The sad, when not sickening, thing, is that so many want it to have even more control over our lives.

To what extent they want it to control their lives specifically (exchanging liberty for security) and to what extent they relish the takeover of others' lives instead (which is pathological, but is common) is an open question still.

The ironic thing is that of course, these people are inconsistent. Michigan is one example of this, currently, where it has a hopelessly obsolescent, bloated, dysfunctional government headquartered in Lansing (though it is Albany and New York that normally is synonymous in this nation with “dysfunctional” and all the other pejoratives). Government here is long overdue for a great, great down-sizing and rationalization. This is particuarly true given how much so many people here (and in Blue Nation elsewhere, particularly) want residual state sovereignty reduced even more and even more power concentrated and centralized in Washington, DC, instead. Michigan and many states are overdue for huge reductions in size and scope of their state governments, including changing to a unicameral legislature as Nebraska has had, for example. But this is fought tooth and fang and claw.

[sigh]

You flatter me to suggest what I want has some bearing on the situation. My point is that it doesn't. National politics is dominated by large groups, large groups run on money. All the layers of campaign finance laws have failed to bring about any other reality, nor will more layers.

Not so.

Obama famously included McCain's idea of emergency support for the unemployed. Besides, the argument once the economy is rolling again will be that reform will drag down the new surge in the economy.

Reform will be fought as long as money is at stake for the PIs and their paid for senators.

Self fulfilling status quo. You certainly keep the conserve in conservative.

The public option got shot down hard in the Senate recently. It is not dead but obviously the childish expectations for meeting any excessive demands (in the form of a “robust” or “strong” or any other word such as “substantial”) public option have once again been put in their correct place — down.

You know better, how about the general public interest. That's why they're there.

Yes and no, depends on what you mean by general public interest. The general public interest of their State, or the general public interest of the United States. I think you will find some of both, but the two while not totally mutually exclusive are not mutually inclusive either. In cases where the two are indeed mutually exclusive a case can be made for both the State and the national being their primary responsibility.

In fact I'm not content with the best government money can buy, but the federal government–and state government, and many cities–is too large scale to work any other way. This is precisely the case for less government.

Or the millions spent by PIs will turn enough influential legislators to guarantee that their interests, profit and maintaining an economic monopoly, will win out.

If you're content with the best government money can buy, there's no way I'll convince you that “voting for dollars” is not what the founding fathers were advocating.

Special interest groups will usually get their way over an uninvolved majority, simply because they're trying harder. That's the nature of politics; to will it to be some other way doesn't make any sense.

But it should come as heartening news to public option zealots. The vast majority are as apathetic as usual on health care, so long as you don't threaten them with socialism on one hand or taking away their medicare on the other. The progressive special interest group may yet get its way.

You know better, how about the general public interest. That's why they're there.

Cute on your part by half.

What else could they be beholden to? General disinterest?