Maureen Dowd is Like Playing Mad Libs with Someone Who Has Tourette's (Actually Strike That, That Sounds Pretty Awesome) (JM)

Is She a Trojan Rabbit?

The thing about Maureen’s titles is that they rarely make any more sense after reading the column than they do at the beginning. Let’s go ahead and see if this holds true this week. (SPOILER ALERT: It does.)

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Now Barack Obama faces a true dilemma: how best to punish Hillary Clinton.

Yes, this really should be his focus. I say a lifetime of labor in the gulag for trying to win an election.

After 15 months of fighting her off, as she veered wildly from bully to victim, as she brandished any ice pick at hand, whether racial, sexual, mathematical or marital (in the form of her Vesuvian husband), Obama must decide the most efficacious means of doing to Hillary what she has been trying to do to him: putting her in her place.

This is definitely the recipe for reunifying the party, concentrating on putting Hillary in her place. I think the mere fact that she lost has put her in her place. By the way, how misogynistic would this be if written by anyone other than a woman. Hell, screw it, still weird and misogynistic as Dowd usually is. Also “vesuvian”? There are like a billion better adjectives for Bill and if you’re trying to impress us with your vocabulary, well it’s a bit too late for that I am afraid.

Her last resort is to continue to press the “Psssst — he’s a black man” tactic. She insisted to USAToday, after the North Carolina and Indiana slide, that she has a broader base, citing an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

This is a totally legitimate criticism and a major concern for the general election. Race is a touchy issue, but demographic bases is a legitimate discussion and should not be construed as mere race baiting.

So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black? Is the most ingenious way to turn the screw by not choosing her as his running mate, or by choosing her?

How about making a decision on what’s best for the party. The answer is probably she would not be an ideal running mate, but then again she does very much excite her base. Someone who appeals to that base is necessary.

It is, verily, a sticky wicket.

You are, verily, a Lemony Snicket.

One top Hillary supporter who is black warns that, despite the giddy dreams of some punch-drunk Democrats, a fusion ticket could backfire because “Americans can’t handle too much change at once.”

I actually think this analysis is profoundly stupid. I suspect that people who are deterred by either gender or race are likely to be deterred one way or another. I doubt there is someone out there who is thinking, “I am okay with either a black man or a woman as president, but both? That’s just too much change for me!” This is both inane and offensive. The fact is that it is time to just get over this shit and act like this is not a big deal, because when we can treat this like it’s no big deal, well that’s the real victory.

But should Obama ignore that caution and appease Hillary fans by putting her on the ticket?

As president, he could announce that, because Dick Cheney abused the powers of his office so grievously, taking the title “Vice” literally, he intends to shrink the vice presidency back to its “bucket of warm spit” Constitutional prerogatives — presiding over the Senate and taking over if the president goes under anesthesia.

See how that might not appease Hillary fans. Why do you assume punishment is the ultimate goal here. That seems like a pretty stupid goal. Also Obama knows Hillary is a pretty good resource, if he makes her VP it will be with a fairly significant portfolio, probably health care. Anything less would be a debacle.

He might also neglect to give Bill (whose acronym would be SLOTUS, Second Lad of the United States) full White House access.

Another awesome plan, a bitter, pissed off former POTUS running around the world. Maureen, I want you to be in charge of all my life’s decisions from now on.

Aside from the delight Bill would get from living at the Naval Observatory and having a huge telescope to window-peep with, there wouldn’t be much joy in Hillaryland.

Jokes, I like them.

The lady-in-waiting would be surrounded by Obama disciples who disdained her for fighting dirty. And she would be miserable holding up the train of the young prince who usurped her dream, derailing the post-nup she had with Bill to trade places.

The first part of this paragraph is true. I am not sure what a post-nup is, but yes I buy that it would be uncomfortable for her.

As de facto veep for Bill, she had enough leverage over him, due to his shenanigans, to co-opt huge chunks of policy and personnel decisions.

Does Maureen just hate being female. Does she really believe that the only reason Hillary had any policy influence was because she had dirt on Bill. This is just preposterous. Not only is it offensive to her, it is also offense to the millions of people who are certain Hillary would be an incredibly competent world leader.

But in a return engagement with Obama at the top, could she really wake up every day in the back seat and wish him well, or would she just be plotting? (Fourteen vice presidents have ascended, after all.) Wouldn’t she be, in Monty Python parlance, the Trojan Rabbit behind the gates?

See, look, her title came back. It still makes no sense, just another silly pop culture reference to cover up for a weak, weak argument. Plotting what?! If she’s VP her only goal would be a successful Obama administration. She cannot run until he leaves office, so either way, if he wins it’s another eight years, so they better be good ones. If she’s his VP candidate and they lose that damages her terminally. If she really wants to plot, it wouldn’t be from instead the White House.

On a positive note, maybe she could bring back all that stuff she pilfered on her way out.

Umm… did Dowd just accuse Hillary of being a klepto?

Obama’s other option, laid out by Teddy Kennedy on Friday, is to go with someone who wouldn’t be a big dark cloud over his sunshiny new politics.

Teddy told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that Obama should choose a partner “in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people.”

Yeah, this was a obnoxious comment, especially given that Hillary is in tune with almost exactly fifty percent of Democratic voters.

That would be smart for another reason: Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him, and the Golden One is not used to such rough treatment.

Hillary as enemy and Hillary as teammate are two very different things. But essentially you’re correct, if Obama is uncomfortable with her, he shouldn’t choose her. However, it’s difficult to imaging that she is like some sort of competence sucking Dementor.

In the last few days, as Hillary has deflated and Obama and the Democrats have dashed for daylight, he has been more like his old self, flashing his all-is-right-with-the-world smile on the cover of Time, joshing and charming Democrats and Republicans as he wooed superdelegates on the House floor, taking on James Carville for insulting his manhood.

“James Carville is well known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” he told Terry Moran on “Nightline.”

James Carville will survive, this is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She’s Jane Jinx to him. It’s a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn’s star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in “Pat and Mike.”

What a stupid assertion structured merely to lead in to a pop culture reference. Most people use the pop culture references to emphasize their point. Not Maureen, she uses her point to emphasize her pop culture references. She’s kind of like Rose Nyland, with stories from St. Olaf, but way less charming and way more evil.

The fiancé is always belittling Hepburn, so whenever he’s in the stands, her tennis and golf go kerflooey. Finally, her manager, played by Spencer Tracy, asks the fiancé to stay away from big matches, explaining, “You are the wrong jockey for this chick.”

“You know, except when you’re around, we got a very valuable piece of property here,” he says, later adding, “When you’re around, she’s no good, she’s dead, see?”

Movie quotations are not persuasive evidence. Thus far you have made a blanket assertion about Obama being unable to perform when Hillary is around and supported it be quoting a Tracy and Hepburn movie.

“Oh, god, he’s Hepburn.” See I can randomly quote television shows too, and to one up Maureen I am not even giving you any context or relevance at all.

The best way Obama can punish Hillary is to reward himself. He’s no good around her, see?

The best way Obama can be president is not to think like a twelve year-old girl snipping at a lunch table. Just how bad was your childhood Maureen? Really miserable I bet, you are a pretty unlikable person.

The West Wing Gets Involved (JM)

I love it, I love it, I love it! So all y'all who've been paying attention know that Arianna Huffington has accused McCain of claiming that he did not vote for Bush in 2000. Apparently this took place at a Hollywood party. The New York Times interviewed some witnesses to this event. Guess who they were:

“McCain was just sort of going off on how much he disliked Bush and the horrible things that the Bush campaign had done to his family in South Carolina, and his exasperation with Bush about his ridiculous tax cuts and he really wanted to talk to him about it, but he said the guy doesn’t have the concentration, and you talk for 10 minutes and then the guy wants to talk about baseball,” Mr. Whitford said.

Another guest then asked Mr. McCain, Mr. Whitford recalled, whether he had voted for Mr. Bush. “And he put his finger in front of his mouth and mouthed, ‘No way,’ ” Mr. Whitford said.

Mr. Schiff, who played Toby Ziegler, the White House communications director on “The West Wing,” said he was listening to Mr. McCain from the other of the two tables in the room.

“Someone asked, ‘What do you think of Bush?’ ” Mr. Schiff recalled. “My recollection, and I have to qualify this, because I’m not 100 percent sure he used this word, but my recollection is that McCain said that Bush was dangerous and he didn’t trust him. Then this person said, ‘Why did you support him?’ And McCain said, ‘It was my obligation as a Republican to support the Republican candidate.’ And the person said, ‘Did you vote for him?’ And McCain said, ‘No.’ ”

Man, it would be funnier if Bradley Whitford were more sarcastic and Richard Schiff were more bitter and throwing a ball against a window, but what are you going to do. In real life there are no President Bartlet's and despite the fact that my high school science teacher used to refer to me as Josh Lyman, people that cool just don't really exist. Either way, a fun tidbit for fans of political scandal and The West Wing.

Actually, while we're on this subject, I am not so clear how this even remotely hurts McCain. He's being attacked by the media and Hollywood liberals, which will help him secure his base, while being accused of repudiating a man not supported by almost eighty percent of the country. So on second thought... way to screw up guys, you better avoid Leo for the rest of the day.

Who's the Eleventh Most Influential Jew in All of Brittania and the Veepstakes (JM)

Why, if you said our good buddy Lord Finkelton, you'd be correct. Of course, if you can name one other Jew on the list of most influential Jews in Great Britain, I'd be impressed (Save uberfamous Man U football star Reb Ronaldowitz, obviously he is number one). Anyhow, congrats old friend please use this power wisely.

Now on to Daniel Finkelstein ranks the Veep candidates (which, by the by, will allow me to make some of my own comments on the matter at hand:

So it's Obama. But who's going to fill the second slot on the Democratic ticket?

I am not going to spend much time on this here, but I still wonder why now is the time everyone has decided it’s over. I mean, because Russert said so? Russert says lots of really inane things. The point is that Clinton’s situation is ostensibly no different than it was last week, she is tasked with convincing the automatic delegates that Obama simply can’t win. By the by, ARG has Obama at 23% in West Virginia.

1) Hillary Clinton

Many believe Obama will have to offer the VP slot to Clinton. Andrew Sullivan called it the hate-filled dream ticket. But will she accept it? If Obama loses, she may see a 2012 race opening up before her.

I think ranking Hillary first is both lazy and inaccurate. I agree that she’s on this list somewhere, probably third, but definitely not the most likely choice (she definitely would be, however, if Obama knew she’d turn it down). People have been explaining why this won’t happen for profoundly silly reasons, like she undercuts the message of change. That’s distinctly not why she is unlikely to get the nod. There are two excellent reasons. The first is that there are about 321847908062134609 video clips of Hillary cutting down Obama, this would make for some pretty damaging commercials. The second is simply a matter of Hillary thinks (and probably would be) a far more competent administrator, she would never accept a role as a mere functionary, add Bill Clinton to the mix as Second Laddie and you’ve got a bad situation all together.

2) Al Gore

He's certainly got the experience. But the eco-warrior probably has no desire to return to Pennsylvania Avenue. Winning his endorsement would have set Obama up for the nomination. Does he need Gore any more?

Awww… good times. This is how we met Danny, don’t you recall? You posted about how Al Gore would be an excellent VP for Obama? It was insane then, it is insaner now. If Gore wanted the nomination it was his. Literally, he could have just stood up and said, “Hrmm… excuuuse me, but I think I’d like to be President.” And so it would have been. There is just no reason he’d be Vice President to someone less experienced than him. Let’s all face it, Gore is done with politics, instead it the Earth now.

3) John Edwards

A serious contender. The North Carolina Senator ran with John Kerry in 2004 and would bring the Southern link currently missing in Obama's campaign. But would he want to do it again? And would Obama feel Edwards should have been with him earlier?

Edwards wasn’t a great running mate for Kerry and not a terribly good attack dog. However, this is irrelevant because Edwards has made it quite clear that he has no interest in being the Vice President. He wants to become to poverty, what Gore is to the environment. It’s an odd age we’re starting to see, where politicians are starting to become the leaders of particular causes, I think it’s effective and interesting. Certainly something to talk more about in the coming days, but the chances of this are nil. Thus far, if we were playing Mastermind, Lord Finkelton would have one right in the wrong position.

4) Kathleen Sebelius

Sebelius's name has been cropping up more and more frequently. The two-term Governor of Kansas fills in many of the gaps in Obama's support base. She may not have much foreign policy experience but she'll bring a red state with her. And a female Vice-President might help soothe Clinton's supporters. One to watch.

Alright, is it just me or does the whole Sebelius thing seem like a product of the silly grassroots internets and the punditry? A few things, there is zero statistical evidence that VP candidates from swing or red states bring their states with them. Heck, eight years ago Al Gore lost the presidency because he couldn’t win Tennessee from the President slot, so forget about Kansas. Being a two-term governor of Kansas doesn’t ameliorate any of Obama’s weaknesses, it’s not like California, Texas or New York, where you are essentially the executive of a small country. To say that her response to the State of the Union was a debacle is to put it mildly.

There is, however, a much more salient issue to address here. Having the same gender as Hillary does not pacify the supporters of Hillary Clinton. To suggest that Hillary had female supporters who only cared about her internal organs is to simplify an awfully complex dynamic and, at risk of saying something that is about to make me ill, is slightly misogynistic. I think Hillary’s pro-feminist supports liked her because of her strength, what she could do for the movement and her particular role in history. Dennis and I seems to be big fans of using cutting-edge baseball statistical terms to explaining things, but Hillary’s VORFC (Value of Replacement Female Candidate) is quite high. Simply placing a female on the ticket fixes very little in terms of bringing back the base.

That said, Sebelius belongs on the list because of the buzz, but I wouldn’t put her above many of the candidates yet to be mentioned. On a personal note, this is one of the few pairings that would leave me pause voting Democrat this year.

5) Bill Richardson

Also extremely likely. Pundits state that he's been running for VP since the beginning. He brings foreign policy experience and the Hispanic vote with him.

First of all, awesome analysis. I am not sure how the fifth-ranked person on your list can also be “extremely likely”. Unless, Obama is going to go for a unity ticket and make all the American people Vice President.

Richardson probably has a good shot, I don’t love the idea, but he comes from a winnable swing state, has pull with Hispanic voters and seems to have experience despite appearing to be an eminently silly individual. He’d probably be number two on my likelihood rankings as of right now.

6) Wesley Clark

A former four-star general, Wes Clark served in Kosovo and studied PPE at Oxford. He would lend Obama military clout and cross party-lines in his appeal.

Number six, with a bullet. This is the winner. I think Wesley Clark has a better than thirty percent chance of being the VP nominee. As a hardcore Clinton supporter he helps bridge the divide a bit, he’s obviously credible on issues military and international, he’s smart and is not a Washington insider. In my list of potential VPs, Wesley Clark is first.

7) Jim Webb

The junior Virginia senator since 2006. He could provide the machismo that Obama needs. A military man with a son in Iraq, he's regarded as one of the most authorative Democratic voices on the conflict. Known to carry a loaded pistol on occasion. As a former Reagan man he would add to Obama's cross party appeal and make it slightly harder to paint the candidate as an unrepentant liberal.

I like Webb, though I am often unclear precisely what to make of him. I think this is a non-starter despite his pundit appeal. He’s been in the Senate for far too short an amount of time, he’s a leading voice on some critical issues in the legislature, but most critically he has a strong position for a Senate seat in a weakish state. If the Dems want to continue to control the Senate (and eventually get to the magic number of 60) Webb stays where he is for now. He’s got national politics in his future, just not yet. (Though who knows, that’s what I thought about Obama, that’s what you all should have thought about Obama, I hate you all so much sometimes).

8) Robert Casey

The Pennsylvania senator has already endorsed Obama. As VP, he would help out in the white working-class states. And his Catholic faith would reach out to an important voting bloc.

Now you’re just listing people you’ve read about recently. Casey’s pro-life, it’s a total non-starter in national, Democratic politics. If anyone is coming out of Pennsylvania it’ll be Ed Rendell. I’d love it, we’d all love it. I like to think of Ed Rendell as a funnier version of Gov. Eric Baker (Ed O’Neill’s character from The West Wing). Either way, no chance on Casey.

9) Oprah Winfrey

She's already one of America's most powerful women. Could DC be next on her world-domination agenda? Just a thought.

Was this really a thought? It’s either an unfunny joke or really really supersilly political analysis. Sometimes I cannot tell how far inside your cheek your tongue is Daniel Finkelstein, honestly I cannot. I will tell you this now, I’ll let Obama pick Oprah, if McCain gets to pick Brimley. But I swear to God, if I know anyone who votes against McCain/Brimley we are just never ever talking again.

10) Joe Biden

Might he be the first Biden in a thousand generations to run for President? A senator since 1972, his presidential runs have never taken off. But his international experience might make him a good choice and he'd appeal to the white male vote. His description of Obama as 'clean' didn't do him any favours though. And some think he is more likely to be Secretary of State.

So I honestly don’t get that first question. Does anyone? Seriously. Anyway, Biden should be running for President right now, we all know it. By all I mean me and maybe Dennis. This election would be over already if he’d gotten the nod. I think this is possible, but not super likely, I would suggest maybe fifth or sixth most likely with low odds. He didn’t endorse, which gives him neither loyality or bridge dividing appeal and occasionally he needs to extricate his foot from his mouth. He is, however, brilliant, authoritative and strong in all the areas Obama is weak. He’d be a great choice, just not one I am sure the Obama camp will make.

So all in all it’s not a ridiculous list, no more ridiculous than some of the others I have seen (though there were some crazy bad choices). Congrats again on your hard work being Jewish moderately influential Daniel, we here at AOTG wish you well.

Just in case your interested here are my two sets of Veep Rankings, one for likelihood and one for actually being a good idea:

Likelihood: 1) Wesley Clark; 2) Kathleen Sebelius; 3) Bill Richardson; 4) Hillary Clinton; 5) Tim Kaine; 6) Ed Rendell

Good Idea: 1) Joseph Biden; 2) Wesley Clark; 3) Hillary Clinton; 4) Ed Rendell; 5) Mike Bloomberg

I am hoping this is not just wishful thinking on my part, but I suspect that there is a reasonable chance that Clark ends up being an excellent compromise pick. It’s interesting because last time Clark seriously ran for President I was staunchly opposed. I like to see growth in politics. He has grown well, just as I bet Obama would have been a force to be reckoned with 4-8 years from now. As it is, it’ll be a tough general, a coin flip at this point, but here’s hoping for Obama/Biden or Obama/Clark.

P.S. If it’s Obama/McCaskill I am moving to Korea.

Great Blog Post Titles That I Don't Want Ruined For Me (JM)

Often the existence of ESPN Insider is a source of frustration for me, rather than mystery and delight. But today, in the course of my daily rummaging, I came across this amazing blog post title: Drafting Negro Leaguers good idea by Rob Neyer. I cannot see the content because I am too cheap to pay for Rob Neyer's brilliance and rumors from Buster Olney that are true about fifteen percent of the time, if only John Kruk blogged, then then I would pay. So if you have Insider, feel free to read it, but do not tell me what it means, because in my imagination, it is just soooooooooo much better than it ever could be in real life.

Mr. Burns: Smithers, put together the best team money can buy, get the best players from the National League, the American League, the Negro League!

Also a quick shout out to Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, who if alive today would be a 138, and quite possibly still the second best pitcher on the Washington Nationals pitching staff.

The Veepstakes (Dennis)

Alright, I finally feel safe enough to talk about Obama's Vice Presidential pick. Here are my thoughts on several candidates who may or may not get the nod:

Hillary Clinton: I actually think Obama really wants to make her the pick. Back in the fall of 2007, I read a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin called Team of Rivals about Lincoln the politician . The theme of this book was how an inexperienced, frequently underestimated politician became president, filled his cabinet with his (much more experienced) rivals for the Republican nomination, and ended up skillfully manipulating all of them to successful ends. I thought at the time that Lincoln's as a candidate in 1860 reminded me a lot of Obama at the time. And lo and behold, when he was asked what book he would take into the White House Obama said...you guessed it...Team of Rivals.

So what does this all mean? I think Obama likes the idea of taking on the challenge of picking Hillary. His Hopementum side has to be thinking "I can unify the party, I can bridge the divide..." Meanwhile his Ego is telling him "she probably thinks she can push you around, you'll show her! Be like Lincoln, pick her and use her talents to further your goals and your presidency and someday Doris Kearns Goodwin III will write a book about you."

As for me, I think Hillary certainly brings some good things to the table. The VP slot will be a nice consolation prize for the Hillary supporters, and that would make the uniting of the party a whole lot easier. Also, Hillary, to be a little cliche, really hit her stride in the past month or so as a candidate. She tapped into a visceral passion that a lot of people (including me) thought she had lost for good sometime in the late 1970s. The idea of her and Bill barnstorming the country attacking McCain like tag team wrestling heels really appeals to me; it would be a two person Left Wing Noise Machine that could more than counter any "independent" underhanded efforts McCain has going for him.

The downside is that Hillary and Bill could become to the Obama campaign what Bill became to the Hillary campaign: an enormous distraction. There's a danger that the media would be so tied up with the Clinton melodrama that it would be unclear who was the nominee, who was the Vice Presidential candidate, and who was the Vice Presidential candidate's spouse.

Clinton is a high risk, high reward VP pick. And I think if Obama believes he can control her, she'll get the nod.

Kathleen Sebelius: Ewww....I'm sure I'll get used to her as a VP candidate, and she is apparently a pretty good governor, but anyone who saw the Democratic response to the State of the Union address has to be apprehensive. The VP needs to be a kind of Prime Surrogate, and as a surrogate, I think Obama could do better with a potato. Christ, she would need to bring Reverend Wright along to her campaign events so that people wouldn't fall asleep. No no no please not her.

Claire McCaskill: Unlike Jon I do not hate Claire McCaskill, I'm just sort of meh on her. She is a moderate Democrat from a state we want to win, but she just got into the Senate two years ago by a razor thin margin, so I doubt she has that much institutional pull there. She has also capitulated on votes that I thought were pretty important. So I would be pretty unenthusiastic about this pick.

Mike Bloomberg: Ah Obama/Bloomberg, a ticket the media can believe in! Seriously how many adoring pieces would David Broder write about this ticket? He would actually kidnap Charles Krauthammer so he could forge extra columns for the Post. But seriously, I do like Bloomberg, and he would be better than the Replacement Level VP Candidate (Tom Daschle).

How likely is this, though? It does kind of make sense; they both have sounded similar themes in their recent years. But, then again, this feels a little too gimicky, a little too parlorgameish to be the pick. It's the kind of out of the blue VP pick that you suspect will get a lot of gossip time over the summer, but won't happen in the end (like McCain for Kerry in '04 or Ford for Reagan in '80).

Bill Richardson: Yes he reminds you of a used car salesman/ your dad's tedious friend from work ("You know Bob, you should really try dees new foot inserts, dey do a great jahb protectin yer feet."). Yes you roll your eyes at him constantly. But, then again, he just might be corrupt enough to swing New Mexico for us, which would give him a pretty good VORVP (Value Over Replacement VP).

Ed Rendell: Ed Rendell is really my dark horse pick for Obama's VP spot right now. Doesn't this just make way too much sense to not be considered? Rendell is a real Regular Guy, he has a political machine in a state that Obama will probably need to win, he is a key Clinton supporter, and he's been a great surrogate these past few months. Check, check, and check. Also think of the metaphors that would come out of the feverish mind of Chris Matthews concerning this ticket....

Chris Matthews: Keith, doesn't this remind you of Casablanca?

Keith Olbermann (visibly horrified): ....what?

Chris: Keith I mean this is like...this is like Humphrey Bogart, the hardened cynic coming down on the side of Victor Lazlo, going off with the French resistence...I love it. And Hillary...

Keith: Oh God....

Chris (unfazed): Hillary is like Ugarte, she thought she was getting those Letters of Transit...but she ended up getting whacked! HAAH!.........I mean politically of course...I don't want to get myself in trouble...

Governor X Who Can Carry Swing State Y: To finish up, I just want to say something about this generic class of VP picks. I think there are just a whole class of politicians...Tim Kaine, Ted Strickland etc. who we don't know a ton about except for the fact that they are governors of certain important states. We don't know if they'd be good surrogates, they certainly haven't distinguished themselves on the national stage yet, and we're really just kind of hoping their voters are idiots and will vote for the ticket that nominates their governor. This just seems like small ball to me, trying to bunt a guy over to 2nd when you have 1 out so you can maybe squeeze out that one run with a lucky hit. With so many quality politicians out there beyond who I've mentioned here (people like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd etc.), why waste your VP selection on a chance that's so unlikely to pan out?

A Home At The End of the World (JM)

Humanity, in all of its forms, never ceases to amaze me. Just when I think they're going to zig, they zag like nobody's business. Paulville is an organization dedicated to creating gated communities of Ron Paul supporters where, if you join them, you can be "free to live your life the way you want and not be forced to do or pay for other people's life styles you may not agree with." I am not sure there are appropriate words in the English language to allow me to comment on this. I think I will invent a new word, "gastrogasmitronic", which means that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when something so absurdly funny exists that you don't really believe it exists, and that makes it all the more amusing. This is gastrogasmitronic in its implications. In fact, it gets even better:

These communities are not for the faint at heard they will start as undeveloped land in non city locals, as this is the way to secure large tracts of land needed for these efforts.

I want y'all to parse out the implications of this please. This is a collection of people, moving to a desolate wasteland, with no intention of paying taxes, whose most basic ethos is opposition to any form of collective action. This is going to go well, maybe even super well. I am really pretty unclear how this is much different than Waco. In fact, doesn't Ron Paul resemble Marshall Applewhite from Heaven's Gate, just a little.

Anyway, I really hope we get frequent updates from the community where people spend their time fighting over whose tract of land the aqueduct gets built on. I will tell you this much, if somehow I destroy my career and personal life in one fell swoop (this would not be an impossible feat for me) I am going to move on a setup shop in Paulville. Remember my motto folks: Liberte, Liberte, Fraternite (unless it gets in the way of my liberte).

I Can Always Depend on Stossel to Cure What Ails Me (JM)

Unless the government watches closely, the airlines will kill you.

As I read this, I picturing a giant, cartoon JetBlue plane tiptoeing up behind me, brandishing a knife. Only to be stopped by a British bobby wearing a hat that says “Government Regulation” on it. Then John Stossel shows up wearing a fedora with a little slip of paper on it that reads “Press”. But perhaps I’ve said too much…

That seems to be what many reporters and politicians believe.

Not, like literally, but yeah inspections seems like a pretty nifty idea.

"The result of inspection failures and enforcement failure [by the Federal Aviation Administration] has meant that aircraft have flown unsafe, un-airworthy and at risk of lives," says Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

"The FAA has clearly displayed a dangerous and cavalier lack of regard for tough safety enforcement," says Sen. Hillary Clinton.

And Lou Dobbs of CNN wondered "whether airlines are putting profit ahead of passenger safety."

I mean this seems likely. Look, I don’t think airlines ever want their planes to crash, bad PR, dead employees and lawsuits and whatnot, but their bottom line is still profit maximization and they are less specifically interested in safety than a balance between safety risks and profits. It’s not a choice between all safety and no safety for these airlines, it’s a balance and government regulation clearly helps shift the balance in the direction of greater safety.

Let me get this straight. The only reason airlines care about safety is because of the FAA? So without government, multibillion-dollar companies would jeopardize millions of passengers by unsafely flying $50-million airplanes?

Uhh, no Commander Strawman from the planet Exaggertron Prime, it is one of many reasons.

The media and politicians suggest that airlines would cut corners to make money, but how would that work exactly? Crashing airliners is a route to bankruptcy, not profits.

To be persuaded by this argument, I would actually have to stick my head in an elevator while Delta Burke repeatedly pressed the door close button over and over for a period of three weeks in which I did not eat, sleep or drink anything. Don’t ask me why it has to be Delta Burke, it just has to, okay? Or Gerald McRaney.

But air-travel safety has joined mortgage defaults and global warming as "crises" of the month.

What are all really bad things that deserve to be called crises?

Populists in politics and the media get attention by scaring people into thinking the skies are dangerous. The politicians want more power and attention; the clueless media are genuinely scared.

Yes, keeping airplanes safe, just another step down the road to tyranny. Thank you John Stossel for preventing us from making such a horrible mistake. First they come for the airlines, then they come for the environments, and then the Jews…

The latest "crisis" was launched when the FAA fined Southwest Airlines, which has an excellent safety record, $10.2 million for missing inspection deadlines. When Rep. Oberstar criticized the FAA for being too close to the airlines, the agency sprung into overreaction. "An industry-wide 'audit' commenced, and FAA inspectors set about finding something -- anything -- to show Mr. Oberstar and other Congressional overseers that the agency was up to the job of enforcing federal maintenance requirements to the letter," said The Wall Street Journal.

The Wall Steet Journal!!! Turn this ship around, my argument has run aground against an iceberg of objectivity! Yes, sometimes governmental regulators act politically, but they still have the goal of general safety, they don’t actually decrease the level of safety at all.

One result was the cancellation of 3,300 American Airlines flights and the stranding of 250,000 passengers over several days while 300 MD-80s were grounded so their wiring could be inspected.

Yes, I found this disconcerting too…

American Airlines then did something rare and even heroic. It criticized the agency that regulates it for suddenly changing inspection procedures in ways that have little to do with safety. "We don't know what the rules are," said an American technical crew chief for avionics. Some rules contradict each other, the airline said.

Why yes, they are our greatest heros! Why we need to add a new chapter to Profiles in Courage. American Airlines for complaining about FAA inspections. They are Aeneas, Superman, the Green Lantern, John McCain and Jared from Subway combined. So in sum, very heroic.

The FAA disputes American's claims, but The New York Times reports that "John Goglia, a maintenance expert and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, said that the rules had, in fact, changed. ... The differences in American's work, he said, were so small that 'those airplanes could have flown for the rest of their careers and those wires would not have been a problem.'"

Look, I obviously do not know the technical details of these regulations. I know I don’t trust you, John Stossel, to not cherry-pick only the most advantageous quotes. But here’s where I stand on this: Any mistake maybe erring against regulation could lead to a lot of dead individuals. There is often no middle ground in airline accidents. I would rather over than under reach and I am certainly not willing to wait and let the market solve.

What about alarmist claims that the FAA has been lax in enforcing its own procedures? If the claims are true, then where are the bodies? The best evidence that FAA enforcement is unnecessary is to assume it's been lax -- and then to note that airline travel, though busier than ever, has never been safer (http://tinyurl.com/6yfm4x).

How is this possible the “best evidence”? Assume it’s not doing its job and then we can assume it’s ineffectual. You, sir, are silly. Also how about massive advances in technology explaining an increase in safety? However, we can still make it safer.

We need to rethink the premise that government inspections keep us safe.

Based entirely on the no evidence you have provided us with.

Clifford Winston and Robert W. Crandall of the Brookings Institution write: "[T]he fundamental problem with most regulation is that the regulatory agency does not have sufficient information, flexibility and immunity from political pressure to regulate firms' behavior effectively. Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner."

This is the most generic and stupid sentence I have ever seen. It’s not like these are mutual exclusive propositions, right? The market still exists too, they might have slightly better information, but not as strong motivation. For the FAA the ultimate goal is safety, for the market the ultimate goal is profit maximization. I would prefer to have both in place. Also I am not sure why the FAA doesn’t have adequate information, it’s not like they hire some guy named Ron off the street to inspect these planes. It’s usually, you know, aviation engineers and the like.

To see who really regulates air safety, do a thought experiment suggested by George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux, who blogs at Cafe Hayek:

Ooh George Mason University AND a blogger for Café Hayek… I have never heard of Café Hayek, but we can all safely assume the delightful island of rationality that is. So, anyway, prepare for some objective truth people.

"Suppose that all government regulation of airlines were abolished today. Does ... Congressman [Oberstar] suppose that airline executives would tomorrow fire all inspectors and maintenance crews, indifferent to the prospect of losing multimillion-dollar assets in fiery crashes? Does he not see that airlines with poor safety records would have difficulty attracting customers? Is he unaware that airlines' insurers have ample incentives to work closely with airlines at keeping air-travel safety at optimal levels? In short, is Mr. Oberstar really so dimwitted to think that airlines will be safe only if they are regulated by government?"

Look, I don’t think that if the FAA went away that airlines would start flying double-decker planes a la the Wright Brothers. I can safely say that there won’t be pedaling involved. But many more fly-by-night (pun absolutely intended) airlines would pop up, willing to risk a whole lot more in exchange for some quick profit. Hell, remember ValuJet, which is now AirTran, some of these airlines just change their names. Some consumers are aware of safety records, most are aware of the cheapest flights on Expedia. We would see an influx of much cheaper, more risky airlines. Regulation merely doubles down, it catches that which the market doesn’t solve for. Even one accident is too much a of a price to pay for deregulation.

Yes, I think he is.

And sadly, most of his colleagues, and mine, agree with him.

One person’s definition of sad is another person’s definition of sheer relief.