PostPartisan

Sarah Palin, as you may well have heard, is resigning as governor of Alaska later this month in order, reports The Post’s Chris Cillizza, to focus on a 2012 presidential bid. And, in one stroke, she reconfirms many of the reasons she will never be president.

First, the timing: It’s not just that there’s more time between now and the next presidential election than has yet elapsed since the last one. There’s more time between now and the next midterm election than has passed since last November. Perhaps never has a presidential hopeful so poorly disguised her overambition. Sure, it’s tough to campaign and govern a state so far away from Iowa. But she could have simply decided not to run for reelection next year. This makes her look incapable of juggling multiple tasks at once.

Shortly after the fall of the Soviet regime, the Russians began renaming their streets, towns and cities. Leningrad became St. Petersburg again, Stalingrad became Volgograd, and so on. But what in Russia took a revolution appears in America only to require a new congressional majority. The Examiner reports today on “talk” on Capitol Hill about removing Ronald Reagan’s name from Washington's Reagan National Airport.

Alright, maybe my Russian-studies-major enthusiasm for historical metaphor is a little grandiose. For one thing, this probably won’t get past the vague-talk stage. And the sorts of people the Russians commemorated -- and then uncommemorated -- were often nasty mass murderers. The cult of Reagan is merely annoying.

On the eve of President Obama’s trip to Moscow, the White House is touting what an official described as a “victory” in turning around a suspected North Korean arms shipment bound for Burma. The turn-around appears to be a rare success in the long and frustrating American effort to stop North Korean arms proliferation.

I learned of this incident at sea in an unlikely way, during a trip to Russia, when my cell phone rang at about 2:30 a.m. this morning, Moscow time. It was the White House on the line.

The official told me that the Kang Nam 1, a North Korean ship bound for Burma with a mysterious cargo, had just turned back toward home -- as a result of what he described as a behind-the-scenes pressure campaign from Washington. The official argued that the turn-around at sea was a sign the Obama administration’s firm stand had worked.

“The Burmese said no, we don’t want it,” the official said. He explained that Burmese authorities had contacted North Korea to refuse delivery using an open line -- as if they wanted to make sure the U.S. got the message.

The Kang Nam 1 had embarked more than two weeks ago with a cargo that U.S. officials believed might include banned armed shipments. The U.S. Navy, operating under authority of a recent U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution, was monitoring the ship’s slow progress toward Burma.

Administration officials didn’t want to force an open confrontation by boarding the ship, especially when they weren’t sure what it was carrying. Instead, they pressured governments en route not to allow the Kang Nam 1 to dock at their ports. And the U.S. made clear it hoped that Burma would turn the vessel away if it tried to land.

According to the White House official, that’s just what happened. He argued that the successful American effort to block the arrival of the Korean vessel sends a signal that “Obama has an open hand, but a firm handshake.” Since the official’s call reached my cell phone while I was in Moscow, it’s likely the Russians got the message directly.

By Marisa Katz

Among Gov. Mark Sanford’s many apologies this week is one with a definite Nixonian ring to it.

Here’s Sanford asking for your forgiveness in a message posted on his Web site.

Immediately after all this unfolded last week I had thought I would resign -- as I believe in the military model of leadership and when trust of any form is broken one lays down the sword. A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise -- that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride. They contended that in many instances I may well have held the right position on limited government, spending or taxes -- but that if my spirit wasn't right in the presentation of those ideas to people in the General Assembly, or elsewhere, I could elicit the response that I had at many times indeed gotten from other state leaders.

Their belief was that if I walked in with a real spirit of humility then this last legislative term could well be our most productive one.

Now, consider President Nixon’s explanation, in his interviews with David Frost, for why he didn’t resign along with chief of staff Bob Haldeman and domestic adviser John Erlichman in April 1973:

By Jo-Ann Armao

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says that the president is more interested in actually doing something about the second-class status of D.C. residents than in empty symbols like, say, putting D.C.’s “Taxation Without Representation” plates on the presidential limo. Good to know. But here’s a question: when is the president going to get serious?

Despite his past support for a measure that would give the District a voting member in the House of Representatives, Obama hasn’t done a thing since being sworn in to help voting-rights advocates. He sat back in February as the Senate, with more than 20 Democrats signing on, attached a toxic gun amendment to the bill that would give the District a voting representative in the House. His administration has pointedly refused to comment about the implications of lax gun laws in the nation’s capital on homeland security. And he hasn’t lifted a finger to help people like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) convince Democratic members to vote on voting rights without the gun amendment.

So, the bill sits as D.C. residents are denied a voice in their government. And the president tools around town, the one he purports to a citizen of, in a limousine that, by virtue of what it doesn’t say, is fast becoming a symbol -- of presidential apathy.

A new sex scandal, a new catch-phrase. Bill Clinton gave us, “it depends what the meaning of is ‘is.’” John Edwards offered up this keeper: “Being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.” Now comes South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) to discuss “the ultimate line” -- the one he crossed with his Argentine “soul mate” but not with other women he met on “blowing off steam” trips with the boys.

As Sanford continued his self-immolating confession tour, he told the Associated Press, “There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line." And, "What I would say is that I've never had sex with another woman. Have I done stupid? I have. You know you meet someone. You dance with them. You go to a place where you probably shouldn't have gone....So anyway, without wandering into that field we'll just say that I let my guard down in all senses of the word without ever crossing the line that I crossed with this situation."

Al Franken. Finally. Who in his or her right mind would have thought last November that it would take until July to seat Franken?

The Democrats’ patience had a down side and an up side. The down side is that the party was short one critical vote in the Senate. It’s possible that the stimulus package would have been better if Franken had been there. It would not have been subjected to quite so many of the compromises that made it smaller and less effective. The trajectory of the health care battle would have been better, too.

But the upside is that no one can accuse the Senate’s Democratic majority of ramming through Franken’s seating prematurely. In the 1980s, House Democrats created extraordinary bad blood among Republicans (even moderates) with their aggressiveness in a battle over a closely fought seat in Indiana. Many argue that the bitterness created by the Indiana fight led to the Gingrich revolution. Democrats avoided that this time.

One can now hope that Franken’s seating will make it less likely that Democrats concede more than they have to on health care. The worst outcome would be reform so small and crabbed that it disappoints voters who actually expect real change. Writing for The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn offers the cautionary tale of the 1988 Catastrophic Coverage Act, where senior citizens experienced the costs before they felt the benefits and eventually forced its repeal.

By Jo-Ann Armao

Update, 4:50 p.m.: "The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results." With those words, former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) conceded to Al Franken, thus ending Minnesota's marathon battle for the U.S. Senate. Coleman did the right thing -- but one still wonders if he shouldn't have done it earlier, when it became clear his was a losing position all around.

Original Post:

There’s this wonderful scene in an old West Wing episode in which a losing presidential contender wrestles over whether to accept an offer from the man who just bested him to become secretary of state. A trusted aide asks him how he wants to enter the history books: as a statesman or as someone who just couldn’t give up?

Former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman (R) should be asking himself the same question. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared this afternoon that Democrat Al Franken is the winner of that state’s long-drawn out battle over who will represent it in the U.S. Senate. The court -- in a unanimous decision -- ruled that the former comedian Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast, with 314 votes more than Coleman. The court’s long-anticipated ruling affirmed the conclusions of an earlier and painstakingly careful recount that followed the Nov. 4 general election, in which more than 2.9 million votes were cast.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) indicated he would certify Franken the winner if the state’s highest court ruled in the Democrat’s favor. Here’s hoping Pawlenty makes good on his word. What’s unclear is what Coleman plans to do. He still has the legal option of continuing his battle in federal court.

Many gay and lesbian activists are impatient for President Obama to make history on their behalf. They want him to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military and to repeal the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And no doubt many of the 300 guests invited to the White House’s Stonewall commemoration today let the president know that they are frustrated with the pace of the change he promised.

But while activists are right to press Obama on pledges not yet fulfilled, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots offers a moment to reflect on the history that has already been made. Just think: Forty years after outcast gay men and drag kings and queens confronted abusive New York City police officers, leaders of the gay rights movement were welcomed to the White House by a presidential administration with a record number of openly gay appointees. Nearly 17 years after then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was reportedly coerced into saying "gays" in his Democratic nomination acceptance speech, we have a president who willingly talked about gay issues to non-gay audiences on the campaign trail. Nine years after then-Gov. Howard Dean (D-Vt.) ushered "civil unions" into the national political lexicon, six states (five of them, including Vermont, since Obama became president) have legalized same-sex marriage. There are a slew of gains, big and small, national and local, that ought to be celebrated -- not derided as "crumbs" or too little too late.

By Eva Rodriguez

Make no mistake about it: The case of Ricci v. DeStefano will come back to haunt Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. In a fair world, it wouldn't.

A sharply divided 5-4 Supreme Court this morning overruled a decision issued by Sotomayor and two colleagues on the New York-based federal appeals court. Sotomayor upheld New Haven, Conn.'s decision to throw out tests for leadership posts in its fire department. The city took the action after test results showed that only white or Hispanic firefighters scored high enough to qualify for promotion; under this test, no African-American firefighters made the grade.

Yet New Haven had almost no choice but to take a second look at the test because of Title VII, a federal law that, among other things, requires employers to question the fairness of employment actions that appear to have had an adverse or "disparate impact" on minorities. When New Haven decided to ditch the test and hold off on promotions, it was sued by white firefighters who claimed they were being discriminated against merely because of their race. A federal trial judge sided with New Haven, saying that it acted properly under federal law and that it would have certainly been sued by African-American firefighters had it decided to certify the lop-sided test results. The appeals court panel on which Sotomayor sat summarily affirmed the lower court judge in a surprisingly brief one-paragraph ruling.

I think it was a mistake for Sotomayor and her colleagues not to have issued a fully fleshed-out decision explaining their rationale for backing New Haven. I think such an approach was called for in a case that presented novel issues not squarely addressed before by the Supreme Court. In fact, six members of the New York appeals court argued for a rehearing so that the full-court could tackle the case; the remaining seven members of the court voted down that option, essentially standing behind the panel's handling of the matter.