Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic activists hoped that President Biden's ascent to the White House would put an end to what theyviewed as a nightmarish slate of immigration policies under former President TrumpDonald TrumpGraham says he hopes that Trump runs again Trump says Stacey Abrams 'might be better than existing governor' Kemp Executive privilege fight poses hurdles for Trump MORE.

Yet the past week has raised new concerns among progressives that little has changedover the treatment of migrants at the southern border.

Scenes of Haitian migrants trudging through theRio Grande to seek asylum in the U.S. only to be circled by border officials on horseback on the other side have drawn up painful memories and reinvigorated a debateover how far officials will go to reform a system many see as deteriorated, corrupt and inhumane.

Own that shit, said Chuck Rocha, a former senior adviser to Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersIn Washington, the road almost never taken Don't let partisan politics impede Texas' economic recovery The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Alibaba - Democrats argue price before policy amid scramble MORE (I-Vt.) and leading campaign strategist who ranthe Democratic presidential candidate'sLatino operation in 2020.

Youve got to get there and be like 'Look, what happened at the border is unacceptable. Theres going to be an investigation and thosef---ing people are going to be fired, and just like [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas said, theres no more horses on the border, youre going to stop that shit right now, not under my watch.

And you get tough about it, he said.

Bidenon Fridayexpressed regret and promised consequences after patrol agents on horseback were captured on photo earlier in the week appearingto spin their reins like a lassoat the Haitian migrants.

Responding to a journalists inquiry about the situation, Biden suggested the scenewas antithetical to the nations principles of inclusion and decency.

To see people treated like they did, horses barely running them over and people being strapped it was outrageous, the president said. I promise those people will pay.

Vice President Harris also said she was outraged by the conduct,comparing the incident to "times of slavery."

The crisis at the border has opened up another avenue for intra-party critiqueas well as attacks from across the aisle at a time when Bidens approval ratings have dropped significantly following the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In a Reuters poll released on Thursday, 51 percent of respondents surveyed said they disapprove of the job the president is doing at this point, while 44 percent approve. A Pew Research survey put out on the same day also found a steep decline in Bidens standing with the public. Fifty-three percent of Americans polled now disapprove of his performance, while 44 percent are in favor of it.

While both sides have lashed out at the administration, Biden is taking particular heat from progressives incensed over the treatment of migrants and what they view as lingering damage undera Democratic administration that promised to reverse Trump's hard-line approach.

Many say Biden has a duty to provide a more humane haven for individuals entering the country and are urging him to do that in practice, on top of hispointed rhetoric.

We cannot allow Trumps policies on asylum to become the default, former Obama-era Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julin Castro told The Hill. We elected President Biden to chart a new course.

Im glad to see President Biden speak out about the mistreatment of Haitian asylum-seekers. But his administrations use of the Trump-era Title 42 policy to deny Haitians their right to seek asylum is equally concerning, added Castro, who ran for president in the 2020 cycle.

Many Democrats like Castro and immigration advocates have denounced the Biden administrations extension of Title 42, which justifies the rejection of some migrants due to possible public health ramifications upon entrance into the U.S. Most recently those fears have been linked to COVID-19.

Stephen MillerStephen MillerJulian Castro knocks Biden administration over refugee policy Why is the Biden administration turning its back on asylum seekers? Defense & National Security: The post-airlift evacuation struggle MORE, a leading architect of Trumps immigration doctrine, reportedly wanted to remove migrants through Title 42, causing outrage at the time among many on the left. The provision still exists under the Biden administration.

The mistreatment of Haitian asylum seekers goes beyond horses and border patrol. Theyre being subjected to the asylum policies of Stephen Miller eight months into the Biden administration, said Sawyer Hackett, who serves as executive director of Castros "People First Future" PAC. Thats inexcusable.

While Biden on Friday publicly addressed the scenes that have inundated the media this week, the White House has gone on the defensive amid a barrage of questions aboutextending some Trump-era border policies.

"First of all, they're not deportations. People are not coming into the country through legal methods, White Housepress secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiBiden does not plan to shield Trump docsin Jan. 6 probe The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Arizona recount to show Trump's loss by even wider margin Watch live: Psaki, Homeland Secretary Mayorkas hold press briefing MORE said about some Haitians being turned away from entering the country.

That answer did not satisfy many progressives. And some members of Congress, including the influential Congressional Black Caucus, which as a group is usually more quiet in its criticism of the president, expressed concerns throughout the week.

Sergio Gonzales, who runs an advocacy network called Immigration Hub, said that the Biden administration should simply return to the most basic promises the president made when seeking office.

On the campaign trail, Biden called Trump's agenda a moral failing and in alist of commitments he pledged to take urgent action to undo Trumps damage and reclaim Americas values, modernize Americas immigration system and welcome immigrants in our communities. He also said he would reassert Americas commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees.

This is the time to go back to the vision, the commitment and the framework that was put out and to recommit to that, said Gonzales. That means not summarily expelling refugees and that means not keeping in place Trump policies like Title 42, but ending those things and then doubling down on the original strategy.

Its a good strategy, it really is, he said.

As tension over the border intensifies, many point to the difficulty of fixing a process that has seen decades of internal issues, particularly at the Department of Homeland Security, which has faced numerous complaints spanning Republican and Democratic administrations.

Others say that on top of that Biden is crippled by competing national crises, making the issue more difficult to manage. One strategist based in Texas said that an influx of people entering the country during a global pandemic inherently raises some health concerns.

I do think it carries risks, said Keir Murray, a longtime Democratic operative from Houston. Because ofCOVID and the economy, dont think public is wild about having a lot of undocumented folks enter.

But Murray, who has been based in the state for many years, sees nuance in the highly polarized issue.

People also [are] justifiably upset at cruel treatment of some of the migrants. Increase in flow of migrants [is] not [the] Biden administrations fault, but its taken them a while to adjust and deal with it.

Tough situation all around, he said.

And while some Democrats are criticizing Biden for one of the biggest immigration controversies yet in his term, others on the left argue the administration needs to do a better job messaging how many deportation policies started before he took office.

Democrats are very, very clutch pearl, Rocha said. Voters want somebody whos going to stand up to them and say, Hey, this aint how we treat people.

Read more here:
Progressives seething over Biden's migrant policies | TheHill - The Hill

There's an obvious way out for Democrats struggling to cobble together the votes for the more liberal reconciliation bill that is part of their two-pronged approach to infrastructure: come together and pass what they can, sending it to President Biden's desk. It will be a win for the president, a sign the party can govern with its narrow majorities, and it will let them run on infrastructure and maybe even bipartisanship in the midterm elections.

The question is whether progressives will go along. They were once in a similar situation with ObamaCare. The public option was a compromise for them, as they preferred something closer to Medicare for All. Then even the public option was stripped out of ObamaCare by moderates and a small number of insurance state Democrats.

Liberals briefly threatened to blow everything up. "Caucus leaders expressed absolute commitment to the idea of a robust public option, and said they expect it to be part of any health-care reform legislation," the office of then Rep. Lynn Woosley, a California Democrat who belonged to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said at the time. Without a public option, said group co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, "we are just showering money upon money upon the same system and the same industry that got us into the mess we're in right now."

But the alternative was no health-care bill at all. No legislative victory for a first-term Democratic president beyond a basically partisan fiscal stimulus package. And, based on what happened after the Bill and Hillary Clinton health-care plan failed to even receive a congressional vote in the 1990s, it was likely Republicans wouldhave been able to use the legislation against them in the midterm elections while Democrats would have had nothing to show for it.

Sound familiar? The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is the left's compromise now, and they are again being asked to settle for even less. Back then, progressives relented. Today they are ready to run a party they are a much bigger part of now than in 2010. Their young leaders are sick of the aging, dwindling moderates. And they are still trying to pass something more ambitious than ObamaCare.

But the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the party do believe in government, and therefore governing. Do they view the GOP's Freedom Caucus, which is often more interested in stopping legislation, as a model for how to do so?

Originally posted here:
Progressives' obvious way out - The Week Magazine

As Germany heads to the polls this weekend, it is the scenario that haunts conservatives nightmares and has progressives daring to dream: that after 16 years of conservative-led rule, Europes most powerful economy could for the next four years have a full-throated leftwing government.

The possibility of a power-sharing deal between the centre-left Social Democratic party (SPD), the Greens and the leftwing Die Linke nicknamed red-green-red or R2G has been highlighted aggressively in recent weeks by the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in an attempt to paint a vote for the current frontrunner for chancellor, the pragmatic finance minister, Olaf Scholz, as tantamount to a radical lurch to the left.

The SPD and the Greens are more quiet on the subject, declining to rule out such a pact in public but voicing ample scepticism in private.

When pressed on the subject several delegates from the two large centre-left parties declined to answer on the record but made their views clear: talk of a red-green-red-run Germany was to them above all a strategic weapon, potentially to nudge the centre-right Free Democratic party (FDP) into joining their governing alliance.

Yet while the chances of the SPD and Greens going out of their way to court Die Linke are slim, Germany is entering uncharted territory with this election: for the first time, a coalition between at least three parties looks inevitable. Old certainties will crumble either way.

Red-green-red isnt an election outcome that is especially likely, but it isnt one you can rule out either, said Stefan Liebich, a Die Linke delegate who has been one of the most vocal advocates of Germanys left bloc overcoming its historic rivalries. Its more than just a bogeyman conjured up by conservatives.

The SPD has been open in principle to talks with its far-left rivals since 2013, when it passed a motion to no longer rule out coalitions with any party apart from rightwing populists and rightwing extremists.

Since then, R2G coalitions have formed and worked together more or less harmoniously in the eastern state of Thuringia, where Die Linke provides the state premier, and in the city states of Berlin and Bremen.

Before Sundays national vote, polls forecast a slim but stable governing majority for a R2G alliance. The parties programmes suggest more scope for joint initiatives than in previous election years, with a study by Berlin WZB Social Science Center finding more policy overlap than between any other parties, especially on social issues.

Paradoxically, some Social Democrats see such commonalities as an obstacle rather than a boon for an effective power-sharing deal: since all three parties already call for a wealth tax, for example, its unclear what policy Die Linke could sell its supporters as a win even if were to get its hands on the coveted labour ministry.

To prepare the ground for a robust and functioning coalition, you need to make sure that no one walks out of talks looking like a loser, said one SPD delegate. Thats difficult enough with two, but it becomes even more difficult when you have three partners.

For Die Linke to join a national German government would still represent the breaking of a taboo not only for the partys history as the democratic successor to the Socialist Unity party, East Germanys all-controlling power, but for its strongly pacifist stance on foreign interventions and military spending.

In its election manifesto, Die Linke calls for dissolving Nato and replacing it with a collective security system with Russias involvement. Even the partys own leaders say such demands pay tribute to historic creeds of faith rather than expressing contemporary ambitions. Discussions of the future of Nato, they say, are already taking place anyway, initiated by centrists such as Frances Emmanuel Macron.

But Die Linkes decision to abstain on last months vote to send German troops on a rescue mission to Afghanistan has illustrated how far it remains apart from the other left-leaning parties on the issue. Its message control is tentative: MPs have used their slots in the Bundestag to voice support for Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and strongmen leaders in South America.

Especially among the Greens, where human rights champions around the chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock are in the ascendancy, there is scepticism verging on disgust over the left partys positions. Clashes with Die Linke over a pan-European military initiative, they say, would be as severe as disagreements with the FDP on matters of financial burden-sharing.

In a reference to Die Linkes ideological baggage, the SPDs Scholz has said he would only form a government with parties who had clearly committed themselves to Nato and a strong EU. And while Die Linkes current leadership is more pro-European than, for example, the nationalist left of Jean-Luc Mlenchon in France, an emphatic commitment to these two key points may be hard to come by.

Willing delegates from the SPD and Die Linke have spent the last few years discussing how their clashing foreign policy views could be reconciled in a coalition. One solution that has been mooted is an internal vote preceding foreign deployment votes, on a case-by-case basis. Most Social Democrats say such a mechanism would be unworkable, especially for longterm UN mandates.

Even then, in the weeks ahead there are likely to be some kind of preliminary talks over a left-bloc alliance. So-called Sondierungsgesprche, tentative talks to test each others willingness to cooperate, usually precede coalition talks proper, and the coalition options to be explored this year are more plentiful than ever.

Should the FDP not move an inch on key Social Democrat pledges such as a minimum wage hike and the new wealth tax, talks with Die Linke may gain momentum.

One argument in favour of a pact with Die Linke could be the far lefts current weakness. With its leads in its former eastern strongholds diminishing, polls forecast the party to only scrape into the Bundestag this year.

The partys leadership duo, Janine Wissler and Susanne Hennig-Wellsow, are relative newcomers on the national stage, and may see entering government as a final chance to reverse the partys decline, even if it means moving some of its red lines of old.

We are entering a new world of three-way coalitions, said one SPD delegate. And we all have yet to work out what the rules of the game are going to be.

Read the rest here:
German progressives dare to dream of leftist red-green-red coalition - The Guardian

With help from Renuka Rayasam

CONGRESSIONAL LOVE LANGUAGES The 1992 best-seller Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus looks today like a reductive exercise in gender stereotypes. But set the retrograde cliches aside: The book accurately conveyed a central truth that might help congressional Democrats as they stare down a brutal fall. Relationship breakdowns happen when you and your partner are communicating on your own terms, rather than trying to find common ground despite different frames of reference.

And lately, Democratic centrists and progressives are not only talking past each other, they are also doing so in two separate languages. So while the binary Mars-Venus frame doesnt work for gender, it might just teach the two camps inside President Joe Bidens party how to live under the same roof without the stakes of its big tent flying away in a gust.

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) are pictured on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. | Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

The first lesson comes from Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). She told POLITICO on Friday that she has the votes within her 96-member bloc to stop the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill from clearing the House next week unless a multitrillion-dollar social spending bill also moves ahead. People want to see us fight for them, she added.

This is Mars talk, more or less. Progressives are willing to risk short-term legislative failure if it connects to their deeply held policy principles because theyre motivated by the fight itself.

Centrists, on the other hand, are from Venus. Heres how Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) addressed the social spending bill in a recent ABC News interview: No one is talking about inflation or debt, and we should have that as part of the discussion. I cant understand why we cant take time, deliberate on this, and work.

Centrists like Manchin would prefer long-term legislative stasis to a short-term failure if it gives them more time to socialize their goals. Theyre motivated by the act of outreach, however performative it may look to their colleagues on the left.

Can Democratic leaders please both fight-for-whats-right liberals and talk-it-through centrists? Possibly, but it would require a conversation about the $550 billion infrastructure bill that bridges this Mars-Venus divide.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) leaves a hearing on Capitol Hill. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Each wing would have to accept the others needs for the whole party to get what it wants. And based on Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinemas recent ultimatum to Biden about walking away from the social spending talks if the House infrastructure vote fails as soon as next week, the chances of that acceptance arent looking good.

The second lesson comes from Reps. Cori Bush (R-Mo.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other progressives who, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled against including immigration reform in the social spending bill, urged their party to push past the rules referee. Top Democrats can and should ignore the parliamentarian, Omar tweeted. The parliamentarian must be overruled, Bush tweeted.

This isnt going to happen, but theyre illustrating a classic element of progressive communication: Always try to move the range of acceptable outcomes.

Think of this as the progressive version of what original Mars/Venus author John Gray described as the cave that Mars denizens retreat to when theyre under pressure. A trip to the cave doesnt necessarily accomplish the goals of Mars natives, but it lets them blow off steam that later helps them communicate better.

To that end, the Democrats left flank is going to naturally want to clamor for bigger and bolder resistance after a defeat like the one they got dealt on immigration. That venting is valuable and is likely to be followed by a come-together moment for the party when the time is right.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas for us at [emailprotected]. Or contact tonights author at [emailprotected] and on Twitter at @eschor.

A message from Altria:

Moving beyond smoking. Altrias companies are leading the way in moving adult smokers away from cigarettes by taking action to transition millions toward less harmful choices. We are investing in a diverse mix of businesses to broaden options beyond traditional, combustible cigarettes. See how were moving.

Dems rope debt to government funding, lassoing GOP into clash: Congressional Democrats are proposing lifting the debt ceiling through the 2022 midterm elections as part of their plans to fund the government into December, leaders said this afternoon. But that measure, which is set for a House vote this week, faces an uncertain future as Senate Republicans remain unwilling to help Democrats neutralize the looming crisis over the nations debt limit when their party controls Congress and the White House.

Bidens broad booster plan driven partly by supply concerns: Top advisers to Biden pushed for his administration to announce a broad booster rollout for September in part because of fears that the U.S. could run short of doses needed to offer the shots to its entire population if vaccines protection decreased suddenly, according to two senior officials with knowledge of the matter. The internal campaign coincided with pleas from international leaders for the U.S. to do more to help lower-and middle-income countries secure initial doses.

Pfizer, BioNTech say Covid-19 shot for kids is safe and provokes strong immune response: The immune response seen in the 5- to 11-year olds enrolled in the late-stage clinical trial was comparable to that seen in teens and young adults, even though the childrens dosage was one-third the amount used in people 12 and over. The companies have not released detailed data from the study, nor have they published the findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Supreme Court sets Dec. 1 for arguments in challenge to Roe v. Wade: The Supreme Court today scheduled Dec. 1 arguments on Mississippis ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippis ban has been blocked by lower courts because it directly violates Roes protections for pre-viability abortions.

Texas doctor sued after saying he defied states new abortion law: A San Antonio doctor who said he performed an abortion in defiance of a new Texas law has been sued by two people seeking to test the legality of the states near-total ban on the procedure.

White House: Possible use of whips on Haitian migrants is horrific: White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed dismay today at images that appeared to show Border Patrol agents using whips on migrants seeking asylum along the U.S.-Mexico border. Psaki said that administration officials were aware of the situation and that its horrible to watch.

U.S. to lift air travel restrictions for fully vaccinated foreigners: The Biden administration is targeting early November for foreign travel to resume for the first time in more than a year. The head of the White Houses Covid-19 Response Team, Jeff Zients, announced today that foreign nationals must show proof of vaccination and proof of a negative Covid-19 test taken three days prior to boarding an airplane.

Attorney for Trump CFO hints at more indictments: A lawyer for Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg said today that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance may bring charges against more people as part of the probe into the former presidents company. Weisselbergs attorney, Bryan Skarlatos, did not say which people might face charges or whether he thinks former President Donald Trump could be among them.

PUTINS PARTY WINS BIG IN DISPUTED ELECTION Russias ruling party on Sunday secured a landslide win in a vote that has been dubbed the most repressive since Soviet times.

With some 85 percent of ballots counted as of early today, United Russia which backs Russian President Vladimir Putin had won 50 percent of the vote, appearing to lose some seats in parliament but paving the way for it to retain its majority.

Three days of voting an extended period the authorities claim is meant to prevent a spread of the coronavirus, but critics argue facilitates vote-rigging brought with it a litany of violations.

In Moscow, results from electronic voting had still not been made public after 12 hours, a delay that critics decried as a sign of tampering.

And as in previous elections, footage shared on social media showed brazen ballot stuffing and harassment of observers. At least one new tactic also surfaced the use of pens with disappearing ink, presumably in order to correct ballots after they had been cast.

LIGHTNING CRASHES The European Commission is set to present a legislative proposal on Thursday to force manufacturers to use a common charger for electronic devices, according to a Commission official closely involved in the file.

The proposal will require all manufacturers to harmonize the charging points on devices using a USB-C charging point and to make their software protocol for fast charging interoperable between brands and devices.

The main target of the new legislation is U.S. tech giant Apple, which has pushed back against EU attempts to standardize chargers through binding requirements, arguing that it will hamper innovation.

CALL MY AGENTS Bob Woodward and Robert Costas Peril, which will be published Tuesday, is the last of this summers flood of books about the end of the Trump presidency. Among the others: Michael Wolffs Landslide, Carol Leonnig and Philip Ruckers I Alone Can Fix It, and Michael Benders Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost.

Washington, D.C., book agent Rafe Sagalyn called the Woodward/Costa book a market test of whether there is still an appetite for Trump era books.

The Trump-related book has been a staple for a few years, but there are signs of fatigue, esp after the 3 bestsellers from last month, Sagalyn wrote in an email to Nightlys Renuka Rayasam.

Sagalyn and two other books agents that Nightly spoke with still werent quite sure what comes next for political book publishing. Agents dont think Biden will juice the publishing industry in the same way. Its hard to envision a Biden book full of the kind of salacious gossip thats made Trump books so popular over the years.

Trump was a singular, horrific figure, Gail Ross, president of the Ross Yoon agency, told Nightly. The aftereffects are just extraordinary.

Ross and Elyse Cheney, the agent who repped Leonnig and Rucker, each separately predicted that the next generation of post-Trump political books will be more issue- and idea-oriented and less focused on the occupant of the Oval Office.

We will use the term political book more elastically, Ross said. People are reading more during the pandemic or at least buying books to fill their Zoom background shelves.

Ross just sold a book from Sherrilyn Ifill about being on the cliff of democracy. Policy books can be as successful as the scandal book, she said.

Cheney said shes been obsessed lately with the idea that civilization is collapsing and that Big Tech executives hold as much power as the president. She would love to see more books about the behind the scenes worlds of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, though she admits Silicon Valley tends to be less dishy and transparent than Washington.

The relief of not having Trump in office is being able to think about things on a bigger scale, Cheney said. Or being able to think at all.

Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

A message from Altria:

Moving beyond smoking. Altrias companies are leading the way in moving adult smokers away from cigarettes. Today, we are taking action to transition millions toward less harmful choices.

From cigarettes to innovative alternatives. By investing in a diverse mix of businesses, Altria is working to further broaden options. Our companies are encouraging adult smokers to transition to a range of choices that go beyond traditional, combustible cigarettes.

From tobacco company to tobacco harm reduction company. And while Altria is moving forward to reduce harm, we are not moving alone. We are working closely with FDA and other regulatory bodies, and will work strictly under their framework.

See how were moving.

View post:
Progressives are from Mars, Manchin is from Venus - Politico

President Biden and AOC. Illustrated | AP Images, Getty Images, iStock

There's an obvious way out for Democrats struggling to cobble together the votes for the more liberal reconciliation bill that is part of their two-pronged approach to infrastructure: come together and pass what they can, sending it to President Biden's desk. It will be a win for the president, a sign the party can govern with its narrow majorities, and it will let them run on infrastructure and maybe even bipartisanship in the midterm elections.

The question is whether progressives will go along. They were once in a similar situation with ObamaCare. The public option was a compromise for them, as they preferred something closer to Medicare for All. Then even the public option was stripped out of ObamaCare by moderates and a small number of insurance state Democrats.

Liberals briefly threatened to blow everything up. "Caucus leaders expressed absolute commitment to the idea of a robust public option, and said they expect it to be part of any health-care reform legislation," the office of then Rep. Lynn Woosley, a California Democrat who belonged to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said at the time. Without a public option, said group co-chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, "we are just showering money upon money upon the same system and the same industry that got us into the mess we're in right now."

But the alternative was no health-care bill at all. No legislative victory for a first-term Democratic president beyond a basically partisan fiscal stimulus package. And, based on what happened after the Bill and Hillary Clinton health-care plan failed to even receive a congressional vote in the 1990s, it was likely Republicans would have been able to use the legislation against them in the midterm elections while Democrats would have had nothing to show for it.

Sound familiar? The $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is the left's compromise now, and they are again being asked to settle for even less. Back then, progressives relented. Today they are ready to run a party they are a much bigger part of now than in 2010. Their young leaders are sick of the aging, dwindling moderates. And they are still trying to pass something more ambitious than ObamaCare.

Story continues

But the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes of the party do believe in government, and therefore governing. Do they view the GOP's Freedom Caucus, which is often more interested in stopping legislation, as a model for how to do so?

Did Theranos Lose Afghanistan?

There's 'no way' to predict Joe Manchin's reconciliation vote, says former adviser

How Gavin Newsom ran away with the recall

Read the original:
Will progressives cave on Biden's reconciliation bill? - Yahoo News