Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer makes his triumphant return into the spotlight with the Washington Post editorial "How to Ground The Street/The Former 'Enforcer' On the Best Way to Keep Financial Markets in Check" (link). I am, needless to say, in a forest of conflicted emotions:

* Should I concentrate on making fun of his scandal, especially since his former "temporary employee" is apparently going to try for a 16th minute at fame through doing one thing or another?

* Should I discuss the red flag that his use of the phrase "global financial system" raises for me vis-a-vis, "is he a globalist tool?"

* Should I point out that maybe Bush's idea of a "free market" is not necessarily an indictment of actually free markets but is actually an indictment of Bush-style crooked markets?

* Should I point out (unlike McCain) the role that the Democrats played in bringing us the financial crisis?

* Should I try to discuss whether Spitz's support for very strong regulation is a good idea or not?

* Should I point out that Spitzer supported illegal activity in order to get votes perhaps even including those cast by illegal aliens?

* Should I point out that the conspiracy theory surrounding his downfall - from March - looks more like a possibility? (Something that's slightly increased due to the hack Instapundit [pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/027263.php] linking to Steven Bainbridge [stephenbainbridge.com/index.php/punditry/spitzers_chutzpah] with the latter discussing the WaPo editorial and mostly just engaging in ad hominem attacks).

Who's right about the market and what to do now is definitely far more important, but - fan of conspiracies that I am - I'd really like to know the answer to the latter. And, as a bonus, that might also help discredit some of those who helped put us into our current situation.