The Senators mentioned here have one common interest. They must serve their rural constituents. Does the Washington Post have a point about red/blue? Recalling analyses from the aftermath of 2004's election, I remember the map someone configured. Essentially blue states meant where they lived close to bodies of water--two oceans and around the Great Lakes. The vast middle was almost solidly read.
It's elementary. Where there were waterways, there was a chance for settlements in Early American history. As people migrated inland, they were attracted to land for agriculture or mining. Now, in an attempt to fashion a national health system, we see that the demographic which counts greatly is, "How far is it to the nearest hospital?" The question is personal with this writer. My brother was not yet in school when his appendix broke. The trip to surgery took 35 miles over gravelled roads and another 100 miles by train. He lives in Casper now and is so glad there are good doctors there. And being a Senior Citizen, he had little expense for what has happened to him later in life.
Besides liking Tom Daschle as a gritty Senator, I was sorely disappointed when he was not permitted to become the healthcare czar. In his book, where he described his last two years in the Senate, he includes the phrase (His counterpart Trent Lott is given credit for authorship.) to describe the Senate--"like herding cats." Barrack Obama, a shorttimer in that august body, had his sights set on the former South Dakota Senator. As it turns out, maybe a governor from a rural state is the next best choice.
Personally, I believe there will be a public option. But to make that happen I'll keep an eye on Congress, visiting webpages of those making pronouncements in MSM news, then writing letters to the editors of their hometown papers.
As a citizen I can do no less.
1 | 2
