We have an opportunity through the TEA parties to remake and reinvigorate the American political system. Some of the effects will be felt in 2010, but most of the fruit of this effort will pay off in later years in a sustained, far-reaching way.

In this sense it's better to take over and re-invent one of the existing parties than try to start a new one. This is what the Left did. It took over the Democrat party. Their problem is that they then used this base to push an ultra-Left agenda in a Center-Right country, which pushed back.

Thanks to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, they've incentivized middle America to become politically active and begin this process with the Republican party. Since our values are closer to what most Americans share, our success will be more sweeping and longer lasting if we remain true to our basic values. Instead of trying to cram an unpopular piece of legislation down the country’s throat through parliamentary maneuvers, we’d be implementing the will of the electorate. Two or three simple changes in the existing health care system that the Republicans have proposed could achieve the rhetorical objectives of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama bill. The fact that genuine tort reform is excluded from the present bill, and other immediate fixes (such as truly national health care policies instead of limitations by state, more aggressive use of health care saving accounts, etc.) are also excluded, only underscores the fact that the P-R-O plan has an entirely different agenda in play than their stated one.

This is why I think a Constitutional Convention would ultimately work. The people who are running now, and will continue to run in later years, for state legislature and other posts are exactly the kind of people who really want to fix problems instead of create new political fiefdoms. 2010 will just be the start of returning the country to its real foundation. If Washington continues to block the will of the people, then the Constitutional Convention option can circumvent this obstruction. If 2010 produces a strong enough counter reaction, then the influx of new elected officials — backed by an aroused and informed citizenry — may be enough to keep the momentum going without having to resort to a Constitutional Convention.

It all depends on what happens with the “health care reform” charade in Washington, and the outcome of the November elections. These two factors will steer us in the correct direction of going the Con Con route, or just continuing to throw the bums out and replace them with more competent, and truly representative officials.

My state, and probably yours too, demands I purchase insurance to drive my car, but there's nothing socialistic about it… AAA competes against Progressive for my hard-earned cash.

What we have here is 'forced capitalism,' whereby the government demands we buy health insurance – mandatory coverage (and is this even in the bill?) from private companies. In exchange for tens of millions of new paying customers, the private companies have to abide by some market rules.

That's not socialism as far as I can tell, even though it might be poop.

But the question remains, is it too 'socialistic' to re-write business rules to that the business model of healthcare provision more effectively provides healthcare, rather than exist to deny coverage but provide dividends?

Maybe so. We shall see. As for your contention that we will have SP in nine years, well, several things would have to happen. First, after this bill becomes law, existing insurance companies will have to flagrantly raise rates, violate provisions, sue to overturn provisions and then commit some televised atrocity against a telegenic citizen with a bad case, all of which must conspire to convince a weary populace to demand a Public Option. This last bit can't even happen without the consent of the media, so I'm half-kidding, but nothing will convince either the public or the pols from addressing this issue again in the near future barring crisis or outrageous industry abuse – including revelation of bombshell loopholes yet to be exploited which they already know are there.

This bill is a massive giveaway to the insurance companies – not a 'takeover' by government – they get tens of millions of young, healthy customers and people who believe they are healthy enough not to need coverage – $$$.

So, after a massive public outcry against industry abuse of this new system, the Public Option could conceivably become law. But to get to Single Payer from there is still a pretty big step. First, a Government program – with a Republican constituency watching every move and counting every dollar – would have to be so efficient, that it could undersell every insurance company in the country, causing them to hemorrhage clients and profits, leading to massive insurance industry collapse.

You can argue that the government can afford to run it's program at a deficit, and thus just wait the competition out, but that would require acquiescence of Congress, the watchdogs (the people) and the courts, as assuredly the insurance co's would sue. After this, with the field empty, Government would be the only player left, and thus… Single Payer.

All possible, I suppose, but highly, highly unlikely.

Mmmmm, samitches.

The purchase of the banks and AIG occurred under Bush – but the beneficiaries of these purchases were the banks and Goldman Sachs, not the government – indeed, these moves added to the debt, but to the benefit of wall st, not the people, or the left. GM happened under Obama, but would the collapse of a major employer have been a good economic move, much less a political one?

You make this stuff sound like a nefarious plot to rule the world with bureaucracy, but the fact is, the banksters took advantage of their leverage and got their deal done… we the people had no leverage, so in the end we pay. We got screwed, to be sure, but the left neither exerted nor acquired any political capitol. You act like the CEO's at General Motors would have preferred their companies collapse and die.

"First it doesn’t matter what the percentage of the population is." Well, no, it does matter because you were arguing that a majority was colluding to enact the far-left agenda (as you see it). The fact that your distinction between Democrat and Liberal is no difference means that that's 80% of Democratic voters right there – 80% has no need to enact or support the policies of the fringe 20%, which wields no leverage or power except in extreme circumstances.

I would argue that Kucinich is the most 'progressive' legislator out there, and he mattered not one whit during the debate, his capitulation easily predicted.

"If legislative democrats were of the ‘blue dog’ persuasion we wouldn’t have a $1.4 trillion deficit…" Yes we would, because driving up the deficit without regard is something Blue Dogs colluded with Republicans to do during Bush's tenure. Blue Dogs voted for the surplus killing tax cuts, off-the-budget funding of both wars, tax cuts again, NCLB, Medicare reform, Bankruptcy and Credit Card 'reform' as well as the relaxing of financial regulations that helped bring down all those entities we now own. The Blue Dogs are enemies of the Left precisely because they enabled all the business friendly, working class crushing, deficit creating policies of the Bush years.

There's two distinctions that need to be made with regards to single payer. The fist is that because single payer is the most 'socialistic' and thus, leftist, position there is on healthcare, that doesn't mean that all those who support or admire its' structure are socialists by nature, or that they necessarily advocate similar intrusion into other market areas. Many 'Liberals' and 'Democrats' support SP because, in the special case of healthcare, where the 'market' is not supply-demand, but I demand you supply now or I die, there is social policy logic and economic efficiencies that exist under such a system that they conclude our country would be more competitive as well as healthy. These voters would be much less likely to support nationalization of oil companies, for example, than true socialists or even the 'progressives' you describe.

The second point is there's a difference between single payer and the public option. I confused things a bit, and I regretted it immediately after posting, by calling the public option, "Medicare for All." This is wrong. Medicare for all would be single payer – you go to your doctor and the government pays the bill. This idea was never seriously debated, and was openly mocked as the 'far left' position throughout the debate. It was the position that Kucinich so bravely stood up for… before he caved to reality, as he was correct to do.

The Public Option, which Pelosi recently tried to tease us with, and which is the far more widely supported idea among the 'Democrat/Liberal' for adoption in our system, is "Medicare for those that want to buy-in." It means that when you, the customer, goes to the insurance exchange website to buy insurance, one of the solutions vying for your dollars is, in effect, Medicare. If Medicare can provide better coverage for less, you might buy it. If not, you probably wouldn't. That's a market based solution with the government as a competitor.

If you foresee Medicare driving the insurance companies out of business, then they probably aren't being efficient with your dollars in the first place.

One interesting question that comes to mind is this: do you support the idea that companies should be able to make as much profit as they can by gambling on peoples' health? That is the status quo – they try and stack the deck by denying coverage – but insurance for profit is essentially a wager that you won't get cancer or have a car accident. Or that if you do, they can legally find a way not to pay for your treatment before you die. Is this your idea of the freedom of the market?

One of the provisions, I believe, of the bill is a cap on the margin companies are allowed to skim as middlemen to our doctors. Does this sound like a fair idea to you, or should corporations be allowed to continue to post massive profits gambling on the health of your family?

Glad to see you’ve rejoined the fray. As per my usual habit, we’ll take your points one at a time.

“I was going to comment on your focus on what would, under normal analysis, be a tiny minority of the left – one which I believe wields little power, and which is not nearly as militant now as past generations” Little power eh? In the last fourteen months this ‘minority’ now owns two car companies, the largest insurance company on the planet, several investment banks, and is on the cusp of solidifying control over the medial system of the United States. This same aforementioned comment will cover the ‘not nearly as militant’ portion of your statement as well.

“You're trying to trick us with math, or else revealing the quality of Arkansas education.” I’m doing neither. First it doesn’t matter what the percentage of the population is. Conventional wisdom says this is a center-right country but that certainly doesn’t represent the current makeup of the legislative bodies in Washington. What matters is who turns out to vote. My cousin is a life long UAW member. He’s proud of the fact that the 50 or so members who actually went to the union meetings were the ones that set negotiating policy for all 1,200 plant workers. As for Arkansas education, I do indeed reside in Arkansas but was raised in Illinois.

“Under your theory, Dick and Jane could be either Democrats or a Liberals, depending on whether they read the political headlines every day.” This is true. I did mention that people moved in and out of these groups just as people migrate in and out of economic groups. I do agree with your statement of engagement.

If legislative democrats were of the ‘blue dog’ persuasion we wouldn’t have a $1.4 trillion deficit, nor would they merely be called a collation. I believe I’ve observed in conversations we’ve conducted before that you yourself cannot even discern when your political belief on a certain issue has been co-opted by those of a more decidedly progressive bent. As long as you agree to be herded in the correct direction you’ll not see their invisible hand. The difference is that they will not attempt to snap you back to reality if you go too far, they will demand you correct your course when you fail to go far enough.

And finally; “If progressives had the real political power you ascribe to them, single payer – Medicare for all – wouldn't have been dismissed so easily.”

Do you call a fourteen month struggle easily dismissed? The brass ring is single payer. All the single payer advocates are even now collecting promises from the Speaker that we will fix that little oversight later. How do you think they got them on board? It’s a matter of; “OK we’ll agree to the bill even though it only destroys insurance companies a little at a time. I can wait another election cycle or two to get my final reward.”

If this health care bill isn’t struck down by the courts; I’ll bet you lunch we have single payer in this country by 2020. They always think long term.

So how much poop do you have to have in a bucket to call it a bucket of poop?

As a T.E.A. Party member, we’ve ascribed to the belief that current conditions in Washington are as much our fault as anyone else’s. The activities occurring today inside the beltway have sanction because these same activities have been going on in the state legislatures for thirty years, and in county and city government for generations. The price we’re paying for our lack of political vigilance is that the ‘best and brightest’ of these sneaky individuals took their show on the road.

Our conclusion is that to repair this problem we must change government in the same manner it was altered to begin with; a crawl, walk, run philosophy if you will. Fix city/county government first, then take that to the state house, and finally to the federal level. I understand that many may feel the commitment may not be there to see such a challenge to the end. The fact that here in Garland County we have three of fifteen T.E.A. Party candidates running for county offices who are all under the age of 30 says different. These young men and women, if they properly mentor others, are the vanguard of the new civil servant. Personally, I’d prefer to give them that opportunity prior to betting the fabric of the country on a single spin of the wheel.

“If the country wants to give my dog full civil rights, then I can at least take comfort in the fact that the country actually decided this, and not some bureaucrat, or Committee Chairman in Congress, or some judge in our court system.” is very true. I guess it all boils down to; do we care for the country we have, or the country that might be.”

The difference between the politician and the civil servant is that the politician will always seek personal advantage in any constitution.

Where do we get the statesmen to replace the whiny b**ches we have now? Term limits don't work, as we have learned here in California. Limits simply mean the hacks have to keep moving upwards (often promoting their spouses for their old seat as they go – you'd be surprised where name recognition can get you in a State Rep seat), and the only way to sustain the cash for that is to be corrupted by the lobbyists who aren't term limited from passing out cash for favors.

I know you are as origionalist as they come, but I don't think you're going to get much traction among we the other people to let Senators be appointed by state legislatures.

I think the best way to make a difference is publicly funded elections, with commercial airtime required as part of a broadcast license. I realize this is a "socialist" an idea as they come, but it does have Constitutional support in that elections are mandated, and so the means of election should be borne by the government.

I think it would do much to subvert corruption, migrate it to another aspect of political influence perhaps – corruption will always find a way – but it might actually encourage these "Statesmen" you speak of to enter politics. Of course, it might encourage more of the politically inept to entertain, but may the best statesman win!

I understand that a great many of our founders were elitists, with a view that sometimes our betters should be chosen for us by our other betters, and that some of them would not agree with this idea. But I think a great majority of our population has moved on from this world view, present company excepted.

I am not advocating a 100-member Court, but one justice from each state, placed there by the state. To qualify, a candidate must have been a resident of his state for at least 10 years immediately preceding. [This would also go for representatives and senators. IOW, no carpetbagging].

What about subsidiarity? Surely we can come up with an amendment better than the 10 th to ensure that a legitimate function of government is not raised to a higher level than necessary [no more federal funding to count dogs in Oxnard, CA].

You're trying to trick us with math, or else revealing the quality of Arkansas education. You began by describing political persuasion percentages by party, you said "each side of the electorate," so "20+40" is sixty percent of Democratic voters, which would be less than 35 percent of the population even if we included non-voters, far short of a majority – at least in my state.

The other problem is that your distinction between Democrat and Liberal is not one of political philosophy, but engagement. Under your analysis, the major distinction between Dems and Libs is one is "too busy" be be politically aware and cognitively argumentative, even though they hold almost identical political opinions.

Under your theory, Dick and Jane could be either Democrats or a Liberals, depending on whether they read the political headlines every day.

I would personally make the political distinction that legislative Democrats, at any rate, are more of the "Blue Dog" corporatist persuasion, are among the corrupted political class you describe, and do not often represent the views of their actual constituents, except where social pandering is in order.

Among the Democratic voting population, I'd put the number of un-engaged, but politically and socially on the left to be more like 60-70%; the engaged, blog reading, argument making to be more like 10-15% tops, and the radical, progressive if you like, the remaining 15-20.

If progressives had the real political power you ascribe to them, single payer – Medicare for all – wouldn't have been dismissed so easily.