Can it be true that the media now don't have Sarah Palin to kick around? At least not Governor Palin. She's officially outta there. Some of her final tweets were ridiculous.

Last state twitter. Thank you Alaska! I love you. God bless Alaska....

So it's, I love you, but it's best that I leave you. That's just like a bad break-up. ("It's not you, Alaska, the problem is me....") And there was this one:

W/ kids in camper...AK is BIG/WILD/GOOD LIFE;feel freedom here

As if Palin had gone Kerouac or Merry Prankster: drop out, work is for suckers.

In any event, it seems doubtful Plain will really be gone--as in silent. As she writes--or oversees the ghostwriting of--her book, she'll certainly make various pronouncements that can fuel cable chat about her and her possible presidential ambitions. She might campaign for GOP candidates, if she can find one or two who will accept her assistance.

I wonder if she will continue to be an anti-media crusader. Bashing the elite press used to have a lot of salience with the world of conservatives and Republicans. Jesse Helms went after CBS News (and Dan Rather) for years. These days, though, the elite media just ain't what they used to be. Can anyone argue with a straight face that the United States will lose the war in Afghanistan because of how CBS reports on the war? (Much of the conservative case against the media in the 1970s and 1980s flowed from the notion that the lilly-liver liberals in the media undermined the US military effort in Vietnam.) But suggesting today that CBS News's reports on Afghanistan will affect the outcome would probably get you laughs in most quarters. (Sorry, Walter Cronkite. RIP.)

The big media has lost power and influence, and it's not the foil it once was. Palin's anti-media rants will win over those conservatives who believe that Fox News is the only accurate depiction of reality. There are millions who fall into this category, but it's not an expanding slice of the population. And it's not likely sizeable enough to support a national political effort.

Meanwhile, there surely are Paliniacs who will stand by her. Look at this message put out by TeamSarah.org:

"Sarah Palin has always been an intensely independent woman-- always true to her faith, her family and call to public service. She has provided women with a new political role model, offering a positive example of grace and poise as she deflected the barrage of baseless personal attacks on her family," said Team Sarah Co-Founder Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Her entrance onto the public stage has attracted massive numbers of Americans new to the political process. We have every confidence she will have an equal and profound impact in whatever projects she undertakes as a private citizen."

True to her "call to public service." Didn't she just bail on public service? The statement continues:

"Team Sarah members anxiously await Palin's next decision on how she believes she can best serve our nation. Governor Sarah Palin is the real deal. She is smart; she is articulate; she is strong; she is compassionate and she walks the talk. I believe the ongoing personal attacks on both Governor Palin and her family indicate that she remains a real threat to the liberal feminist political establishment," said Team Sarah Co-Founder Jane Abraham. "Despite the criticism, Governor Palin's success will endure. Team Sarah's thousands of members remain as engaged as ever on TeamSarah.org. The Governor has inspired millions, and her audience of enthusiastic support will only grow in the future."

Yes, when the economy is on its knees, the climate is changing, two wars are waging, and the health care system is sick, the most important job for Palin is to destroy "the liberal feminist political establishment." If Palin plays to this political crowd, she'll make a ton of money--books, speeches, the like--but her political career will be deader than it is at the moment.

*****
THE COWBOYS OF KABUL. Reporter Dan Schulman, my colleague at Mother Jones, has a kick-ass story out about two Texan grandparents who went from bankruptcy to raking in millions as contractors in Afghanistan. There was one little problem, though. According to the US government, they did so by fraud, using phony receipts and ghost employees. This is a twisted tale (and a solid piece of journalism) detailing a vivid example of what can happen in the Wild West bonanza of private contracting in Afghanistan. Read it here

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.

It's not every day you get a chance to go on television and call Rush Limbaugh a fool. But on Thursday night, I was asked on Hardball to comment on the big-mouth's claim that James von Brunn is a "leftist." So what choice did I have?

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Look at this illustration that accompanied USA Today's story on a new poll on the Republican Party:

Who's missing? Sarah Palin. When Americans were asked who speaks for the Republican Party, the winner was Rush Limbaugh (13 percent). The next four were Dick Cheney, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and George W. Bush (who was picked by 3 percent). Palin didn't make this list. Responding to this poll, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie told reporter Susan Page, "We cannot be a party of balding white guys." Gillespie, who has a decent crown of hair, ought to check that illustration. Only one of the five is non-balding; only one of five is not white. None are non-male.

In politics, there's always time to fill a vacuum in leadership. Perhaps the more troubling indicator for the GOP is this particular finding in the poll: 33 percent of the GOP respondents said they have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. When one-third of your own rank-and-file doesn't like you, you're in trouble. (On MSNBC, super-smart analyst Charlie Cook noted that only 4 percent of Democrats are not pleased with their party.)

But does the GOP's disaffected third want the party to go more to the right or to moderate? That's not clear. But two-thirds of the Republicans polled said they yearn for the party to hold the conservative line. (A majority of the wider pool of respondents said the GOP should seek to attract moderates.)

The bottom line: if the POed GOPers crave more conservative red meat, the party can only solidify its base by moving in a direction that will further alienate it from most voters. If those POed GOPers desire a more moderate party, they are at odds with most of their party comrades. Either scenario is bad news for the Republican Party. The party is in a spot where it may not be able to do much on its own to improve its fortunes--other than to wait for economic disaster and/or an overseas crisis that causes voters to become disenchanted with President Obama and Democrats. And that's not a strategy; that's a hope.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I'm still looking for signs that President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will split the right. Earlier, I reported that conservative strategist Grover Norquist was happy with Obama's choice because it has united conservatives in opposition. Longtime rightwing poohbah Richard Viguerie has said the same thing, and he's been calling for an anti-Sotomayor crusade. But so far Senate Republicans and Michael Steele, chair of the GOP, have refrained from beating any anti-Sotomayor drums. And that means Norquist, Viguerie and the conservatives could end up being disappointed if Senate GOPers decide not to go after the first Latina nominated to the highest court.

In an email, I asked Norquist if he thought the Senate Republicans share his enthusiasm for opposing her. His response surprised me a little. He wrote:

It's Sotomayor Mania!

I'm watching Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch being grilled by David Shuster on MSNBC for claiming that Judge Sonia Sotomayor would put her "feelings" above the law. Shuster demands proof of that. Fitton refers to when she once said that a "Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Fitton accuses Sotomayor of racism. And other conservatives are latching on to this quote to denounce President Barack Obama's selection of Judge Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Fitton also is saying, "Conservatives...expect Republicans to oppose this nomination in large numbers."

Well, they can expect all they want, but....Elsewhere I note that the Sotomayor pick could lead to a split on the right. Obama has handed Senate Republicans a tough choice: they can attack Sotomayor, the first potential Latina Supreme Court justice, and risk alienating Hispanic voters (and possibly women, too), or they can yield to Obama and tick off social conservatives who want blood. What to do?

One sign of this dilemma was the first reaction from the Republican Party. On Monday morning, the GOP zapped out a press release noting that when Howard Dean was Democratic Party chair, he immediately blasted the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito Jr. But, the release noted, Michael Steele, the current GOP chair, was not prejudging Sotomayor and was now calling for "thoughtful discussion" of her judicial record. So here was Steele using the moment to proclaim, "Hey, I'm no bombthrower."

That might help Steele, given that he's developed the reputation of a shoot-from-the-hip politico. But such let's-be-reasonable rhetoric must not hearten Tom Fitton and other conservatives ready for an ideological charge against Sotomayor. They want a fight. As of this early moment, there's no sign their Republican pals will give them that.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I was stunned. The person sitting next to me this Easter morning had just accused President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, of having thrown "Christianity under the bus." And CNN host/Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz was stunned, too.

We were on the set of Kurtz's Reliable Sources show--broadcasting live--and my fellow panelist, Tara Wall, the deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Times was on a rant. As other conservatives had done, she was attacking Obama for having noted, during a recent speech in Turkey, that the United States was a secular nation, not "a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We are a nation bound by a set of ideals and values." To set up the discussion, Kurtz had played clips from the usual shouting heads. There was rightwing radio talker Lars Larson griping, "I know that technically he's right, but I think that this country has its roots so deep in Christianity and in its traditions and its laws, I think that should be an affront to the American people." There was Sean Hannity grousing, "So, we're an arrogant country and we're not a Christian nation."

But when Wall was given the chance to explain these rightwing complaints, she turned the knob up to 11:

KURTZ: Tara, why are some pundits on your side of the spectrum saying that perhaps Obama doesn't believe in a Christian nation, when he was clearly just saying that America is a pluralistic society?

WALL: Well, you know, his idea to forge ahead and this idea of religious neutrality, he essentially threw Christianity under the bus the same way he did Reverend Wright. I mean...

KURTZ: Threw Christianity under the bus? Where is that...

WALL: Well, listen, the point is the history -- let's revisit our history here. This one dollar bill, all of our dollar bills say "In God We Trust." We are a country -- wait. We are...

You thought Rush Limbaugh was leading the conservative pack in terms of extreme anti-Obama rhetoric? Guess again. There are rightwingers claiming that President Barack Obama is part of a global conspiracy to destroy the US economy.

The other day, Human Events, the conservative magazine, zapped out an email pitching copies of a book called Obama Unmasked, written by Floyd Brown, a longtime conservative activist responsible for the infamous Willie Horton ad, and Lee Troxler, a former Reagan White House press aide. The book came out before the election. But the election results apparently have not voided the need for this book. In fact, the authors claim it is needed now more than ever. Really. Truly. That is, if you can handle the truth about Barack Hussein Obama.

Here's the bottom line:

Rightwing activists gathered at a Washington hotel this week for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where they listened to party leaders bash Barack Obama and George Bush and make excuses for the sad state of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Various speakers blamed the liberal media, the spending excesses of the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, and John McCain's lousy performance as a candidate for their movement's woes. What they neglected to do was consider whether the bedrock principles of conservatism--fetishizing the free-market and demonizing government--were no longer operative and out of sync with the present reality. I discussed this on Hardball:

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, check out this story on how former UN Ambassador John Bolton jokingly suggested at CPAC that a nuclear attack on Chicago would teach Obama a much-needed lesson about national security. And the audience responded with laughter and cheers.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.