CIA director Leon Panetta's shocking revelation that a top-secret CIA anti-terror program had been concealed from Congress for more than eight years -- until Panetta himself finally learned of it in late June -- is going to test the will of Democratic leaders to investigate the lawless Bush-Cheney years. It will also test their willingness to clash with the Obama administration, which has so far been appallingly content to continue Bush-Cheney secrecy on torture and interrogation and to stonewall investigation and prosecution of those who broke the law.

The revelation that Panetta informed Congress that the CIA was “concealing significant actions” from both houses for eight years (and from himself, it seems, for four months) has led to calls from Democratic lawmakers for a full investigation into both the program, and whether any laws were broken concealing it from Congress. Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Anna Eshoo believe the deception was likely illegal, in breach of National Security Act provisions that require disclosure of such programs to congressional leaders. The pair, along with five other Democrats, have written a letter to Panetta demanding a full investigation.

None of the lawmakers who've now been briefed on the program, or Panetta, will disclose what exactly the secret program was. CIA and congressional officials have said it has nothing to do with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or torture, or warrantless wiretapping and spying either. That's led to speculation that it could have something to do with "executive assassination rings" reporting to Vice President Dick Cheney that Seymour Hersh discussed in a speech in March. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer and Dylan Ratigan seemed to surprise Eshoo by asking directly if the controversial program was the assassination group Hersh referenced, but she wouldn't comment. Eshoo did tell the Huffington Post's Sam Stein that when House Intelligence Committee members first heard about the secret program, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans."

And while Republicans are trying to downplay the controversy, even Rep. Pete Hoekstra seemed to acknowledge the secret program was extreme. Although he denies it was ongoing for eight years -- he describes it as "an on and off thing," while Democrats dispute that -- Hoekstra said it was something Congress never would have approved, except "maybe on Sept. 12."

A Washington Post story Friday indirectly poured cold water on the assassination-ring theory by quoting lawmakers and CIA officials saying the secret plan wouldn't qualify as a "covert action" that would have needed congressional approval. (An assassination ring certainly would.) There has been little other speculation about what the program could have been, and Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.

Two things are clear: First, Newt Gingrich and other Republicans owe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an apology for demanding she resign or be impeached when she said in May that the CIA had regularly misled Congress on intelligence and interrogation operations. Panetta seemed to admit as much with this disclosure. Republicans should be as angry as Democrats are about the breach, and mount an immediate investigation into exactly what the secret program was, and why it wasn't disclosed to Congress.

Second, congressional leaders should expect a big fight with the Obama administration as they try to strengthen and expand their oversight over CIA and other intelligence operations -- and they need to toughen up for it. The president has already threatened to veto a bill that would require certain sensitive operations to be disclosed to the Intelligence Committee members of both houses of Congress (right now only the so-called Gang of Eight, the top bipartisan leadership from both houses as well as intelligence committee chairs) get such briefings.

Likewise Obama has opposed all of Congress's threats and demands to establish some sort of investigative body to look at Bush-Cheney lawbreaking and decide on whether and how those responsible should be punished. Congressional leaders have been silent lately about whether they'll proceed on their own. Panetta's revelation shows how much remains to be known about the secrets of the last eight years. As much as Obama claims he wants to look forward, not backward, these revelations will continue. And they threaten to become part of his legacy, not just Bush and Cheney's, if his Justice Department doesn't get into gear and get to the bottom of the CIA and other agencies' lawless ways.

Polling results in the wake of Gov. Sarah Palin's shocking resignation are far less surprising than the move itself: She endeared herself to the Republican base by playing the "liberal media victim" card, but her standing with Independent and Democrats declined. Republicans won't take back the White House with a candidate as polarizing as Palin.

I continue to marvel at the latest installment of Palinpalooza. I'm not a fan, but I have to admit, I've never seen anyone like her: She gave a maudlin speech blaming the national media for attacking her, then decamped for a fishing vacation....with the national media, so she could do more complaining and playing the victim, this time up close and personal with Matt Lauer and Kate Snow. It's hilarious. Is there a word for a hypocrite who's too clueless to realize she's a hypocrite? Brazen will have to do.

I debated GOP strategist Ron Christie on Hardball Wednesday about Palin's national political future. He says it's bright, I believe it's over, as far as national elective office goes; she could make a lot of money as a public speaker or a Fox commentator. Here's the video (text continues below):

To get ready for the segment I drilled down into reporting on those 15 pesky ethics complaints, the ones she said cost Alaska "millions of dollars." In fact, the Anchorage Daily News reports that the complaints cost the state $286,000, and the most costly set (there were several) had to do with Troopergate, which had exploded before Palin was tapped by Sen. John " Why, God, Why?" McCain. The most costly Troopergate complaint apparently involved one Palin herself made, hoping the investigation would exonerate her.

And while Palin described the complaints as the work of Democratic political operatives and east coast media types looking for dirt, all but one of them were filed by her constituents in Alaska. That one exception was a complaint by a DC watchdog group about her $150,000 clothing gift from RNC. It was ultimately dismissed, but it dealt with an unclear area of campaign-finance law.

The rest of the complaints were all filed by Alaskans. Four of the complaints were filed by a Republican former ally of Palin's, Andree McLeod, who turned on her because she felt Palin was cutting ethical corners, hiring cronies and using a private email account to conduct public business outside the realm of public records. Many of the complaints predated her vice presidential nomination. And at least one of the complaints was clearly justified; Palin had to pay back about $8,000 in travel expenses for her children. Another is still pending: A seemingly reasonable complaint about Palin charging the state per diem when she's living in her own house in Wasilla rather than the governor's mansion.

So the complaints didn't cost Alaska "millions," they weren't filed by outside Democratic operatives, and most of them weren't frivolous. Is Sarah Palin going to keep telling these lies on her self-pity tour? And why is so much of the media letting her get away with it?

I wrote about being surprised by my sadness when Michael Jackson died June 25 (in fact, I interrupted my vacation to write about Jackson, and not Mark Sanford; go figure.) I was the same age as Jackson, so I can speak with authority about the way he crossed over and immediately integrated AM radio, and the record collections of my white friends, way back then. So while the breathless Jackson media overkill turned me off the story, I couldn't not watch the memorial Tuesday.

I sympathize with people who are struggling to explain why Jackson's death is a big cultural deal, in the face of people saying, Enough! -- although I ultimately came down on the side of Enough! He was an enormous talent who was also a civil rights pioneer, no matter how much surgery he had to reshape his once-lovely black face. He changed music and he changed the world. His epic personal troubles were huge news when he was alive; why would his shocking death be different? Still, a lot of people got fed up with the 24/7 mythologizing, and Jackson's contradictions were part of the problem. You can't just make one strong case about his cultural, racial or political importance. Yes, he attended BET awards and Motown anniversaries and stayed a part of the black community, while clearly struggling with his own self-image as an African-American man; yes, he was a singular eccentric talent who somehow made himself palatable to an unprecedented mass audience (and ultimately uninteresting to serious music fans for at least the last 15 years). Yes, he apparently loved his children very much; and loved other people's children in a way that showed, at best, very bad judgment.

So Jackson supporters have had to try, often a little too shrilly, to make the case for his global greatness, not mere celebrity. I've enjoyed seeing the culture critic Toure on MSNBC this past week talking MJ, but when he said before the memorial that the Jackson Five's emergence in 1965 helped debunk Daniel Patrick Moynihan's controversial 1965 report on the decline of the black family, well, he was reaching badly.

Was it reaching for Smokey Robinson to open with condolence letters from Diana Ross and Nelson Mandela? For Queen Latifah to read a poem from Maya Angelou? For the children of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to compare him to their father? You be the judge. I gave up trying to find an "objective" perspective early on -- it's been clear for a while now that much of the black community embraced Jackson fiercely after his legal troubles, and even more so after his death. If he didn't come to my mind as a civil rights hero before his death -- and he probably still won't -- that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't one.

In fact it was tough to maintain any lasting perspective on the weirdly uneven memorial -- moving tributes (Smokey Robinson, Magic Johnson, Brooke Shields; yes, Brooke Shields, talking about their sweet weirdo child-star bond) gave way to schlock (his backup singers and dancers for the abortive tour singing "We Are the World"). Certainly the tribute hit some wrong notes: Motown's Berry Gordy's eulogy was interminable, given as much to honor Gordy's judgment as Jackson's talent. He had the nerve to mention Jackson's "questionable decisions," but of course, not his own role in taking the name "Jackson 5" away from Michael and his brothers after they rebelled against Motown rule.

I appreciated a lot of what the Rev. Al Sharpton said, but crediting him with Obama's election is silly. And telling the Jackson children "wasn't nothing strange about your daddy. It was strange what your daddy had to deal with," well, that's simply not true. You can think Jackson was treated badly -- and I do -- without thinking he did nothing to incite doubt and derision. The three Jackson children are going to have to deal with a lot of their poor late father's strangeness over the course of their life. But then again, nobody tells the whole truth at a funeral.

It was impossible not to be moved when Jackson's daughter, Paris, came to the microphone in tears, and told the crowd: "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine ... and I just wanted to say I love him so much." It was one of the few moments in the memorial when Jackson's simple humanity, not just celebrity, showed through. And yet it also seemed another example of celebrity excess; did that little girl really need to be onstage at the Staples Center, crying about her father? (The CNN Breaking News alert trumpeting that quote was the day's lowest moment by far.) And the Jackson siblings, all in sunglasses, and the brothers in matching black suits and yellow ties? At a certain point, the memorial matched Jackson's career: It started impressively but ended in ... just too much.

Maybe this was silly, but I hoped someone would touch on the suffering and sickness that led Jackson to abuse his body and abuse a staggering array of drugs. What does it take to want to literally be sedated, put under, anesthetized to escape life? I realize as I write that that was a forlorn expectation; Jackson got to the point he did because nobody around wanted to be honest about his life; why would they be honest in death? May Jackson find the peace he never found in life. And may we now return to our regularly scheduled programming. 

The only thing harder to understand than Sarah Palin's inscrutable resignation speech Friday was the statement her lawyer released Saturday, threatening media outlets with lawsuits if they reported allegations that she's quitting because of a criminal investigation into the Wasilla Sports Complex boondoggle.

Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett broke the story back in September, examining whether Palin supporters who made money on the controversial sports-complex deal helped the Palins build their home on Lake Lucille. Max Blumenthal added details Saturday in the Daily Beast. Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore has been on the beat, too, and she's cross-posted some of her reporting on the Huffington Post. But Palin's private attorney, Thomas Van Flein, singled out the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times in his rambling (like Palin's speech), menacing letter -- when to my knowledge the Times, Post and MSNBC had never mentioned the allegations of scandal.

Naturally, the lawyer's letter, with reference to the scandal, made the Washington Post today -- just what Palin wanted? Mention in the New York Times and on MSNBC can't be too far behind.

To be fair, it must be noted that the FBI's Alaska spokesperson denies that Palin is either under investigation or close to indictment, according to the Los Angeles Times. But Van Flein's letter (published in full at the end of this post) is certainly cause for media outlets that didn't plan to cover the "Housegate" allegations to do so.

Certainly I hadn't planned on writing about "Housegate" until Van Flein made it news. Personally, I don't think there had to be a looming scandal for Palin to make this odd decision. I think Sarah Barracuda has actually been Sarah Barraquitta, as a friend quips, for most of her life, moving through five stays at four different colleges to get her degree, leaving her oil and gas commission post after just more than a year, and now stepping down as Alaska governor because it's no longer fun. Daily Kos diarist Walt Starr found video of Palin criticizing Hillary Clinton for complaining about her media coverage; clearly Palin could learn a lot from Clinton if she wants to have a political career, and not merely be worshipped by a cult of adoring right-wing fans.

Wild Bill Kristol continues to peddle the line that Palin's shocking move could be a good way to jump-start her 2012 presidential campaign, but almost no Republicans seem to agree (except maybe that other GOP gambler, Bill Bennett). Karl Rove thinks it hurts her chances, but Palin backer John Coale (the husband of Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, and allegedly a Democrat) tells the New York Times: "She has a following that will jump in front of a plane for her. If she takes this time to develop that base, she could be a real force in the Republican Party, and maybe run."

Interestingly, the first time AKGovSarahPalin twittered about Van Flein's press release, she linked to Van Susteren's Web site. But since Van Susteren had only posted a truncated version of the statement, an hour later "Palin" had to tweet another link to a PDF of the full statement (it's at the bottom of this post). Note to "Palin" on Twitter: You need to change your bio: "Creating New Energy for Alaskans as governor of the 49th state!" isn't terribly accurate anymore.

Here's the full text of Van Flein's statement: 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On July 3rd, 2009, Governor Sarah Palin announced her intent to resign her gubernatorial duties and transfer the powers of Governor to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell.

Almost immediately afterwards, several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the "real" reasons for Governor Palin’s resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers.1. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin. Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact.

The history of the Wasilla Sports Complex is publicly known. Contrary to the insinuation that as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin "personally" oversaw bidding, construction, funding and accounting for the project (and thus, the allegation goes, "embezzled" from the project), the truth is far more mundane, and publicly available:

Curtis D. Menard was instrumental in spearheading the effort from conception to realization of the Wasilla Sports Complex. He directed the steering committee that was responsible for placing the issue before the voters of Wasilla and subsequently passed. He remained chairman of that committee through the design and construction of the facility. He was an ardent supporter and leader of civic, educational and athletic endeavors within the community as well as an advocate of the continued success of the Sports Center.

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=114.

Thus, as any basic fact checker would learn, the Mayor of Wasilla is not listed as "chair" of the Steering Committee. As Mayor, Governor Palin did appoint the committee, another fact readily verifiable, and she was publicly on record supporting the need for such a facility—as was most of Wasilla. "Wasilla weighs sports facility" published December 6, 2001 and available at While her public support of this project was deemed pivotal by many, the actual construction, bidding, financing and other day-to-day management of the project was not in her scope of authority as Mayor.

In addition, Sarah Palin was then criticized by some of not showing enough interest in the project. The Frontiersman reported that at a public meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, an opponent of the project "accused Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin of staying quiet about the arena because of her campaign for Lieutenant Governor." "Sports Arena Campaign gets Rolling" http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2002/02/21/news6.txt (February 22, 2002).

Further, this was a highly public project, approved by the voters, and subject to public bid requirements. As described by the City of Wasilla itself:

The city uses competitive means for the purchase of all goods and services as required by Wasilla Municipal Code 5.08. The city also utilizes contracts and price agreements established by the State of Alaska, the Western States Contracting Alliance and other cooperatives or agencies when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The city believes in open, fair competition and strives to ensure that all vendors have equal opportunity to compete for city business.

The City of Wasilla operates under a decentralized purchasing system. This means purchasing decision up to $5,000 is made independently by the departments in the city (with the exception of Management Information System purchases). When the estimated amount for goods or services is between $5,000 and $9,999, departments are required to obtain three quotes prior to purchase. The departments may utilize the services of the Purchasing/Contracting Officer (PCO) for this process or may do it themselves; however, when this processed is selected, the PCO must sign off on the final product prior to purchasing or contracting.

For purchases beyond $10,000, the city requires all departments to contact the PCO who will utilize the city's bid process according to Wasilla Municipal Code 5.08. The bid process is initiated through either an Invitation to Bid (ITB), utilized when the city knows the specifications for the purchase; or a Request for Proposal (RFP), utilized when the exact specifications or process is unknown. http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=360#82. Accordingly, the Sports Complex was publicly bid, in accordance with City and state law, and was accounted for in the time and manner all public projects are handled. The Mayor of Wasilla, be it Sarah Palin, or her successor, did not handle the funds, or the materials, for this project. To thus suggest she "embezzled" is as false as it is impossible.

The additional claim of "proof" of wrongdoing is the allegation that the Palins purchased building materials from Spenard Builders Supply—and that this company may have provided supplies for the Sports Complex. Prior to the construction of Lowe’s and Home Depot within the last few years in Wasilla, Spenard Builders Supply was the primary building supply company in Wasilla. It can hardly come as a surprise that it would sell materials to small homeowners or that it would also bid to supply commercial contracts. One would be hard pressed to find a home, cabin or outbuilding in the Mat-Su Valley in which Spenard Builders Supply did not sell at least some of the materials.

The Palins built their Lake Lucille house using Todd as the general contractor. Todd’s family owns a hardware and building supply business in Dillingham. He is no stranger to construction, or to rolling up his sleeves and doing work. The Palins used a combination of personal savings, equity from the sale of their prior home, and conventional bank financing to build the house—like millions of American families. The deeds of trust are recordable public records. Basic journalism and fact checking would confirm this.

The Sports Complex was built in 2002. It is now 2009. While the Federal Government has a process to follow, and that process sometimes takes time, we can categorically state that we are not aware of any "federal investigation" that has been "pending" for the last seven years. We are aware of no subpoenas on SBS regarding the Palins. We are aware that the Federal Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation have been helpful, responsive and diligent in prosecuting the email hacker and in cleaning up Alaska’s corrupt legislators. To be blunt—this "story" was alleged during the campaign, evaluated then by national media and deemed meritless. Nothing has changed.

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right." Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Thomas Van Flein, for

Governor Sarah Palin

1 Wayne Barrett, a writer for the left wing Village Voice, published these insinuations, on October 7, 2008 in a story entitled “The Book of Sarah” available at http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah. This was written in the style of one pretending to be amazed that so many people in a small town like Wasilla appear to know one another, support one another, and take on big projects together. Apparently that is uncommon in New York. Rather than recognize that leaders of a community often mobilize to accomplish projects, the writer offered this up as an unusual and questionable association of special interests. 

(Updated below)

First came news that Alaska governor Sarah Palin wouldn't run for re-election, confirmed by CNN around 3 pm ET. Minutes later, Alaska television station KTUU reported that Palin had actually announced she will resign her office at the end of the month.

In an angry, rambling press conference that will rival Gov. Mark Sanford's as a stunning example of a bizarre public meltdown, Palin basically blamed her decision on her national critics, who she said were blocking her agenda and costing Alaska taxpayers money.

"You are naïve if you don't see a full court press right now on the national level picking apart a good point guard," Palin said, a reference to her days as Sarah Barracuda, high school basketball star. What does a good point guard do? "She drives through a full court press protecting the ball, keeping her head up…and passing the ball so her team can win. I know when it's time to pass the ball for a win.

"I really don't want to disappoint anyone with this decision," Palin continued. "I cannot stand here as your governor and allow millions of dollars to go to waste. I don't know if my children are going to allow it either…This decision comes after a lot of prayer and deliberation." Palin said all of her children endorsed her decision, and she closed by complaining about people mocking her Down's Syndrome son Trig, with little Piper standing by her side.

"In the words of General MacArthur, we are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction," Palin said, as she turned the podium over to the apparently shocked Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

There was rolling hilarity and a total news vacuum on television for about 10 minutes after the news first broke. CNN's Rick Sanchez wondered aloud if Palin could be pregnant again – shocking Candy Crowley – before interviewing Frontiersman reporter Andrew Wellner, who says the press conference came as a total surprise to local reporters.

"She didn't take any questions, she said she could be more effective outside of government," Wellner said, reading his notes to Sanchez. Then CNN got tape of Palin's announcement.

This is very weird. We'll update when we get more information.

Update: Getting weirder. CNN is now running the entire speech; earlier, it only ran a clip from her resignation statement onward. It's crazy stuff. For the first 10 minutes or so, Palin rambled weirdly about all the good things she's done for Alaska, on energy and budget issues, sounding kind of like a Furby who memorized a lot of information but has no idea how to repeat it in a human-like way.  The tone and inflection were completely off.

Then she began her list of grievances with national critics.

"Over the last nine months I've been the subject of all sorts of frivolous accusations...The state has wasted millions of your dollars" investigating those accusations, Palin complained, blaming "the politics of personal destruction." Suzanne Malveaux is desperately asking Candy Crowley to "make sense" of this. Crowley's talented, but she's not up to this task. Sense will be made only when we get the back story.

Update II: According to Think Progress, the spectacularly wrong Palin supporter Bill Kristol phoned into Fox News to say: “If I had to guess, we just saw the opening statement of the 2012 campaign.” Meanwhile, on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell says she's hearing from GOP sources Palin is out of politics "for good." Who do you believe?

And here's the Palin speech video:

As CBS News reported Wednesday, Salon's coverage of Sarah and Todd Palin's ties to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party sparked a lively e-mail spat between Palin and McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt. The climax is a withering note from Schmidt to the vice-presidential nominee -- AKA "rogue diva" -- rejecting her request that the campaign essentially lie about Todd Palin's seven-year membership in the secessionist group. 

I wanted to clear up one question the CBS News story raised for me: whether Palin or her staff had gotten media inquiries about the Alaska first couple's involvement with the fringe party. Certainly Salon asked about it multiple times, and got no reply from either Palin's staff or McCain's, but I can't speak to whether other outlets also asked about the story. All I know is, they should have. 

Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair story opened the door on this new round of reporting on the Palin-McCain feud. But where Purdum's piece was long on juicy gossip from anonymous sources, the CBS News story delivers names, dates and clear details on exactly what Palin and Schmidt were fighting about: in this case, Palin's effort to whitewash her husband's long association with the fringe group. 

Salon took the lead in reporting on the Palins' ties to AIP, from David Talbot's interview with Palin-admiring party leader Lynette Clark to the Oct. 10 investigative piece that set Palin off: Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert's deep exploration of how AIP members aided Palin's rise to power, and how she paid them back, from firing Wasilla city employees they opposed, to trying (unsuccessfully) to appoint one party leader to the Wasilla City Council. 

When CNN covered Blumenthal and Neiwert's scoop, Palin demanded that the McCain campaign respond. "Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today -- two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote to Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed." Schmidt fired back: "Ignore it. He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america." 

(Although Schmidt comes off as the stand-up guy here, it's nice to see that the GOP default, even when accused of supporting occasionally violent secessionist whack jobs, is always simply "We love America," as though Democrats don't. The implication is: "Todd Palin loves America -- unlike that Jill Biden!") 

But that wasn't enough for Palin. She dragged out the Big Lies -- secession isn't what the AIP's about, and anyway, Todd wasn't really a member. 

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed." 

Admirably, Schmidt wasn't having any of it. 

"Secession," he wrote to Palin. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country. 

"We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this." 

It's not quite true there were "no media inquiries" on the links between the Palins and AIP; Blumenthal and Neiwert did, in fact, contact Palin's staff, as well as the McCain campaign when Palin didn't reply. "I contacted Palin’s staff personally, explained the nature of my query and who I was writing for, and gave them my contact info," Neiwert confirms in an e-mail. "I never heard back from them. I also sent an e-mail, which I’ve forwarded to you." The e-mail, to press@mccain08hq.com, laid out in detail what the pair found about Palin's ties to AIP extremists. They got no reply. It's hard to believe no other reporters queried Palin and the campaign about her ties to extremists, but then again, looking at the lackluster, personality-driven reporting on the 2008 election, maybe it's not that hard to believe. 

Still, it's nice that even if Schmidt and the campaign wouldn't talk to us directly about the story, they weren't willing to lie about Palin's ties to the AIP, as she requested. It's also fascinating that Palin chose to focus on the passing reference to her husband's ties to the party, when the story was about her own. With Mark Sanford and John Ensign out of the 2012 race, Palin supporters had to be hoping her star would rise. But while the 2008 GOP infighting makes everyone involved look bad, in different ways, one thing comes through clearly: Palin is both deeply uninformed, as well as arrogant about being clueless. It's a deadly combination, and her GOP enemies are likely to stop her before Democrats have to.