[thecavemaster]

Thanks for the thumbs, DW.

And as for the two party system as "checks and balances", how is there any kind of balance when one party has total control? If one party can steamroll their entire agenda without even having to work with the other side, then there is no balance. And that is very dangerous in my opinion.

How is partisan politics an overused mantra? If lawmakers vote by what their national party leadership has decided upon, rather than what they feel is truly right, then that is partisan politics. I think too often lawmakers feel the need to do this to please the party bosses, lest they be looked upon as a party outsider. Then they get passed over for positions on important committees, and as a result their home districts get left out when money is appropriated for projects and such. In a sense it's hard to blame them, considering how the current system is set up.

Unless one party has a filibuster proof majority (60-40) in the Senate, checks and balances exist. And, if one party does achieve a 60/40, and take the White House, the mood of the counrtry would suggest approval of that party's agenda. I agree with your comments about politics as usual (favoritism, butt kissing and the like).