Before I get into the main thrust of this article (heh, heh – thrust), allow me to touch on the subject of this month’s cover. If I don’t, some dullard or a Red Shtick neophyte will call me, wondering where the “cover story” is.

(Like there’s some kind of a publishing rule that you have to have a story to go with your cover. And even if there were, do we strike you as the type of publication that adheres to “rules”?)

Senator Mary Landrieu has been highly criticized, nay, maligned in the local and national media for her political strategy during the recent health care reform debate. Her maneuver to secure up to $300 million for the Bayou State in exchange for her deciding vote to allow debate on the matter in the U.S. Senate has been dubbed the new “Louisiana Purchase.”

Interestingly, though, there’s one place that’s been remarkably quiet on the matter. Specifically, we haven’t heard much from the fourth floor of the State Capitol (i.e., the Governor’s Office). Maybe that’s because earlier in the year, Governor Bobby Jindal asked Landrieu to see what she could do to secure some funds to help shore up the state’s Medicaid budget.

I guess the administration really needs the money since Alan Levine, secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals, traveled to D.C. 10 times in 3 months lobbying for over $1 billion to insure the state’s poor.  Therefore, Jindal is not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if the horse looks surprisingly like a donkey.

That’s different than the last time a Democrat tried to give our Republican governor federal funds. Remember when Jindal refused a portion of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package? It was the stylish thing to do among GOP state leaders. Not only did he look that gift horse in the mouth, but he also gave part of it back. (Don’t worry – no horses were harmed in the making of this metaphor.)

So what’s changed since February? Perhaps Jindal has become more concerned about mitigating current state budget shortfalls and less concerned about mitigating possible liabilities in a 2012 presidential bid. Either that, or he figures he can take the money with relative impunity this time because Landrieu will take most of the heat for selling/renting her vote.

And she has been taking some heat. Some have even compared Landrieu to a prostitute, which is just wrong, because she’d probably starve as a hooker. In fact, the only person in D.C. who would likely solicit her for her services is David Vitter.

Besides, Landrieu’s actions will help plug a gaping hole in the state’s budget. Whores usually provide a gaping hole to plug (unless the john is into some really freaky stuff).

It’s partisan episodes like this that make me and countless Americans long for a viable third party. We desperately need one to overcome the two-party monopoly that has hamstrung this country for too long. I just hope to God it won’t be the Tea Party.

No offense to all my Tea Party friends out there, but there’s no way I could ever join an organization whose foundation was laid in part by Glenn Beck. That guys needs medication.

Then there’s the name: “The Tea Party.” And you wonder why people make fun of you by calling you “Teabaggers” with regularity in major media outlets.

(If you don’t get the gist of that insult, Google the term. Just don’t do it at work.)

I know the whole Tea Party movement took on that moniker because its main aim was to protest excessive taxation, much like the participants of the original Boston Tea Party. Sadly, though, too many Americans don’t know American history to grasp the connection.

At best, the name conjures up images of little girls in pigtails playing with their dolls like Cindy Brady. At worst, it makes people think of drunken frat boys doing homoerotic things to their unconscious brethren. (Now we know why they’re called “Greeks.”)

Even if the burgeoning political movement manages to overcome its association with the likes of Beck and become an actual political party, will it be known as “The Tea Party” or  “The Tea Party Party”?

“The Tea Party” sounds more like an event than an organization. Either that, or it sounds like a group of people whose political beliefs are based on tea.

Meanwhile, “The Tea Party Party” sounds both redundant and retarded. It’s a no-win situation.

It’s also an easy target for headline writers. Suppose one of your candidates runs for office and gets thumped at the polls. I can see it now: “Tea Party Takes Its Lumps.”

Then there are the factions that eventually form within any organization. The GOP has the Log Cabin Republicans. What will gay members of your group become known as? “The Sweet Tea Party”?

All I’m saying is, next time you want to start a viable political tour de force, you might want to employ the services of a PR firm first. Do some market research. Test out your name on focus groups. Explore what the possible pitfalls might be before you brand yourself with a name like “The Tea Party.”