So in today's edition (11/03/09)of Politico magazine, I read where Reid of NV has been assured by Joe Lieberman of CT, that he will vote for the bill to be passed and stand with the Democrats. This is the same Joe Lieberman who last week said he'd not vote for any bill with the public option included. Just where does Joe stand, does anyone know? Does he know? This guy changes colors more often than a chameleon and expects everyone to respect him for his ability to jump sides and do only what's best for Joe. In my study of the American political system-an admittedly unique one-the one feature I've found more than any other is compromise. Give a little get a little. Joe seems to think that he can just get, and dangle "the give" in front of the faces of more mainstream party leaders. Or perhaps, there is more to it than that....perhaps, Joe sees the fragmentation of so many of the GOP races,with the Tea Party faction-led by Dick Armey- attacking the more moderate factions of the party, including their own candidates. Perhaps in a very measured calculus, Joe is trying to measure where Joe's best interest lie. I've signed a petition to relive him of his chairmanships. Will it get the desired results? I doubt it, but it may turn a head-maybe. It was worth a try I thought, or I wouldn't have signed it. It's time the Democrats in Congress came to an old fashioned idea: party unity and party discipline. Yes we historically air our political laundry, I know that, yes we fight publicly and vote privately, yeah, yeah , yeah. But in the face of obstinate and intentionally false challenges by the GOP, maybe we should stop fighting and get on with it. If Reid isn't strong enough-and his numbers are falling in his home NV- then maybe we should get a new floor leader and send Harry off to be the Ambassador to the North Pole, or someplace where he is equally unable to cause problems.

Abraham Lincoln once said that no man stands taller than when he stoops to help a child. I think if one extrapolates that observation it is safe to say that a benevolent society must stoop to help the least of its membership.