Yes, back in the day, I believe McShame actually co-sponsored the first cap-and-trade bill to get any significant action in the Senate. Of course, that was before he [pick one: checked his honor and integrity at the door/reverted to his true self] in order to run for president.

Yes but does he eat quiche? And of course you can only trust a man who believes, knows that all problems can be solved by applying duct tape. Do you think Al Gore believes this mythical "Global Warming" can be fixed with duct tape? What kind of man could work for someone like that?

While I know we still face multiple dangerous crises, I feel much happier knowing that we know have arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-types dealing with the issues. Privileged idiots were given more than a fair chance and were found somewhat lacking.

http://draftgoldfarb.blogspot.com/2008/04/draft-michael-goldfarb.html

'dead to me'. Lately I've been feeling like there is a lot more mafia type behavior going on in Washington than I was aware of.

Senator Lamar Alexander threatens the attorney general of the united states. 'You investigate my people... we'll investigate your people' ya know what I'm sayin'...

Nevermind the fact that he's the attorney general and it's his job to uphold the law regardless of 'who' or what party the people belong to and he is a senator sworn to uphold the constitution of the unites states under all circumstances...

I wonder if Goldfarb gave Rogers the rest of the speech:

You're nothing to me now: You're not a brother, you're not a friend, I don't want to know you or what you do -- I don't want to see you at the hotels -- I don't want you near my house -- when you see our mother I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there -- you understand.

Although it would sound a little weird: Like Fredo reading it to Michael.

Is it really so wrong to hug a tree?

Michael Goldfarb:

"in commenting on his brain, Goldfarb said, "it's dead to me."

I have thought long and hard about Goldfarb's comments. While there is almost nothing I would rather do than join my fellow TPM readers in mocking him, I would like to propose that, for a minute, we examine it as a piece in the puzzle that is the current state of the Republican party. And it is a piece that fits perfectly if you would only come to consider the Party as it stands today as a quasi-religious fellowship rather than a political enterprise. Let's say it's not the Party of No, but rather, the Party of Ohhhmm.

Think about it for a second. Look at some of the many ways lately that the Republicanism has become a religion: The "true" believers of the party "resist" the dilution of core principles by the admission into the fold of moderate thinkers. Entertaining dissenting thought within the ranks is viewed at best as a challenge of critical values and at worst as heretical behavior worthy of excommunication. Speaking out against anointed spokesmen like Rush Limbaugh, regardless of intent, has an awful lot in common these days with stepping out of line with your local pastor (or in the case of Rush, the pope!) on matters of party doctrine. Sure you can disagree with Rush, but don't expect to be considered a true Republican for very long. Cheney's recent comments comparing the bona fides of Colin Powell and Rush is a fine example of the shift of the party from an association for political advancement to a haven for ideology and perhaps demagoguery. How else to explain the political sympathy of a former vice president for a talk show host over a former cabinet member, Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs chairman? Ideology victorious over pragmatic politics. And as with defectors from a religious community, Brian Rogers is met with disgust and vituperation at a level so blood-curdling that the principles supposedly violated and ideals at stake seem to transcend what we consider to be politics as usual. And in the case of religious community, though increase in numbers is a purported goal, fealty to common purpose is several factors more important than "inclusiveness" or "gathering folks under a big tent."
For these reasons I am less concerned that the Democrats and the country are missing a competing party (a reasonable opposition group will likely emerge as part of natural political evolution... just look at American history past the Bush era and into the 19th century); what chills me is
how a political organization with such a rich history can be so insidiously transformed into a ideologically strait-jacketed social force, so much like a religious denomination, but with the very occasional rule stripped straight from a cult playbook.