Capturing Bin Laden

I am glad the U.S. forces killed Osama Bin Laden. I also feel a bit foolish because I have for years thought Bin Laden was already dead. Al Quaeda had every reason to downplay his death-- better to keep his dubious legend alive. The U.S. would have had its own reasons. Turns out he really was alive, though, not to be a deather, where are the photos of the body?

I also have a few questions about the news reports.

1. They say that the U.S. got the nickname of OBL's courier from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? But how could that be. Have these prisoners been locked up for five-to-ten years? So how would they know who was carrying the messages for OBL, nickname or otherwise.

2. The compound is said to be eight times larger than the other homes in the area. But the satlellite photos show that is not true. http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/may2011/9/0/osama-bin-laden-compound-in-abbottabad-pic-googlemaps-222924567.jpg It's bigger,but not eight times bigger.

3. The compound is said to be priced at $1 million. Really? I know nothing about Pakistani real estate, but the place looks like a dump. http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-wld-110502-compound1-4a.grid-6x2.jpg. I doubt it would fetch $1 million in a Toledo or Detroit (except for the best suburbs of those cities.

4. All that said, if OBL was really hiding in an oversized house close to Pakistani military installations, how could people not have asked and found out who was living there?

World Cup in the USA

The group seeking to get the U.S. selected as World Cup hosts in 2018 or 2022 is well-financed and well-connected. It has many official partners, some well-known like Fox Sports, some more obscure, like Latham and Watkins, a law firm. But like most boosters, it is effectively trying to get the nation to host a huge party that the government will wind up paying for.

Here is how the game is played, as summarized by a Freakonomics entry, which summarizes in turn the research of economist Dennis Coates:

As it seems the U.S. is going hellbent for leather trying to land an upcoming World Cup, he wants to get ahead of the cheerleading to make clear how the economics will actually play out. His new paper, “World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know about a US World Cup Bid,” is an attempt to challenge “the rosy assumptions being made by U.S. bid leaders, and I hope it will force proponents to be more forthcoming with answers about what we can really expect from a U.S. World Cup.”

Coates’s central claim:

Despite bid organizers’ claims, the World Cup won’t be a boon for the American economy; in fact, it will likely cost the United States billions of dollars in lost economic impact. For example, economic estimates in support of the 1994 U.S. World Cup were later shown by economists to have been off by up to $14 billion. Far from having a positive economic impact, the last World Cup we hosted, a so-called major success, had a negative impact on the average U.S. host city of $712 million. Yet no one is discussing these figures despite the current economic troubles we face. … Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

The recently completed South Africa World Cup is hardly an exception, with the bulk of the trouble lying in the gap between optimistic projected costs and actual costs:

The proposed budget for the 2010 games was about $225 million for stadiums and $421 million overall. Expenses have far exceeded those numbers. Reported stadium expenses jumped from the planned level of $225 million to $2.13 billion, and overall expenses jumped similarly from $421 million to over $5 billion.

And don’t forget the “ruins of modern Greece” — i.e., the abandoned facilities from the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. You think Greece might be feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse about now?

Of course the sponsors benefit. But why does the U.S. allow them to shoulder the rest of us with the costs.

For TLC being 12% Correct is Good Enough

Seven weeks ago, the TLC announced that more than 35,000 taxi drivers had "scammed" passengers on 1.8 million trips for a total of $8.3 million.

Today, the TLC posted revised numbers: Now it's 21,819 taxicab drivers, 286,000 trips and a total of "almost $1.1 million." Industry observers--such as me--immediately noted that the TLC's original claims were impossible to believe. Sure enough, the TLC itself quickly admitted it was not sure what the numbers were. The buffoonish former TLC Chairman Matthew Daus indeed accused the press of jumping the gun, when all the reporters did was repeat the TLC's press release. It's reminds one of the athlete who claimed to be misquoted in his own autobiography.

Today, the new TLC Chairman David Yassky refused to apologize or even admit error for his massive slur on taxi drivers. It admitted today that, by its new accounting, 13,315 out of the 21,819 drivers, engaged in overcharging just one or two times.

The TLC indicates it will seek license revocation for the worst offenders. I suppose the charges, if proved, merit the sanction. Most likely, the TLC will browbeat many drivers into surrendering their licenses, threatening them with huge fines and criminal prosecutions. But the TLC has said it will seek the penalties in Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, a citywide tribunal, rather than bringing the charges in its kangaroo TLC Court. Of course, the TLC has been very wrong before. The tribunal and the history should, one hopes, give drivers willing to make a defense a fighting chance.

Taxi Gougers

Today the NY Times is running a page one story called

"New York Cabs Gouged Riders Out of Millions"

I really doubt this gouging happened on anything like the scale the TLC suggests. If riders were overcharged on "more than 1.8 million trips," certainly there would have been, say, 1800 actual complaints (that is one out of one THOUSAND fares). But the TLC does not report even a single complaint. (Even in the notorious recent Cheema case, there was NO passenger complaint!) And under TLC rules, even a $10 overcharge merits license revocation. Yet there are few if any actual prosecutions.

Maybe the TLC doesn't know how to read the data. That seems more likely as the agency is staffed by mostly incompetents, including and especially outgoing commissioner Daus.

Also: The math doesn't work at all:

"The scam was primarily perpetrated by a small number of drivers, with 3,000 of them overcharging more than 100 times, the agency said."

3000 x 125 [more than 100] = 375,000

Yet in the very next sentence, the article claims: "1.8 million overcharged trips."

There is a 1.4 million trip disparity!


More troubling is the exchange between the Bhairavi Desai of the Taxi Worker's Alliance [full disclosure I have reperesented the TWA on other issues] and Daus:

The taxi industry vigorously challenged the city's findings, saying it was unimaginable that such a pervasive problem could be the result of deliberate fraud. The city said that 35,558 out of the city's roughly 48,000 drivers had applied the higher rate.

This is clearly a systematic failure on the part of the meters and the technology, said Bhairavi Desai, the executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which represents cabbies.

For this to be so widespread --nearly every single driver -- makes no sense, she added.

The taxi commission refused to comment on the alliance's claim, citing its continuing investigation. "We have to sort through the numbers," Mr. Daus said.

If the TLC is still "sorting through" the numbers, why go public?

The TLC is just not a trustworthy source, and the story is basically a rewrite of a TLC release issued late on a Friday afternoon. The Times should really check this stuff out first.

Giuliani's Dark Side

Yesterday's news that Rudoplh Giuliani would not be running for governor takes me back. While Giuliani certainly deserves credit for his record as a prosecutor and as a mayor, he will always be, in addition, a 9/11 profiteer and a gutless bully. I had personal experience with his domineering ways towards NYC taxi driviers, which I wrote about for Slate in
Operation RefusalGiuliani's sorry crackdown on New York City's taxi drivers and saw in his craven deposition testimony, a bit of which can be seen on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ8rnhi1kqU

Is New Jersey the most corrupt state?

Since the FBI takedown of public officials, the national press and indeed the world press has fallen all over the story. The press reports are typically confused and confusing, with accounts talking about "the case" or even two linked "schemes." The NY Times report is a case in point. Gail Collins' column today takes some cheap, mildly amusing shots, much too easy for a writer of her talents..

In fact, there is no "scheme," no link between the various indicted politicians, and nothing at all linking the pols withe the rabbis. The massive one-day arrest was pure theater by the FBI and the US Attorney, not a law enforcement imperative. It worked-- the case made the papers even in Australia. Politicians from Gov. Corzine on down joined the band wagon, denouncing the accused and the level of political debauchery in general.

This case also presents no real evidence of pervasive corruption in the Garden State. First of all, most of the pols are pretty small time. The biggest fish is Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano. But Hoboken is a city of 38,577, really just a small town, given some prominence by its proximity to Manhattan. Would anyone care if the mayor of a town of 38,000 in Iowa or Connecticut was arrested?

The story has legs because it fits the Sopranos-inspired narrative of New Jersey as especially and hopelessly corrupt. Maybe it is, but these cases-- linked only by the "cooperating witness," Solomon Dwek (rhymes with "dreck")-- don't show it. Dwek posed as a crooked real estate developer eager to grease palms to get his projects approved. But the people he bribed for the most part had no individual authority to grant or even speed approvals. They were mostly legislators with indirect influence at most.

Worse, there is nothing in the reports saying he had any projects to approve. Even if the evidence of bribery holds up, all it shows is some would-be developer seeking vague favors for some hypothetical projects. This is hardly a fundamental subversion of government.

Maybe the evidence will show a propensity for corruption on the part of those indicted. But how many officials turned Dwek away? We'd need to know that before registering any conclusion about the level of corruption in New Jersey. I'd be much more impressed if there was an allegation (let alone evidence) of one scheme in which a politician actually did something in exchange for a bribe. Did a real estate project get approved that should not have been approved? Did anyone even put a project on the fast track for approval?

Nothing like that is charged. Until it is, we'll have to wait for evidence that New Jersey is as corrupt as we'd all like to believe.

FBI, Arrests, and Money Laudering

I am listening to the U.S. Attorney from New Jersey press conference on the political corruption and "money laundering" arrest of 30-plus individuals including the mayor of Hoboken and the Jersey City City Council president. It smells a bit, and not for the reasons intended.

First, there seems to be no real link between the money laundering rabbi and the allegedly corrupt politicians, except that one cooperating witness seems to be involved with all of them. If that is the case, why does the U.S. Attorney and the FBI take them down (as the call it) at the same time. Is it just to generate headlines? If there is any law enforcement rationale, it's hard to follow what it is.

As to money laundering, this is a dubious crime in general. But as I understand it, money laundering generally involves someone who has a lot of cash (often from illegal activities, but not necessarily) exchanging that cash for less suspicious assets, whether real estate, securities, or bank accounts. But in this case, the cooperating witness would bring a check to the rabbis and get cash back. That sound like cashing a check; money laundering in reverse. Why is the FBI worrying about this at all?

Final Four: College Teams vs. All-Star Teams

The teams facing off in this weekend’s Final Four differ in style. But they differ more in make-up: Michigan State and Villanova are built like college squads; North Carolina and Connecticut look more like all-star teams.

Michigan State and Villanova attained their elite status by mining local and nearby talent. Those schools’ rosters include 22 of 28 players (79%) either from in-state or from neighboring states.
Villanova boasts two players from Pennsylvania and another six from New York, New Jersey and Maryland. Michigan State is even more home grown with nine Michiganders and five from Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin. In other words their teams look something like the university’s student bodies, in geography, if not in ability or height.

UConn and North Carolina are built differently. Just 16 of 33 players (48%) on their rosters are from in-state or neighboring states. Connecticut has star players from Alabama and Tanzania (Stanley Robinson and Hasheem Thabeet). Carolina imports its stars from Missouri and New York (Tyler Hansborough and Danny Green). Its roster does have six in-state players, but they are all bench warmers. Connecticut at least has A.J. Price and Jeff Adrien from nearby New York and Massachusetts.

It’s certainly true that the huge success enjoyed by North Carolina and Connecticut in the past has enabled them to recruit far and wide. And its no coincidence that these teams are number one seeds and are favored to make it to the finals. But wouldn’t be nice if being from a place, whether Michigan or Philadelphia, was actually reflected by the players. North Carolina has its state on its jersey, but its players are bussed in from far and wide.

Here are the rosters for the Final Four Teams:

NO NAME POS WT CLASS HOMETOWN
2 Donnell Beverly G 190 Sophomore Hawthorne, CA distant state
10 Johnnie Bird G 165 Senior Fort Bragg, NC distant state
11 Jerome Dyson G 190 Junior Potomac, MD distant state
21 Stanley Robinson F 210 Junior Birmingham, AL distant state
30 Scottie Haralson G 215 Freshman Jackson, MS distant state
32 Jonathan Mandeldove C 240 Junior Stone Mountain, GA distant state
33 Gavin Edwards F 234 Junior Gilbert, AZ distant state
34 Hasheem Thabeet C 263 Junior Dar Es Salaam, distant state
55 Kyle Bailey G 170 Sophomore Lancaster, NH distant state
13 Alex Hornat F 205 Junior South Windsor, CT in-state
24 Craig Austrie G 176 Senior Stamford, CT in-state
40 Jim Veronick F 200 Senior Durham, CT in-state
44 John Lindner F 265 Senior Cheshire, CT in-state
4 Jeff Adrien F 243 Senior Brookline, MA neighboring state
12 A.J. Price G 181 Senior Amityville, NY neighboring state
15 Kemba Walker G 172 Freshman Bronx, NY neighboring state


MICHIGAN STATE

0 Idong Ibok C 260 Senior Lagos, Nigeria Distant state
3 Chris Allen G 205 Sophomore Lawrenceville, GA distant state
1 Kalin Lucas G 180 Sophomore Sterling Heights, MI in-state
13 Austin Thornton G 210 Freshman Sand Lake, MI in-state
14 Goran Suton C 245 Senior Lansing, MI in-state
15 Durrell Summers G 195 Sophomore Detroit, MI in-state
20 Mike Kebler G 200 Sophomore Okemos, MI in-state
23 Draymond Green F 235 Freshman Saginaw, MI in-state
25 Jon Crandell F 225 Junior Rochester, MI in-state
40 Tom Herzog C 240 Sophomore Flint, MI in-state
41 Marquise Gray F 235 Senior Flint, MI in-state
2 Raymar Morgan F 225 Junior Canton, OH neighboring state
5 Travis Walton G 190 Senior Lima, OH neighboring state
10 Delvon Roe F 225 Freshman Euclid, OH neighboring state
22 Isaiah Dahlman G 200 Junior Braham, MN neighboring state
34 Korie Lucious G 170 Freshman Milwaukee, WI neighboring state


NORTH CAROLINA
4 Bobby Frasor G 210 Senior Blue Island, IL distant state
5 Ty Lawson G 195 Junior Clinton, MD distant state
11 Larry Drew II G 180 Freshman Encino, CA distant state
14 Danny Green G-F 210 Senior North Babylon, NY distant state
21 Deon Thompson F 245 Junior Torrance, CA distant state
22 Wayne Ellington G 200 Junior Wynnewood, PA distant state
44 Tyler Zeller F 220 Freshman Washington, IN distant state
50 Tyler Hansbrough F 250 Senior Poplar Bluff, MO distant state
2 Marc Campbell G 175 Junior Wilmington, NC in-state
13 Will Graves G-F 245 Sophomore Greensboro, NC in-state
15 J.B. Tanner G 185 Senior Hendersonville, NC in-state
24 Justin Watts G 205 Freshman Durham, NC in-state
30 Jack Wooten G 190 Senior Burlington, NC in-state
40 Mike Copeland F 235 Senior Winston-Salem, NC in-state
1 Marcus Ginyard G-F 220 Senior Alexandria, VA neighboring state
32 Ed Davis F 215 Freshman Richmond, VA neighboring state
35 Patrick Moody F 195 Senior Asheville, NC neighboring state



VILLANOVA
1 Scottie Reynolds G 195 Junior Herndon, VA distant state
4 Jason Colenda G 205 Junior Fairfax, VA distant state
23 Russell Wooten F 210 Junior Chula Vista, CA distant state
42 Frank Tchuisi F 215 Senior Douala, Cameroon distant state
15 Reggie Redding G 205 Junior Philadelphia, PA in-state
20 Shane Clark F 205 Senior Philadelphia, PA in-state
0 Antonio Pena F 235 Sophomore Brooklyn, NY neighboring state
10 Corey Fisher G 185 Sophomore Bronx, NY neighboring state
21 Maurice Sutton F-C 215 Freshman Upper Marlboro, MD neighboring state
22 Dwayne Anderson G-F 215 Senior Silver Spring, MD neighboring state
24 Corey Stokes G 195 Sophomore Bayonne, NJ neighboring state
33 Dante Cunningham F 230 Senior Silver Spring, MD neighboring state

Barack Obama and the College Football Playoffs

Barack Obama said on "60 Minutes" that he knows of no serious fan of college football who is against a playoff system. Well, I suppose we've never met, but a playoff would ruin college football and would not even add fairness.

The way the system works now, the only way a team can assure itself a shot at the national championship is to win all its games. Lose one, a team may still have a chance. Lose two: no chance. This system means that every game is critical, including the games early in the year. In the NFL, by contrast, a team can lose its first game and its second, and few more, and still make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. In other words, every team has four or five games it can easily afford to lose.

In the college game as it stands, every week is do or die. It's as if the entire season were the playoffs. Sure a team one-loss teams like USC or Florida can argue it is better now than undefeated Texas Tech or Alabama. But if USC is so good, it should not have lost to Oregon State this year or Stanford last year. But when every team knows it has to win every week, then the entire season is like a playoff. And that's what makes every game exciting-- unlike the pros.

Also, why is it more important-- and more a sign of quality-- to win the last week of the season as compared to the first. An inferior team can get lucky or have a good day and win the playoffs, especially when it's a one game playoff. A team that wins every week (or every week but one) is not just lucky, it's good and it has earned its championship.

Is Africa a continent or a country? Discuss

Here is Sarah Palin defending herself in today's Times:

'I remember having a discussion with a couple of debate preppers,' she said. 'So if it came from one of those debate preppers, you know, that’s curious. But having a discussion about Nafta — not, "Oh my goodness, I don’t know who is a part of Nafta."'

'So, no, I think that if there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about Nafta, and about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context,' Ms. Palin said. 'And that’s cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks, if they came away with it taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It is not fair and not right.'

If our culture, even our political culture, were not so celebrity obsessed, no one would even be discussing whether Palin might be able to "rehabilitate herself" or whether seh might someday be ready for national office. Any adult who needs a debate prepper to discuss "the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there" would otherwise be ruled out.

Whether or not she asked for the clothes or kept the clothes, whether or not she was a diva, Palin's idea that she, despite her ignorance, might be somehow qualified for high office bepeaks a sense of entitlement that's off the charts.

Fortunately, Palin seems to be cementing her status as a national joke. Her real goal, not actually denied, seems to be a talk show gig. But she may even be too dumb for that.

The Real Media Bias: Closer than You Think

Anyone who's ever watched a football game on television (or any othe sport) should be familiar with announcers who keep pointing out the path by which the losing team can come back. The Cowboys may be down 15 points with five minutes left but stay tuned because they only need two scores plus a two-point conversion to tie. Not only is a comeback a good story, it keeps the eyeballs on the ads.

So it goes with debate and campaign coverage. As I watched the debate last night, I though Obama clearly won. And he's way ahead in the race. But everyone on CNN was saying that it was McCain's best night, that he was the aggressor, yada, yada, yada, even if it may not have been a game changer-- at least until the polls showed that American saw Obama winniing big. When David Gergen said that McCain is really out of options, the other folks on st laughed because Gergen is really not supposed to say that.

The media's real bias is not left or right, it's to hype the story. Nothing in the news is as important as it seems to be when you are watching it. (Also true of life, by the way.) Thus all campaign coverage must be viewed with the knowledge that the TV networks want -- need -- viewers to think this is stlll anyone's game.

Associations and Double Standards

Unlike the ralliers and screechers on talk radio, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, makes a serious case that Barack Obama's associations with "unrepentant terrorist" Bill Ayers (as well as convicted felon and the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright) is a serious issue. The idea is that we choose our friend and the choice speaks to character.

But what the attacks on Obama's association with Ayers (who I believe is repentant as to his methods, but not his goals) omit is the context of their association. Had Obama known and supported Ayers at the time he was planting bombs, of course, that would say something about Obama. But that's not what happened. The two were associated in the educational work of the Annenberg Foundation, work that was not only legal, but laudable. Many others in the Chicago establishment were involved in that work as well. Are they all now tarred by what Ayers had done a generation earlier?

Of course not: the very idea implies that we are all responsible for vetting the life records of everyone we work with and that, even if we know our colleagues' past, there is no such thing as rehabilitation or second chances. To say that is un-American.

There is also a huge double standard at work.

John McCain associated with convicted felon Charles Keating. Not only that, he did so when Keating was committing his crimes, and even carried water for him. But no one says that this old association disqualifies McCain.

McCain is also associated with his wife, whose father Jim Hensley was a convicted felon. Hensley's crime happened many years before McCain met Cindy, but by the Ayer's analogy, McCain should still bear some guilt.

Also: If Michelle Obama's father had gone to jail, that would be a huge issue.

Sarah teen-aged Palin's daughter got pregnant. If Obama's daughter had done the same, people would wonder a lot more about Obama. (Though I suppose in Palin's case, there are so many bigger problems to marvel at.)

Finally, McCain led the charge to make peace with Vietnam, a nation that killed thousands of Americans (and nearly McCain). But we take McCain's work to be to his credit. By the Ayers analogy, McCain would be an associate of unrepentant murderous communists, and not just one, but thousands.

The Idiot from Wasilla is Graded on a Curve

The punditocracy has declared (here, here and here) that Sarah Palin “passed” her big test in her debate with Joe Biden. By that they mean she didn’t sound like a blithering idiot the way she did talking to Katie Couric. True, she was not that bad.

But when the school dumbs the test down enough, anyone can pass, but there’s a catch. People know the standards are low so at the end of the day they don’t give much credit for meeting them. Besides, there were a few moron moments, such as when Gov. Palin was discussing the Constitution as it applies to the vice presidency, the office she seeks:

MODERATOR GWEN IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also. [See full transcript.]

Those founding fathers—God bless ‘em.

It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations applied to candidates for national office.

The Latest Lawsuit Against the TLC

Another lawsuit against the TLC was filed today, this one challenging the TLC's hybrid cab rules, a program pushed by Mayor Bloomberg. The case is being prosecuted mainly by taxi fleet owners, not taxi drivers, who I have represented. The fleets say that the hybrid cars have nit been tested against the rigors of 24-hour driving on NYC streets. Legally, the major claims are that the TLC's rules regarding minimum mileage standards for taxi cabs are preempted by federal laws that mandate that only the federal givernment may regulate gas mileage standards. The lawyers on the case are from Emery Celli, a prominent civil rights firm that has some recent successes in strip search class action cases.

Given that NYC taxis drive almost exclusively in dense urban traffic, where a hybrid's advantage in mileage is most pronounced, why are the taxi fleets so adamantly against Mayor Bloomberg's plan? The answer is taxi economics.

While the taxi fleets (and other non-driving taxi owners) purchase and maintain cars, the taxi drivers pay for gas. So the fleets bear the costs of maintaining more expensive vehicles, which may be more costly to maintain, but the drivers get the benefit of better mileage. And the fleets have never much cared about drivers.

In stark contrast to the draconian programs that affect drivers, which have been enacted without any legitimate process, it is clear even from the complaint in the fleet's action that the TLC, in promulgating the mileage regulaitons, allowed for public hearings, notice and comment.

Two reasons why Giuliani hates community organizers

Former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani got a big laugh when he mocked community organizers. But it's not a trivial point. Republicans dislike community organizers because they reject the idea of collective solutions. If you need a park, get a backyard. if you need a job, get it yourself, or, more accurately, from your family and social connections.

Giuliani's distaste for community organizers is less political and more visceral. Community organizers try to help people without power, and themselves have little power. Giuliani's style is to mock the powerless and his belief is that he knows what's best so input from unelected types (or even lesser elected officials is entirely unwelcome.

McCain and the Base

It seems to me that Sarah Palin is more popular with the delegates (and perhaps the hard core base) than is John McCain. The fact is McCain is minority candidate in the party. If there had been a single right wing stalwart (like George Bush) instead of the four headed doofus of Romney, Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani, he would have lost. So now he is not even particularly popular with his party. So he needs Palin and the Christian right, who he used to attack.

The Company He Keeps

Listening to the Republicans laud Senator McCain and especially his heroic biography, it's pretty convincing. The problem is that as McCain has neared the nomination, the quality of his company has deteriorated. Now he sucks up the the Christian right, to the creep Giuliani, and to the anti-science Sarah Palin. And the people in the hall ...

Palin is "electrifying" the crowd by saying that you can trust McCain never to waiver, but by picking Palin, he has done just that, turned back on his principles and beliefs.

The Third Best Palin

I know as much about these others as I know about Sarah Palin, which is to say next to nothing. But if John McCain was looking for a woman governor to run with, there are two others who seem superior to Palin. Jodi Rell of Connecticut has been governor for four years and was lieutenant governor before that. She is even married to a former navy pilot. She's popular and has been re-elected. Problem is: she's considered a liberal Republican.

Or McCain could have gone to the other extra-continental state, Hawaii, and picked Linda Lingle. Lingle was elected in a very Democratic state, unlike Alaska. Lingle served as Maui County mayor, councilmember, and chaired the Hawaii GOP. As of November 20, 2006, her approval rating stood at 71% with only 24% disapproval, according to Answers.com. But Lingle is jewish. So picking either Lingle or Rell would, in a way, have been a slap at McCain BFFL Joe Lieberman.

How do you say Quayle in Alaskan: Palin

It's wrong to say that McCain picking Palin is like Bush I picking Quayle. Palin is more like someone Quayle would pick.

I expect that there will be some sort of scandal or gaffe will force Palin off the ticket before long.

At least everyone will have a compelling interest in keeping McCain, 72, healthy and alive.

Historically nuts.

80,000

It's fantastic that Obama can get 80,000 folks to a political rally. It's obvious that he has a huge lead in enthusiasm. And maybe McCain can't get 10,000 or ven 5,000 to his events. But here's the thing: an unenthusiastic, even apathetic vote counts just as much as a heartfelt one. Maybe it shouldn't. But it does.