I don't think Pious Joe will switch to the Republicans no matter what, for the same reason he hasn't done it so far: He's the master at reading the political landscape and divining its winds, and does only what will serve him.

He knows that the Republicans have twenty senate seats at risk in 2008 and the Democrats twelve, with the Republican chances of winning back the Senate then slim to none. If he switched he would most likely be with the minority party again starting in January 2009. Unless he switched again and the Democrats agree to taking him back.

Meanwhile he can exploit his unique situation by coercing the Democrats into granting him special priveledges such as chairmanship ot the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and using that power to help his Republican friends. Like refusing to subpoenaing evidence and witnesses in the Katrina debacle investigation.

But he'd better watch himself. The Democrats may not need him in 2009 and can tell him to engage in uliteral sexual intercourse.

George W. Bush really is a bold and decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.

The Bush apologists who keep using

WW II as an analogy for the Iraq war should be very careful, for the real analogies are hardly flattering to them.

WW II was started by the Axis powers based on trumped up charges against what they perceived as vulnerable targets. They had very good initial successes, but soon found themselves overextended and the tide started to fall. But they kept exhorting their people to fight on, to the very bitter end, and their countries were totally destroyed. Sound familiar?

Also, during WW II the Allied powers, led by the US, made extensive planning for the postwar world years before it ended, and everything was in place when the hostilities finally ended. Just like Iraq. Not.

George W. Bush really is a bold, decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.

"And doesn't the guy look like a skull with dentures? Talk about lurch-like looking!"

That's why I've taken to calling him Ghouliani, for several years now.

Patrick agrees that being stuck on a plane on the runway is outrageous, but argues that "one size" arbitrary regulation is not the answer. But isn't that like arguing motorists should have the right to determine their own reasonable speed, rather than conform to arbitrary posted speed limits?

He describes well the conflicting interests a pilot and carrier face when deciding whether to turn back or wait it out just a bit longer: the plane might just get the go-ahead shortly, but if it turns back to the terminal all that waiting time is wasted because it has to start from scratch again in the takeoff schedules. But the longer they wait the more good time they throw away once they give up.

That competitive factor is a powerful argument for sticking it out far longer than prudence dictates. It's not unlike the gambler continuing to throw good money after bad in hopes of breaking even or coming out ahead.

Wouldn't it be in the airlines own interest to require all planes to return to the runway after a reasonable time, say three hours? Or for airports to call all flight off if no flights take off after a certain time? Wouldn't that eliminate the competition? Maybe this is one of those times when conservative orthodoxy should yield to common sense.

There's another reason for maximum runway times being in the airlines' interest: lawsuits. I'll bet there will be more than a few resulting from the recent Jet Blue and other cases, especially from those with medical conditions that were aggravated by the long wait in unhealthy conditions, and possibly denied access to their medication (or no water available to take with them). One such lawsuit, even if the airline wins, could cost it more than any possible savings from waiting too long. But if an airline complies with a maximum wait period and the passengers know what this is in advance, such lawsuits should be forestalled.

Something else I haven't seen mentioned, although it may have been. As Patrick says airline crews are limited to hours of service without a rest. Does this apply to the long waits on the runway? It should, because those are indeed stressful times.

Assuming a crew starts out fresh after the required rest period -- not always the case -- and the the maximum time of service is fourteen hours, how can a plane be allowed to take off after ten hours on the runway and its destination is more than fourteen hours away?

There needs to be a maximum on the runway time, arbitrary or not. And planes should be required to return to the terminal once cabin conditions become dangerous or too uncomfortable. Not all passengers are healthy enough to withstand the adverse conditions of long waits. It should not be difficult to provide air or other environmental monitors to provide an "arbitrary" assessment of conditions.

This would be in the airlines' and passengers' interests.