Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Atrios:

Around the internets some are taking issue with my assertion that a year ago some sort of HCR seemed inevitable. Perhaps it was just irrational exuberance at the time, but certainly everyone I talked to, from congressional staffers to people working for HCAN, seemed to think it was basically inevitable, the only question being how good it would be, specifically whether or not there would be a public option. At the time, such irrational exuberance also led people to think that we had a good chance of decent climate change legislation and EFCA. Obama was very popular at the time, and one assumed that popularity could translate into some quick results.

This is a little off topic at the moment, but it brings up something I’ve long been curious about. When Atrios says “EFCA,” I assume that he, like everyone else, means “EFCA with card check.” (Background here if you don’t know what I’m talking about.) That was always the holy grail for the labor movement, after all. And it’s true that a fair number of people were optimistic about passing this.

But where did that optimism come from? I’m in favor of card check myself, but that never blinded me to the fact that there was never anything close to 60 votes for it in the Senate. As near as I could tell, it was a pipe dream. But maybe I missed something. Can anyone tell me just why anyone thought EFCA was ever likely to pass?

(As for climate change, that was always going to be a harder sell than healthcare reform. It’s all spinach and no dessert. Still, at least it had — and still has — a small chance of passage in some form or another.)

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate