If you haven't read it yet, it is all the rage. Todd Purdum has written a masterful and entertaining article in Vanity Fair  about the Governor of Alaska, that conservative pin up girl, Sarah Palin. While there are a number of new interesting tidbits, the general gist we already knew. Sarah Palin was a disaster. Even if she got the rabid conservative base to foam at the mouth to the rest of us she was clearly unqualified to be one wink away from the Presidency. He writes:

Palin is unlike any other national figure in modern American life--neither Anna Nicole Smith nor Margaret Chase Smith but a phenomenon all her own. The clouds of tabloid conflict and controversy that swirl around her and her extended clan--the surprise pregnancies, the two-bit blood feuds, the tawdry in-laws and common-law kin caught selling drugs or poaching game--give her family a singular status in the rogues' gallery of political relatives. By comparison, Billy Carter, Donald Nixon, and Roger Clinton seem like avatars of circumspection. Palin's life has sometimes played out like an unholy amalgam of Desperate Housewives and Northern Exposure.

More like at Northern Overexposure at this point. Sarah Palin may drive the conservative base into a frenzy who view her as some sort of female Ronald Reagan but to the politically astute, not to mention the just plain awake, she's just not all there. She's erratic, uncertain of facts and simply just not sufficiently prepared to play a leading role on the national stage. And if she's the last of the red hot conservatives, then truly the conservative brand is in trouble. If the GOP were to nominate her again even as Vice President, I am not sure the Republican Party would live to see another day. In the end, Sarah Palin will be a footnote in American history, the first female Vice Presidential candidate on a Republican ticket and the second overall on a major party ticket. She is as much trivia as trivial.

The National Security Adviser, General James Jones, is certainly a colorful guy. In the Washington Post story, there is this rather amusing anecdote.

The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized.

Nicholson and his senior staff, 20 Marine colonels and lieutenant colonels, sat around a table made of unfinished plywood the size of at least three ping-pong tables in a command headquarters that stands where there had been nothing but desert six months ago. The headquarters is located in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, 370 miles from the capital, Kabul, in a region known as the Desert of Death because of its scorching heat and choking fine, dustlike sand. The province is facing a rising and lethal Taliban insurgency.

During the briefing, Nicholson had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.

But Jones recalled how Obama had initially decided to deploy additional forces this year. "At a table much like this," Jones said, referring to the polished wood table in the White House Situation Room, "the president's principals met and agreed to recommend 17,000 more troops for Afghanistan." The principals -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Gates; Mullen; and the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair -- made this recommendation in February during the first full month of the Obama administration. The president approved the deployments, which included Nicholson's Marines.

Soon after that, Jones said, the principals told the president, "oops," we need an additional 4,000 to help train the Afghan army.

"They then said, 'If you do all that, we think we can turn this around,' " Jones said, reminding the Marines here that the president had quickly approved and publicly announced the additional 4,000.

Now suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel?

Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?"

Point well taken.

National Security Adviser James Jones has told US military commanders there are no plans to send more troops to Afghanistan for now and that the focus instead will be on economic development and reconstruction according to story by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post.

National security adviser James L. Jones told U.S. military commanders here last week that the Obama administration wants to hold troop levels here flat for now, and focus instead on carrying out the previously approved strategy of increased economic development, improved governance and participation by the Afghan military and civilians in the conflict.

The message seems designed to cap expectations that more troops might be coming, though the administration has not ruled out additional deployments in the future. Jones was carrying out directions from President Obama, who said recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops."

"This will not be won by the military alone," Jones said in an interview during his trip. "We tried that for six years." He also said: "The piece of the strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed."

In February the President ordered an extra 17,000 troops deployed to fight a growing Taliban-led insurgency in southern and western Afghanistan. These are expected to be fully in place by the middle of July. Another 4,000 troops are expected to arrive in August to assist in the training of the Afghan army and police force. The forces are part of a build-up aimed at expanding the US military presence in Afghanistan to 68,000 troops by the end of this year, more than double the 32,000 at the end of 2008.

Furthermore, General Stanley A. McChrystal has undertaken a 60-day review designed to address all the issues in the war.

The increased focus on economic development is a welcomed development. This war cannot be won by military means alone.

It's hard to keep up with all the conservative nonsense but there's a movement afoot among the Tea Party set to declare a Going Galt day. On July 30th, conservatives are 'going Galt,' named after Ayn Rand's famous character John Galt from her novel Atlas Shrugged. On that day conservatives plan to 'call in conservative.' Here's their call to inaction:

On July 30th, Conservatives are "Going Galt".

On that date, we are asking Conservatives all across the nation to "Call in Conservative". On July 30th, Conservatives will not work, we will not buy. Instead, we will spend time with our families and friends. We will show President Obama and Congress who REALLY drives this economy. For more information on "A Day Without Conservatives, contact Judson Phillips.

Mr. Phillips lives in South Carolina. Writing in the Columbia Conservative Examiner, Anthony Martin supports the call to 'going Galt' stating that:

Conservatives will show the nation what it would be like if we simply did not work or spend our money.  This means that on that day we will not buy groceries, gasoline, snacks, patronize restaurants, or head out to Walmart or Target or any other retailer.

If this means businesses lose billions of dollars on that day, fine.  If this means that travel will be disrupted, good.  If this means communication systems are crippled, so be it.

Can you imagine the number of conservatives that work in various sectors of the economy who simply will not work on July 30?  Can you imagine that not a single conservative will spend their money at restaurants, gasoline stations, or retailers on that day?  The potential for this protest is enormous.

But government has pushed the citizens to this point.  For now, this is a peaceful but firm protest to show Washington and 'progressives' that they can no longer expect us to simply roll over and play dead as they ram a socialist agenda down our throats.  There are more of us than there are of them.  We can shut this country down if we so choose.

Or they might prove their own irrelevance.

It's a relief to close the book on the 2008 elections now that Al Franken will finally be able to take up the Senate seat he won last November.

Talking Points Memo posted their Top 10 moments from the mostly infuriating, sometimes comical Franken-Coleman saga.

We can laugh at Coleman's pretzel logic during the legal proceedings, but unfortunately, his gamesmanship deprived Minnesota of full representation in the Senate for half a year. In all likelihood Franken will be stuck with less-than-stellar committee assignments. Also, the delay did lasting damage to Franken's seniority. Had he been sworn in on time, he would have outranked several fellow Senate Democrats, which could become important one or two terms down the road.

Nevertheless, I have high hopes for Senator Franken and look forward to his work in Washington.

P.S.- I still don't understand why so many Minnesotans voted for Dean Barkley.

P.P.S.- Rush Limbaugh is still a big fat idiot.

Norm Coleman concedes following unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruling favoring Al Franken. Congratulations Senator Al Franken.

Disclosure: I'm proud to be working with the The Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM & Chrysler.

Today GM's final bankruptcy hearing will determine whether or not they accept liability for harm caused to consumers by defective GM cars built before the "re-launch of GM".

All indications point to no. In response to pressure from consumers, "New GM" has agreed to cover future liabilities from cars built before the bankruptcy ("Old GM"). But they are still walking away from pending liabilities for accidents that have already happened, leaving thousands of victims without recourse.

From the Car Gurus blog:

As part of GM's bankruptcy filing, it's possible it will no longer be liable for injuries or deaths caused by vehicles built by the "old GM." Our friends at Autoblog reported that GM may be reconsidering, but Chrysler set a precedent earlier this month when they emerged from bankruptcy free from such liabilities.

So if you're driving around in an `06 Cherokee or a `94 Lumina, and it suddenly bursts into flames, the folks at Chrysler can just let out a sigh of relief knowing the third-degree burns their vehicle gave you are not their responsibility. Awesome, huh?

News like this doesn't exactly instill the kind of trust GM and Chrysler so desperately need. Why are we supposed to believe that the "new" GM will be run any differently than the old, considering most of the top execs are still in place? At least Chrysler has the advantage of an all-new CEO and top management team.

Multiple state Attorneys General are opposing these provisions in the GM deal:

Attorneys general from Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Vermont filed an objection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York Friday.

Rep. Andre Carson is pushing a bill to force GM, Chrysler to cover future and current liability claims:

Four years after a traffic accident nearly killed him, Jeremy Warriner was just days away from his court date. Jeremy was set to argue that a faulty brake fluid container on his 2005 Jeep Wrangler broke and sparked a fire after the vehicle's impact--a fire that left Jeremy with severe burns and forced doctors to amputate both of his legs.

When Chrysler filed bankruptcy in April, Jeremy's mediation date was cancelled and his case has now been grouped with a number of other pending claims--likely never to see any payout due to the agreement struck in the bankruptcy court earlier this month. The court has absolved "New Chrysler," which emerged from bankruptcy, from any liability for future claims related to vehicles made before the creation of the new company.

To help Jeremy and thousands of future crash victims have their day in court, Congressman André Carson has filed the "Jeremy Warriner Consumer Protection Act," a bill that would require the newly-restructured GM and Chrysler to carry liability insurance and force the carmakers to cover claims made against them for any defective products produced by their predecessor company.

Regardless of what happens at the hearing today, the victims and consumer rights advocates won't be going away. There will be rallies this week protesting Chrysler in San Francisco, more on that as I have details.

Watch it: