I believe the current breakdown of party membership in the Senate is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 independents. If Joe Lieberman became a Republican, the party would immediately gain control of the Senate - end of story. That's why the Democrats try to appease him. Of course, that's not to say such appeasement is worth any cost.

... or so says Warren Buffett. Consider that thought when watching a huckster like Cramer. Speaking of track records, whose would you pick?

While I agree that it's okay for government to step in at some point at which dire conseqences must be averted, it's not clear at all to me that we've reached that point yet.

Here's how the situation appears to me thus far: basically a bunch of professional investors who should've known better have gotten burned (too bad for them), and greedy, foolish average citizens have had to give up homes they couldn't afford to begin with (ditto). That doesn't exactly sound like a crisis.

When the government bails out people who make bad decisions, it only encourages them to make more bad decisions. Where does it end? And why should people who have invested responsibly, whether in real estate or elsewhere, have to come to the rescue?

Glenn, I know you quickly lose patience with posters who suggest that money is the only reason for Democratic cowardice, and I agree that that that's an oversimplification of a complex web of ideology, cronyism, and a rotten Beltway culture.

Nonetheless, I'm hard-pressed to think of a better single explanation of why the Democrats are so pusillanimous, especially when, as you have repeatedly shown, not only their base but the majority of the country oppose the actions of the Bush administration. Money doesn't talk; it shouts. Dianne Feinstein, your favorite bete noire (for good reason), is a prime example, given her husband's ties to defense contractors.

The last I heard, the Democrats were leading the Republicans in fundraising for the first time in many years. While I have not done research showing who's giving to whom, it would be very interesting to know exactly to what extent companies and wealthy individuals involved in various right-wing causes and/or the military-industrial complex have contributed to which Democrats. It might be very illuminating.

I guess it's not such a great revelation that people who consider themselves environmentalists are more likely to recycle, drive a more efficient vehicle, etc. But the rich are still hypocrites on this issue because their overall level of consumption is so much higher than everyone else's.

Case in point: all those Hollywood types and Al Gore at the Oscars in front of a backdrop with words like "public transit" plastered everywhere. When was the last time any of these people took a city bus? There's clearly an elitist bent to the dialogue over global warming when we're supposed to idolize the rich who make a few token sacrifices.

If Al Gore and all the rest were truly serious about global warming, pollution, whatever, they'd lower their consumption at least to the average of the developed world - with all the sacrifices for their prestige and their lifestyles that that entails. I think they actually end up damaging the environmental cause because they encourage shallow, feel-good remedies like buying a Prius. Only when a significant majority becomes committed to reducing their consumption of everything will we be on the track to a greener planet. That includes celebrities and over-procreating politicians.

It's not about all or nothing. It's about forcing people who like to prance around touting their environmental credentials to put up or shut up.

Why is it so terrible to ask anyone to live within developed-world average per-capita levels of consumption? That's still luxurious compared to most of the world's population, and in comparison to 99% of human history.

Idolizing bigshots just for saying the right thing, while continuing vast levels of personal consumption, only feeds the shallow culture of celebrity and careerism, and does nothing to solve environmental problems.

You're right, chickadee. Gore doesn't prance; he flies in jets, probably of the private variety, emitting lots of greenhouse gases even as he tells us how important it is to conserve. Again, what's unacknowledged in all the worship is the essential elitism of the argument: do as I say, not as I do.

I think it's great that Gore has been advocating for the environment for 30 years. Wouldn't you think in that amount of time that he would've realized the contradictions inherent in his personal situation, and perhaps acted accordingly? Or perhaps that's beside the point. Maybe the point is public adoration and careerism.

Actual green living - in most cases this means consuming less - is good; merely talking about it, which is what Gore does, is not the same thing.

I'll grant that there is a value in public figures championing a cause because people tend to ape their betters. But that doesn't excuse the rich and famous from actually applying the principles - with equal rigor - to their own lives.

The problem with Gore and others of his ilk is that they'll never acknowledge the logical end point of their tirades: that true environmentalism might compromise our consumer-based economy, that there might actually be less wealth generated if people were more green-minded because they would be consuming less. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's not pretend otherwise.

The fanciful green-based economy that Gore likes to wax eloquent about is only a chimera at this point. Maybe it will materialize and maybe it won't. What I do know is that our current actual economy is based on ever-growing consumption of resources, and that people define their status by how much they consume. Gore himself proves this.