NYT: Majority Rules

I tried to snag a little quiet time on Friday - still reachable but generally offline compared to my usual incessant connectivity.

The calls didn't slow, and it wasn't much of a break, but it is why I haven't posted here since Thursday.

In case you missed it, you should check out this great editorial from the NYT that explains why reconciliation may be the only way to go now. Referring to the bipartisan gang of six Senators that represent less than 3% of the country:

Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay. Leading Senate Republicans have seen little in the emerging compromise that they are willing to support.

Two of the Republicans working on the compromise — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming — have said they would not vote for a bill that could not win broad support, which Mr. Enzi defined as 75 to 80 senators, implying that roughly half of the Senate’s Republicans must sign on. That is unlikely — no matter how good or bipartisan or middle-of-the-road any bill may be.

I don't think leading Republicans could be more transparent about their intentions to do and say anything to stop reform. When Congress gets back next week, it's time to put the charade of bipartisanship to bed once and for all. Let's have less focus on the improbable act of getting political opponents to agree and more focus on the possible - getting everyone access to quality, affordable health care. That's what passing a good bill should be about.