And is that really the best you can do? After all, I bet there are plenty of people you find offensive who are employed by reputable organizations. For example, the Washington Post still runs George Will’s column. I don’t have a problem with that, but I’m assuming you find that troublesome.

Obviously you’re in denial about Romm. But you’ve learned well from him, that much is clear.

How is it I fail to engage the criticism?  In my comment above and on at least one prior occasion, e.g., I note that it would be most peculiar for the Center for American Progress to continue employing someone regarding whom your characterization could be considered to be even somewhat on-point.  Try responding to that.  If you’re unclear about CAP’s status in DC, Paul Krugman will <a href=”http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/center-for-american-regress/”>fill you in</a>.

As for the “substance” of this current post, every bit of it is snark of a rather dull variety.  “Poorly thought out” was probably too polite.      

Your only rejoinder is to say that a post is “poorly thought out” or “weak,” and make the same attacks or simplistic charges (“flawed analysis”) also favored by Romm against those he disagrees with.

In fact, no matter how legitimate or on-target any criticism of Romm is, you always pop up with the same lines. Nothing seems to get you fired up more than anyone who dares to take Romm on. Are you his cousin or something? Or are you just his self-designated henchman?

You and Tom keep forgetting just who it is that Joe works for and the status of that organization on the Hill and in the White House.  The fact is that when Joe advises policy-makers to ignore the Breakthrough crowd, those policy-makers tend to listen.  Get used to it. 
On the policy substance, W-M is flawed and Joe knows it.  Given the realities in Congress, though, it’s better to pass something that will leave the Administration free to move forward than to pass nothing at all.