Both of the comments you make demonstrate the need for such a simplistic approach as vote out the incumbents. Unless the result of the mid-term elections is to simply replace the entire House and one-third of the Senate, we'll still be debating the partisan, dysfunctional governance that we have now in years to come.

As has been documented so many times, almost everyone who complains about the actions of the Congress does so with the caveat, "except for my Congressperson or Senator--they're OK. It's the others that are screwed up." Or, those that argue that they are independent enough to vote for the best candidate regardless of party, but when the curtains of the voting booth close, simply can't draw themselves to vote for the candidate from "that other party".

If the electorate tries to re-form the Congress by "building on the base of 'their' party", we won't get anywhere. At least we won't get anywhere soon. While the Democrats swept the GOP from power in the 2006 mid-term elections, there is little chance in my opinion, that the GOP can recover by attempting to keep it's existing Congressional seats and building on them by winning more seats back. It's been well documented by political scientists and practitioners far smarter and more experienced than me that the GOP has little chance of expanding it's role in government by continuing to rely on a base that is concentrated by age, religion, region, ethnicity and education. The GOP has to "expand the tent" and be more inclusive in order to succeed. They're making no move whatsoever to do that.

So, I'm left with the conclusion that the only way to achieve a quicker change in our government is to simply replace ALL that are there now. Throw out the incumbents, as Steve and I have suggested. I can see no other way that will work, certainly not beginning from the position that "my members of Congress and my party are OK, it's the other guys that are the cause of our problems".

I can only make the following arguments for simplifying the voting process and expelling the incumbents in upcoming elections.

• The shift in party makeup in the Congress would be instantaneous.
• Having said that the party makeup would shift, the political power of the parties would be dramatically diluted. They would have no solid base of long-held seats to rely on. They would be confused and be forced to re-create party organizations from the beginning.
• If the Congress is changed in 2010, as it could be, it would eradicate any political influence that the White House might have on those bodies.
• It would thoroughly confuse the special interest lobbyists. They too would lose their base of loyal Congressional constituents always willing to do their bidding in exchange for campaign contributions. Like the party leaderships, they too would have to "start over" in creating a loyal and submissive following who they can easily manipulate.

I'm sure there are more arguments for how a complete turnover of our representation might be an improvement over what we are and have experienced in our governance. Maybe others can add to the list.

In the meantime, the Congress could operate based on thought, debate and statesmanship instead of raw partisan politics fueled by special interest money. That would be a good thing. That would probably be more along the lines of what the framers of the Constitution intended, instead of what we're experiencing now.

But I'm sure of one thing, unless there is a massive turnover of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the third of the Senate seats up for election, this forum will be aruing and debating and biting one another's backs about the same things 2-3-4-5 years from now, as they are today.