This bitter little leftist is angry about what could have been, if not for those annoying parts of our government that help prevent absolute one-party rule.

^In the absence of the filibuster, the health-care law would offer a public alternative to private insurance, the financial reform would be strong enough to close off the likelihood of another meltdown, and the very rich (and their heirs) would pay something closer to their fair share of taxes. Nearly two hundred qualified nominees for executive and judicial offices would be on the job instead of in limbo. And a climate-and-energy bill, a bill to require corporations to be open about their political spending, the DREAM Act, and dozens of other worthy measures - all of which passed the House and had majority support in the Senate - would now be the law of the land.^

Dodged a bullet? We dodged a fusillade.

To Democrats, the filibuster is a brilliant concept when the filibuster gives the Democrats power. It's a bad idea when the filibuster prevents the Democrats from wielding power. This view switches periodically, often in the same politician, since the only fundamental principle is the power.

Look at the Democratic Party. When did the guy with "Question Authority" on his bumper sticker turn into "The Man?"