The Great Progressive Achievement?

I've been thinking about this formulation that has been applied to the health bill, most recently by Matt Yglesias, and I think it deserves some unpacking. When the phrase is used, it implicitly is limited to domestic programs. But I think it still seems very premature for such declarations.

Consider this - since LBJ (I assume the reference to "40 years" is to LBJ's series of legislative accomplishments in the mid-1960s (BTW, now that the President is irrelevant or impotent, what does that say about LBJ's accomplishments? Is he among the greatest in history?)), there have been 3 Democratic Presidents - Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, whose tenures covered 13 of the last 41 years. As a baseline, there is not much accomplishment to exceed. More . . .

Still and all, is the health care bill a bigger progressive achievement than the 1993 Tax Act? It is true that George Bush undid that achievement but who is to say that a successor to President Obama won't undo major portions of the health bill? Indeed, considering that the heart of the bill does not go into effect until 2014, how do we know any of it will even commence?

Beyond that, what of the creation of the EPA and other important enironmental legislation enacted during the Nixon Administration? Is this health bill definitely a bigger progressive achievement? After all, we know that those measures have survived for nearly 40 years and have worked on some level. We have no idea about the health bill.

In short, it is this type of hyperbole that, I at least, find annoying. The bill could do some good. How much good remains to be seen. It seems bigger than S-Chip (enacted in 1997), but we know S-Chip has survived the test of time. This health bill has not even survived conference yet.

I suggest the bill proponents hold off on the hosannas.

Speaking for me only

< Stupak, The Blue Dogs And The Progressive Block | Senate Passes Health Care Bill, 60 to 39 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Great Progressive Achievement (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:04:58 AM EST
    is neither Great nor Progressive nor an Achievement. Discuss.

    I agree that the Dems unerring sense of bad messaging is at work again. They ought to be lowering expectations about this bill, not raising them.

    The Washington Generals... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    ... are essential to the Globetrotter's business model.

    That's all it is. Do not accept narratives of Democratic weakness, bad messaging, whatever. They are doing exactly what they want to do, and so far (money, seats) it has been working out very well for them. Their success has nothing to do with the public interest, only in their propagation as a party apparatus, but that's a subject for another post.


    Hey lambert (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 08:24:23 PM EST
    Sad....I was wrong about Afghanistan.  I was for protecting my nation from an actual Muslim extremist danger.  My nation was having a lot of difficulties, I was fine devoting my time to this one while others dealt with other things.  But today I realize that we have much bigger problems at home.  And who we protect is not you, you do not matter.  I don't know how many times I have to be shown that by this President and his hand picked administration either before I get it that I'm probably not doing anything for you now.  It is all for them and them alone.  Timmy Geithner slush funds for toxic assets and no regulation or oversight indeed.  Almost forgot, Tim says he isn't going to let another collapse happen.  I guess that slush funds made up of make believe and fairy dust will save us all from collapse.  In such a light, can the Afghan War be anything more than a jobs program?  It isn't about keeping our way of life safe from the most dangerous people out there.

    Military Keynsian-ism (none / 0) (#56)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    ... is supported by both legacy parties.

    I think if anyone actually (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    cares about healthcare for anyone, this does not signal that ANYTHING is over.  I deal with an insurance company all the time, if anyone thinks that suddenly they have been tamed I have to say that that person has slipped off their cracker.  If we are going to force people to have to deal with for profit insurance companies as well, then everybody needs to keep in mind that those companies at NO time will end their lobbying efforts to change their profit ratios and find loopholes.  I like the social programs that have been enhanced and expanded and we need to push on that, keep enhancing and expanding and DEMANDING IT.  But if anyone thinks they may have come to a day when they can turn their backs on the insurance industry and go play in the sun.......pfffft, you had better guess again.

    So (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:26:09 AM EST
    that person has slipped off their cracker

    So just an aside, did the person who slipped off the cracker meet the 5 second rule and get picked up again, or did the dog eat them.


    the dog (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    Harry Reid (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    Appears to agree with you:

    "This morning isn't the end of the process, it's merely the beginning. We'll continue to build on this success to improve our health system even more,"

    More of this please Harry.


    Is fixing "health care" going to (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    become for Dem politicians what over turning Roe v Wade is to the Republicans. A "send us money and vote for us" so that we can fix it promise that never happens because it is to useful as a political tool.

    Health Care Reform As A Future Campaign Tool

    Now it appears that health care is poised to become the same sort of issue for Democrats. While the current health care bill does a lot to expand coverage and reign in some costs, it stops short of something progressives have fought for for years - a federal plan designed to give care, not profits. That leaves Democrats with the core belief in health care reform as a key campaign issue in coming years, while still touting the success of the new legislation

    Well, yeh, Dems can't use Roe v Wade (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:26:06 AM EST
    now, with the Stupak and Nelson amendments, which make any Dem effort to claim the cause laughable.  So they need something new.

    The Nelson Amendment (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:28:04 AM EST
    Funny that you mention that.  It's actually being used as an example by republicans of "federal funding of abortion" since one of the plans on the exchange is required to offer abortion coverage.

    So the republicans will keep beating that horse to death.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    MO Blue's point is that the Democrats will use 'improving health care' as their shimmering mirage in the distance just as Roe v Wade has been used by Republicans.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    Something that they always promise and never do.

    BTW, your shimmering mirage in the distance analogy is wonderful. Wish I had thought of it. May well borrow it in the future.


    Be my guest (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:53:43 AM EST
    Or will it be what Roe v Wade is to Democrats? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by esmense on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:38:44 AM EST
    Black mail: "You have to vote for us or it will be over-turned."

    As Military Tracy says, the insurance industry isn't going to fold its tent and go home. For decades to come they will be working and spending to push back what little progress was made in this bill -- now, perhaps, with even more money for the fight.


    When does he plan on doing that? We (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:28:43 AM EST
    have a pretty darn narrow window before the 2010 elections where we will lose several Senators and a whole bunch of House reps. I assume the rallying cry in 2012 and beyond will be "elect more Democrats so we can fix the Health Care system that we didn't fix the last time you elected Democrats". Catchy.

    he probably won't have to worry (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    because he is likely to be one of the ones lost.

    There is always the reconcilliation route for the sweet parts of the bill.

    Only need 50 for that.

    But yea, I don't see that happening any time soon.

    Just glad Reid admits the fight is not over.

    It would be nice to see some Dems lose primaries and win Generals.  Then they might feel some pressure from the left.


    And from Schumer (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:16:35 AM EST

    Dear ***,
    I hope I'm not bothering you by sending this message so close to the holidays, but I wanted to let you know the news right away: The Senate finally passed a health care reform bill this morning.
    The bill is based on the agreement we reached last weekend, and the next step will be to combine it with the version the House passed so both chambers can vote on a final version.
    As I've said, this bill is not perfect. A strong, level-playing-field public option would have done more to help keep costs down. But we're going to stop the worst of the premium increases, impose tough new rules on the insurance companies, and extend coverage to millions.
    That's a pretty big achievement any way you look at it.
    So thank you for your support this year. I'll be in touch soon with more.
    Happy holidays,
    Chuck Schumer

    The things Schumer cites (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    are less than the least that a true health care reform bill would offer. We wanted health care reform and got a smidgen of health insurance reform. Some achievement.

    I think the "achievement" (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    was that they agreed on anything and got the heck out of there in time for Christmas . . .

    At least he didn't try and spin it as a "great progressive achievement", said it wasn't perfect and that a strong PO would have done more to control costs.

    Health care reform would have been nice.


    No reference (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:01:46 AM EST
    Even if the obama-reid bill were a great achievement (which I firmly believe it to be an achievement only for the plutocrats), it will never be remembered as a great achievement simply for want of a moniker and more importantly, it has no salient defining feature other than mandates, which a large chunk of the population will hate. No one knows what to call the thing, or what its redeeming feature is.

    "The bill" is a complex hodgepodge of arcane legislative diktats that only a wonk could love. It is also because of this that over the coming years the plutocracy will easily take out and work around the pieces they don't like and no one will even notice. Accordingly, the bill is NOT the foundation for ever greater progressive movement toward universal health care, but yet another piece of complex mechanization for plutocrats to mine and plunder the wealth of the American people.

    Under the skillful manipulations of the plutocracy, the government, the system has devolved to being incapable of anything but feeding the insatiable greed of the plutocrats.

    The reference would be the greatest speech (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    of all time, Teh Race Speech.  Remember?  How is that one working out, even Obama's promises in it?

    By promises, I mean . . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    that the issue of race also would be revisited.  So why believe that will be so of health care, when he has not made a major speech on either since the campaign -- as he doesn't speak out unless cornered.

    It was revisited (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    Beer summit?



    har.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:29:15 AM EST

    Ah (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:40:46 AM EST
    but wicked true.

    Ah...yes, the Race Speech! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by prittfumes on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    When so many thought that the Wright controversy would severely damage his candidacy, how could we forget the Leg Thrills and Spinal Shivers inspired by the greatest speech evah? Right up there with the Gettysburg Address?

    Two problems now: 1)No more room under the bus; 2)A "major speech" is no longer the slam dunk "solution" it used to be.

    Looking back at Obama's progress, all the way from Chicago (and prior) to the Oval Office, it wouldn't be advisable to assume that this guy won't find some devious path around any and all obstacles in his path to reelection.

    Call me cynical, but IMHO, the march toward this "historic achievment" has NOT been about delivering "affordable health care". It has been, and continues to be, all about what will benefit Obama in November 2012.

    I can't shake the feeling that he has something up his sleeve other than his arm on this whole thing.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    When you try to frame everything you do as "historical", it tends to lose its significance.



    I think (none / 0) (#44)
    by prittfumes on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    that I disagree with you, and (loosely applicable): "That's what makes for horse racing." :-)

    Nah, there's lots of room under the bus (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    because we who were kicked there have been squeezed so much by the Obama economy -- and are about to be squeezed more by teh "health care" bill, it seems.  All part of the plan to keep making more room under the bus!

    If you don't see why the race speech (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    is at worst historically relevant because of the "Checkers" factor, then I don't know what to tell you.

    I don't see what you're saying (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 01:19:41 AM EST
    as relevant at all.  Enjoy some more eggnog.

    My problem with mandates (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    is the same as it was in the Spring of 2008 when they were the cornerstone of Hillary's Healthcare plan-- they're economically necessary but politically disasterous.

    Obama has been attaching (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:27:24 AM EST
    this and other hyperbolic labels to "his" health care reform since the beginning, before it was even under consideration in committees; he has been flogging the premise that he, and he alone, can make it happen, which by extension makes it "the best," "the most progressive" - just pick a term and add a superlative and there you have it.  The Flogging Village Bloggers have been willingly beating that same drum, making sure we understand the politics of getting in the way, and failing to keep Obama and many members of the Democratic caucus honest - something the general media has failed at, as well.

    Does saying it over and over and over make it so?  Maybe in Magical Thinking Land, or in Never Never Land, where clapping and believing makes Tinkerbell live, but not here in the real world, where people will have to deal with insurance companies hell-bent on gaming whatever [insert superlative here] reforms are legislated.  Not to mention the stress of knowing that if you don't submit to the will of the insurance companies, the government will tax, fine or hound your ass; when all is said and done, there's a real question for me of whether people will actually have better access to care, and whether the cost of the insurance over the long term, together with the costs expected to be shared by the policyholder, will really make that care "more affordable."

    True progressive achievement would have been putting us on a short path to single-payer; I'm really not sure how progressive it is to force people to buy a product from a private company that holds all the leverage: where is the power in the people?  I'm not seeing that - just more subjugation, making sure the handcuffs of employer-based insurance are a little tighter, and that's not "progressive," either. Actually allowing women's reproductive health and rights to be sacrificed and threatened just to obtain 60 votes is neither progressive nor principled; that it has been deemed acceptable is, to me, unconscionable, unbelievably short-sighted, and toxically regressive.

    So, where, pray tell, is the actual progress?

    The progress is in ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    ... demonstrating, through progress, the ability to make further progress, in some yet undefined direction, although a "progressive" one.

    If Feingold is Teh Great Progressive (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:28:03 AM EST
    according to a lot of "progressives," then this won't work -- he gives the bill only grudging support in his comments today.

    But he gave it his vote, and he said he would not, so he gets to continue to claim to be the leader of all of the great progressives who gave up the fight.

    Notice how it went from (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    "health care reform" to "health insurance reform" and now it's back to being called "health care reform" . . .

    Feingold also (none / 0) (#47)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    would have been a major problem in BTD's reconciliation proposal-- he hates it procedurally.

    The billing cycle for the 2010 campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lambert on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:35:47 AM EST
    ... starts when? Soon, I would think. That might have something to do with the premature triumphalism.

    They are trying to meet fundraising goals (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    by Dec 31st . . .

    A Great Progressive Achievement? (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    This entire debate has proven without a doubt that the Progressive members of both chambers of Congress are completely powerless and totally irrelevant. It has been proven that the voices of progressive voters will not only be ignored when Dems draft legislation, they will be mocked and ridiculed by members of the Democratic Party for aggressively pursuing their agenda. To label this piece of crap legislation as a Progressive Achievement is the final insult.  

    Does anyone even know what (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by esmense on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:49:04 AM EST
    "progressive" means anymore? Doesn't it have something to do with eating organic, traveling to Paraguay during you junior year, and/or donating a little bit of your trust fund to the Defenders of Wildlife?

    Sadly (none / 0) (#37)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    You've drilled into the central degenerate truth.

    You forgot shopping at Whole Foods... (none / 0) (#57)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:31:02 AM EST
    ... and drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon.

    The definitive text on this was written by Chris Bowers (not parody!)


    Sorry Chris (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    but a few thousand union workers in a couple of important swing states, aint "the white (they can never be too..) working class"

    And the white working class strategically divided from so-called "urban minorities" and the bullsh*t-term "creative class" is just the old game of divide-and-conquer-for-the-purposes-of-getting-power that's been used by the SAME elites (from a class interest perspective) right along.

    This is a "changing of the guard" that's primarily illusory; while people like Chris continue to try to convince us that the illusory aspect is the most relevant. I can get that pundsh*t on T.V.                                                                        


    You can't be a class bigot and a Progressive (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by esmense on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    As too many of Chris Bower's beloved "creative class: are. Whatever they may choose to call themselves, they are as fiercely conservative or insanely far right liberatarian when it comes to their own elite economic interests as their parents or their peers who scored internships at National Review. (Pabst and Whole Foods, by the way, are notorious union busters.)

    I like to call them "Ken Kesey" liberals. They like to think they are anti-authoritarian but it would be more accurate to say they don't recognize any authority but their own. And, frankly, as loudly as they proclaim their lack of respect for the powerful above them, it is the people who lack power, below them, who they really refuse respect.

    They don't recognize that there is a genuinely progressive working, don't know its history or the vital role it has played in progressive achievements. They easily and conveniently dismiss all white working class people as racial bigots for two reason; 1. it provides an excuse to dismiss legitimate working class economic concerns, 2. it provides an excuse to shift responsibility for racial inequity away from their own, much more powerful, class. For the same reason they frame the economic difficulties faced by the minority poor and working class as arising primarily from "a culture of poverty." This provides an excuse to dismiss those economic interests (in favor of their own interests) and again shifts responsibility for racial inequities from their own class (to, in this case, the victims).

    Media "creative class" members are happy to provide show case after show case for the inanities of no nothing "joe not a plumber." But there's no way in hell they would let the head for the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters anywhere near a microphone to discuss the concerns and interests of his union's hundreds of thousands of members.


    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 10:13:30 AM EST
    we're all jaded and RESIGNED to the fact that we cant really effect, in any way, any essential change, so we settle for the accoutrements of progressivism.

    Bah! The central, degenerate myth is that only the "insiders" have power. They're organized, so people need to organize.


    What I want to know (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:22:44 PM EST
    is how you get this guy

    OBAMA: I think what we're going to end up seeing is a little bit of both. You are going to have some provisions that are smart that are in the House bill. There are going to be some provisions that are the right thing to do in the Senate bill. For example, I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier, but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea and that helps bend the cost curve; that helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do.

    to take the excise tax out, and change the tax structure to that of the House bill.

    It ain't gonna happen.  

    Where is the evidence the "Cadillac (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    Plans" do not make people healthier?  

    Here's an evil question: (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    how does it compare to Medicare part D?

    AARP supports both? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    Kin (none / 0) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    in some ways.

    Krugman praises the "cost control" of (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    Krugman, meet Woodman's -- bad news (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    for the many employees of that chain, and as a large chain, it's bound to be a loss leader of a different sort on employee health insurance plans.  

    Now, the following is about a 2008 bill, but tell me that the timing of this announcement isn't tied to telling us what is to come from the 2010 bill:

    Woodman's Food Market, the giant grocery retailer, is dropping mental health benefits from its health insurance plan because it claims it cannot afford to comply with a new federal law that will require mental health coverage to be equal to benefits for other illnesses.

    The federal mental health parity law, passed in 2008, takes effect this January. The law does not require companies to offer mental health benefits, but if their health plans do offer mental health coverage, it must be as generous as coverage for other diseases. Critics of the bill, including many businesses, had warned that it would backfire by forcing companies to drop what limited mental health benefits they do offer.

    There's a difference (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    The workers will now have  recourse in the form of a subsidy.

    Subsidy is not "recourse"... (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:26:29 AM EST
    ... any more than welfare is recourse.

    Maybe. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    We -- including you -- don't know what the final bill will include.  Other than a lot of loopholes.

    There are many cost control measures in t/bill (none / 0) (#49)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 06:12:54 PM EST
    Some of them are even going to work.  I think that's an unmitigated good.  However, they mainly apply to Medicare.  What there aren't, directly, are premium controls for private insurance.  There are a lot of half-measures (e.g., the medical loss ratio) that might work somewhat - but if you are really going to control premiums, you have to go much further, such as by banning health insurers from making profits.  Or by, you know, controlling premiums.  

    Strange (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    how you thought his analysis was insightful and brilliant when it backed your preferred policies but chuck him under the bus when he doesn't.

    Strange to an authoritarian follower... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    ... perhaps.

    So, you're saying we should call his analysis insightful and brilliant at all times? I mean, idiots still do that with Obama, but that's not working out real well...

    Merry Xmas, and I hope you find a pony under the tree! Mines still on back order...


    Not strange for grownups (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    who do not behave like fanboys.  How old are you?

    Inside lobbying... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mike in dc on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 10:33:40 AM EST
    ...or the lack thereof, is the progressive movement's greatest shortcoming as far as I can gather...instead of collecting a sack of money and walking into the offices of a K Street firm in order to get that insider access to the sleazy centrist d-bags we need to "persuade", we rant and rave and even propose primarying Bernie Sanders because he's "not progressive enough".  It's a messy, dirty business getting legislation passed, and we need to get better at both learning the ropes and playing that inside game.  Ironically, we can't change the way the game is played without first mastering the game the way it's played now.

    Why not figure out how to play a different game? (none / 0) (#63)
    by lambert on Fri Dec 25, 2009 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    As long as the game is played with sacks of money, we're always going to lose.