation.

Jeralyn pointed out a significant flaw in that theory: the expiration of the statute of limitations probably precluded prosecution, even if wrongdoing occurred. As Jeralyn noted yesterday, the FBI put an end to the speculation by announcing that Palin is not under investigation. And as Jeralyn reported in an update to that post, despite inviting speculation by making a sudden and unexplained announcement, Palin is threatening legal action against the speculators. How bizarre is that? [more ...]

Let's put the rumors to bed. The F.B.I. said today that soon to be former Governor Sarah Palin is not under investigation. No way. No how.

...[T]the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true."

Gonzalez added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments that could exclude any kind of probe.

That's good enough for me. What's left? Money or just a bone-headed political stunt that will forever brand her a quitter. Take your pick. [More...]

Update 7/4/09: The FBI says there is no investigation of any kind involving Sarah Palin.

*****

Original Post 7/3/09

Speculation is mounting on the internet that Sarah Palin is facing trouble over the source of the building materials for her Waslilla, Alaska home. If you remember, Todd was interviewed saying he built the house with his own hands and some buddies helped out with materials. [More...]

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is resigning. Reuters gives a few possible reasons. Since Palin has repeatedly said she's not a quitter, only this one makes sense to me:

She fears a looming political problem, perhaps even a scandal, and wanted out of the limelight, before the news broke.

Her statement does not allude to any problems. [More...]

When I wrote a few weeks ago about the Obama Administration taking the position that documents related to Dick Cheney's FBI interview in the Valerie Plame leaks case should not be released, it was in the context of lack of transparency and the silliness of the Government's attempted justification:

Another sign of non-transparency from Obama: His Justice Department is fighting a Freedom of Information Act request in federal court, trying to keep CREW from obtaining FBI reports and summaries of Dick Cheney's statement to the FBI over the Valerie Plame Leak. The Judge held a hearing yesterday and was very unhappy with the Government's position. He's going to review the statement himself to see if there's any reason not to release the requested documents. The Government gave this ridiculous reason: They don't want the statements "to become fodder for Cheney's political enemies or late-night commentary on "The Daily Show."

In newer developments, David Corn reports the Government has filed a new pleading containing a more substantive reason: [More...]

Tracie Powell of CQ:

Looks like the Supreme Court has delivered conservatives a not-so-new wedge issue. . . . Patrick J. Buchanan’s exhortation [!!!] to the Republican Party to present it as race-based bigotry against white males — for political gain. . . . “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court presents [the GOP] an opportunity. For, even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war.” . . . Finally, some semblance of a GOP survival strategy emerges.

(Emphasis supplied.) Uh, what? That's the strategy? Continue alienating non-whites and women? Hell of a strategy. For those who missed the 2008 election, here were the demographic breakdowns:

Is this a joke? Apparently not. A federal advisory panel is asking the FDA to ban Percocet and Vicodin because they contain acetaminophen.

A federal advisory panel voted narrowly on Tuesday to recommend a ban on Percocet and Vicodin, two of the most popular prescription painkillers in the world, because of their effects on the liver. "In 2005, American consumers bought 28 billion doses of products containing the ingredient." According to the panel,

The two drugs combine a narcotic with acetaminophen, the ingredient found in popular over-the-counter products like Tylenol and Excedrin. High doses of acetaminophen are a leading cause of liver damage, and the panel noted that patients who take Percocet and Vicodin for long periods often need higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect.

First, questions. Does this apply to Perocdan as well? Percodan has aspirin and Percocet has acetaminophen. Is aspirin ok? I thought doctors liked to give out Perocet vs. Percodan because they said Percoet, with acetaminophen, was easier on the stomach lining.

So writes Time magazine this week:

Alas for countless pundits and inspirational speakers, it is apparently not the case that the Chinese word for crisis is spelled by joining the characters for danger and opportunity. But that common fallacy nevertheless captures an important metaphorical truth: whatever the perils it brings with it, a crisis can be a grand opportunity. Among those who have understood that truth was Franklin D. Roosevelt. . . . [T]he crisis of the 1930s also provided an object lesson in the relationship between economic danger and political opportunity — a lesson Barack Obama is now trying to follow. Obama, too, came to office in the midst of an economic crisis, and in the solutions he has offered, it appears he has often looked to the example of F.D.R., whose presidency — and the very idea of activist government that it represents — is very much back in the public mind this year. Roosevelt pushed through policies that aimed not just to deal with the immediate challenge of the Great Depression but also to benefit generations of Americans to come. Pulling off a similar feat will require Obama to persuade Americans to see opportunities in the present crisis as well.

Not bad. But it also provides me an excuse to link again to my first post at TalkLeft in the summer of 2006, What Obama Needs To Learn From . . . FDR. Probably my best post here. It's all been downhill since then.

Ceci Connolly's silly article boo hooing about Left pressure on Democrats on health care was notable for only one reason (Faux News Ceci predictably churns out this type of silly drivel), this quote from a self proclaimed "Democratic strategist:"

One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations. The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: "These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn't helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?"

(Emphasis supplied.) When an "activist" thinks a pol, ANY pol, is his friend, he proves he has no idea what he is doing. My bet is this is some Third Way shill. Matt Bennett possibly? Sounds like him.

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers celebrates Arlen Specter's "conversion" to support for the public option (Byron Dorgan also now supports it and Jay Rockefeller made a great statement in support of the public option) but then frets:

The concept of making Democrats vote for more progressive legislation through primary challenges is predicted on the notion that we are dealing with people who are fundamentally self-centered, power hungry, and morally flexible. We believe primaries can pressure certain members of Congress into changing their minds on important votes because some members of Congress care more about keeping their job than about the legislation they pass. In other words, we are banking on members of Congress being power-hungry and immoral.

Welcome to the real world Chris. Pols are pols and do what they do. What WE do, in the face of that reality, is what a lot of us have been talking about for a while.

Speaking for me only

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has returned from Argentina and admits he has been having an affair (that began by e-mail) with a woman who lives there. He says his wife has known about the affair. His wife said today she asked him to leave the family home two weeks ago.

Sanford has submitted his resignation as chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Here's the transcript of his press conference remarks. Another paper is printing Sanford's romantic e-mails to the woman. How embarrassing for all of them.

Bottom line: He's a Republican whom we now don't have to worry about being on a future national ticket. Other than that, it's his business and I have no interest in reporting more details of his affair, making fun of him or castigating him for his behavior. It's between him, his family and the people of South Carolina who elected him.

Paul Krugman writes:

[N]obody can now say with a straight face that the U.S. health care system is O.K. And if surveys like the New York Times/CBS News poll released last weekend are any indication, voters are ready for major change. The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.

. . . Yet it remains all too possible that health care reform will fail, as it has so many times before. . . . The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist” Democratic senators . . . Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska initially declared that the public option — which, remember, has overwhelming popular support — was a “deal-breaker.” . . . Mr. Nelson softened his stand after reform advocates began a public campaign targeting him for his position on the public option.

(Emphasis supplied.) It's great that Ben Nelson "softened." But there is only one way for the public option to survive -- reform groups need to tell the President that he will be remembered as the guy who killed health care - not Ben Nelson or Kent Conrad. He needs to call them out when the time comes. Believe me, nobody remembers that Moynihan killed health care reform in 1994. Hell, Hillary announced her first Senate campaign at his farm in New York.

Speaking for me only