Agreed. It's just too bad, though, that there are only 58 Democrats in the Senate. How do people keep getting this wrong? For that matter, it was 57 up until September when Kirk was sworn in to replace Kennedy.

Do you think, just maybe, that the capacity for Senate democrats to pass the legislation they "want" to pass is being overstated the same way the number of Democrats in the Senate is?

We can't get health care passed because big pharma and ins cos. are jealously protecting their profit margins, and they own Lieberman, to name just one. The last thing any business person wants is fucking competition.

But we can get multiple, never-ending wars at the the drop of a box cutter. Eisenhower explained it all in 1960."

This is the single truest statement in here. We can talk all about 2 parties and who betrayed who until the whiskey runs out, but in the end it's just idle chatter to keep our frightened eyes from the reality of The United Corporations of America. They always have – and always will – profit from any scenario we can or can't vote for; health care, wars, pharma, energy, you name it. The governing bodies are only a smokescreen to keep us under the impression that we have "some" kind of voter-control over things in order to keep us from fomenting total anarchy. But I'd imagine that, too, is on it's way eventually.

Wow, I'm such a bowl of sunshine today!

Forgot to close the HTML link. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=2&hp

While we're at it, ensure Harry Reid goes into retirement so Dick Durbin can be the Senate Majority Leader. Even though it would reduce the Democrat majority in the Senate, what purpose does it serve to have a 20 seat majority if Reid allows 2 or 3 Senators, who should be on board, to block legislation?

BTW, Lieberman's home state, Connecticut, HAS a 'public option'. It's called Charter Oaks. 3 plans to choose from.

Charter Oak – Connecticut's 'Public Option'

Unfortunately, it is also home to a gob of insurance companies. Lieberman should lose his committee chairmanships. Screw him. After campaigning for McCain he should be sent to the wilderness.

Ed, love your blog. Found it Googling to see how many idiots bought Sarah Palin's book and ran across your hilarious review of it.

Forgive me Ed if I can't remember my history well, but wasn't there a movement in the early days to prevent the formation of political parties?

Yes, there was. Until the 1830s or so, Presidents and other politicians ran as "anti-party". There were even anti-party political parties, if that makes any sense. I guess the residue of this history is the idea that being "partisan" is a bad thing.

Gerald Leonard's "The Invention of Party Politics: Federalism, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Development in Jacksonian Illinois" is a fascinating account of this historical development.

We can't get health care passed because big pharma and ins cos. are jealously protecting their profit margins, and they own Lieberman, to name just one. The last thing any business person wants is fucking competition.

But we can get multiple, never-ending wars at the the drop of a box cutter. Eisenhower explained it all in 1960.

We are so fucked.
JzB