General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "But we couldn't *possibly* have gotten single payer!" [View all]ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...had there been a strong contingent promoting single-payer, and had they been able to publicly make their argument -- including pointing out how much single-payer would save us across the board in health care costs -- then the public would also be involved, and would be able to put pressure on Lieberman. And honestly, as visible as his back-stabbing ways were, he certainly wasn't the only so-called "Democrat" who did not support the more liberal positions such as public options and single payer (cough Baucus cough).
But then you change the subject to claim that the "pragmatists" moved the battle from the federal level, to the state level.
Which IMO is a large crock of you-know-what.
I seem to remember a certain liberal Democrat, from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", who pushed for a "50-state strategy" in all of our races. He in fact was quite successful in demonstrating that a 50-state strategy was the way for Democrats to win at the STATE level and as a result at the FEDERAL level. But those very same "pragmatists" you like to promote, were the very ones who insisted on removing said Democrat from chairing the party (cough Rahm cough). I remember the end result of that tussle; do you?
Just substitute "corporatist" for "pragmatist", then you will get a clearer idea of what agenda is being served.