By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Sarah Palin's official PAC has pulled in more than $2.1 million this election cycle and spent $1.2 million (almost none of it on federal candidates for office, of which more in a moment), so you'd think she could afford to hire someone who can write her fundraising letters in grammatically correct English. Or at least she could get a competent proofreader. Apparently not: Here, in part, is an E-mailed fundraising appeal from the former Alaska governor on behalf of Sarah PAC (emphasis mine):

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The collateral damage from Sarah Palin's broadside against Rahm Emanuel for his "retard" comments keeps spreading. Her spokeswoman today flamed Rush Limbaugh (even after Limbaugh said Palin would know better) and the former Alaska governor also blasted a top aide to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for whom Palin will soon be campaigning.

Now comes an audio clip of Palin ally Glenn Beck having a laugh about paintings of "retarded children."

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Sarah Palin took umbrage recently with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for remarks he made, privately, to the effect that querulous Democrats were "f*****g retarded" for planning  to run attack ads against centrist Democratic lawmakers. As the mother of special needs child, condemned Emanuel and demanded his resignation, prompting bloleague Jack Farrell to wonder why the conservative icon was suddenly embracing political correctness. Apparently Jack's not the only one. Rush Limbaugh, also came to Rahm's defense, in his own way, castigating "our political correct society" for "acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." (More after the jump.)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

A new, federally-funded study brings striking evidence that abstinence-only education might actually work. Today's Washington Post gives the study front page play, and abstinence advocates are crowing that they've been proven correct. But there are a few problems with their "victory", most notably that while the findings are noteworthy and important, they miss the point. Since abstinence-only education--unlike abstinence itself--is not 100 percent effective, it's not the best approach.

Here's the nut of the study, as reported by the Post:

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I shook my head the other night when President Obama called for further restrictions on how much lobbyists are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. First such a proposal is almost certainly unconstitutional: The Supreme Court has ruled that money in politics is protected as free speech, and while this (allegedly conservative) court has demonstrated a willingness to overturn precedent, that doesn't seem like one they'll go after. Beyond that, it further illustrates a problem I've had with the Obama administration's approach to lobbyists: It assumes that they are all evil.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I've argued here before that while the filibuster is today used in a radically different way than it was traditionally--far more legislation is subjected to these delaying tactics than used to be the case--part of the problem stems from public ignorance of how it works. I got some measure of confirmation from a recent Pew poll which showed that all of 26 percent of Americans know that 60 votes are required to break a Senate filibuster. Almost the same number (25 percent) think that a simple majority (51 votes, for those of you scoring at home) can break a filibuster. Seven percent of Americans think the number is 67 votes and five percent think it's 75 votes. And 37 percent had the good sense to throw up their hands and admit ignorance.

Figures like that make me glad that President Obama made a point in his State of the Union address of admonishing the GOP that if they "insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. " I might have liked him to spell things out a bit more explicitly, pointing out that such a blanket insistence on a supermajority is a recent development, and not in keeping with how the filibuster has been traditionally used. But I'll take it.

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

My colleague Ken Walsh has a nice history of the of the State of the Union address, looking at not only what tonight's speech can mean for Obama, but how this event--filled with pomp, circumstance, sound, fury, but little significance--developed. And I blogged earlier about some of my favorite behind the scenes moments from various past administrations, from LBJ grousing that his speechwriters had given him "50 pages of vomit" to Richard Nixon bemoaning how boring the speech could be (an opinion shared by Bush 41 speechwriter and bloleague Mary Kate Cary).

But here are some straight facts and figures to sate your need for State of the Union data, trivia, and other minutia.