> How is a contradiction a "decoration"?
It doesn't seem to be much of a contradiction; the aisle-crossers and the libs seem quite content to remain in the same big poorly-ventilated tent. The liberal side of it is purely decorative in the sense that it's structurally deprived of any effect on events, by virtue of the aisle-crossers' aisle-crossing.
> Donors don't vote. Even a secure
> blowhard like Charlie Rangel wouldn't get re-elected if he voted like
> Tom Tancredo.
Indeed. But he doesn't have to; the aisle-crossers do that for him. So everybody's happy:
-- Wealthy corporate interests -- the sort of people political candidates have to have as donors -- need not fear the empty talk of the Kennedys;
-- Charlie Rangel stays in Congress;
-- Charlie's fuddled constituents (at least those who bother to vote) are secure in the happy conviction that Charlie's in there fighting for them.