Massachusetts Waterloo?

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint in reference to Health Care Reform

In case you've been living under a rock, Massachusetts voters go to the polls today to fill the vacated Senate seat once held by Edward M. Kennedy. GOP state Sen. Scott Brown is running against Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley. Recent polls point toward a win by Republican Scott Brown. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972.

So what does this all mean if Kennedy's seat is lost?

A) The loss of the Senate seat and the super majority in the Senate derails Health Care Reform as we know it and we continue to wait decades for another shot at real reform.

B) Health Care Reform passes Congress with or without the Massachusetts seat via more backroom deals or some sort of nuclear option procedurally.

C) Does anyone give two shakes of a dead rat's ass?

I choose option C.

I'm a self described liberal/progressive, but even my loyalty to the Democratic Party is being put to the limit by their so called "reform." Perhaps it would be better to start over. Maybe Congress should pass smaller pieces of legislation one by one that we can all get behind, for example, the elimination of pre-existing conditions and the ability of insurance companies to drop coverages for no apparent reason, to name a couple. Why not pass revisions we can all agree on and then move on to the tougher parts of reform, like how to cover everyone without breaking their back or without giving the insurance companies a giant giveaway? Why does Health Care Reform have to be all or nothing?

Conservatives aren't off the hook either! Simply opposing something without alternatives isn't going to cut it. It comes across as highly partisan and offensive to me. This kind of tactic will never gain my vote... that and their kooky religious crusades into my private life.

Basically it's business as usual in Washington. Conservatives or liberals. Democrats or Republicans. It's all interchangeable. Wash, rinse, repeat ever two or four years. Maybe if conservatives and progressives could put aside their differences for a common cause, effective government, something could get accomplished more often! Third party anyone?

Thoughts or opinions?