Why the ‘No Labels’ Movement Will Fail
Writing on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, William Galston and David Frum announced the formation of what they hope will be a new bipartisan movement which they dub “No Labels.” Their goal, commented Commentary editor John Podhoretz, is “to embrace the concept that American politics should move beyond ideological camps.” I differ slightly with Podhoretz in his evaluation of their would-be goal.
As Galston and Frum write, they believe that “the center has collapsed, and ideological overlap between the parties has vanished.” The Republicans in their eyes are too far to the right, and the Democrats too far to the left. As they explain, “Although 30 percent of grass-roots Republicans consider themselves moderate or liberal, and 60 percent of Democrats consider themselves moderate or conservative, their voices are muted in the nation’s capital. As increasingly polarized media feed centrifugal forces, potential primary challengers stand ready to punish deviation from party orthodoxies. Only 22 percent of the Pew respondents thought that cooperation was likely to happen under these circumstances.”
What they clearly want, but shy away from saying, is a new centrist party to emerge from the heart of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. I should note that this was once my hope as well. In a book I wrote in 1996 about the left-wing takeover of the Democratic Party, I concluded with these words:
“The Democratic Party as a whole has shifted to the Left, precisely at the moment when the Republican Party has shifted toward the Right. That means that the old political Center has eroded once and for all — a fact that has led many Americans to hope for the creation of a new political party of the Center, the kind that might be led by the likes of Bill Bradley, Colin Powell or Sam Nunn.”
At the time, I considered myself a center-right Democrat, much like Bill Galston is today. Therefore I hoped for the creation of a new “political realignment” that would create a force for “fiscal and personal responsibility, cultural conservatism, and a more limited and constrained social safety net.”
Now, I consider myself a moderate conservative, and, as I argued in a previous blog post, many of the moderate Democrats are in fact asserting the viability and correctness of conservative programs, which is why I argued that perhaps Democrats like Galston and Ed Koch might consider becoming Republicans. Then they might have more of a chance to gain support for the solutions they favor to today’s problems. Their arguments are really conservative solutions and far from those favored by most Democrats. By joining the Republican Party, they could help make it more of a big-tent party, not a party shifting too far to the right.
The problem with the Galston-Frum argument is that rather than try and move to what I think they really want — a moderate conservative party — they have come up with something that is little more than a gimmick, creating a movement which they argue is based on attaining a single goal: “to expand the space within which citizens and elected officials can conduct that conversation without fear of social or political retribution.” A movement, in other words, that will avoid “partisanship.”
Let’s stop on the latter point. What is wrong with partisanship? Aren’t political parties and candidates supposed to stand for something, so that the electorate knows what they are voting for or against? At one point, FDR even said that he hoped America would create one national conservative party and one national liberal party, so that the choice between the two would be starkly presented and then Americans could choose which direction they wanted the country to move towards. In a way, we are about at that point now. If the silent majority of the public — the group Galston and Frum cite as their basis for a new movement — do not like the present set-up, then a new party would emerge from the remnant of one of the two existing major parties.
An irrelevant and silly idea from irrelevant and silly people? Why, I shocked! Shocked, I tell ya!
I will take this opportunity and pretend that I am a reincarnated Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why can’t i have some fun? Labels are inherent in human communication. The only question is whether they are accurate. That’s it in a nutshell. Anybody pretending otherwise is unbelievably naive.
Not just communication, but rational thought. Without the ability to identify ideas and things, and relate them to one another, you become a blithering Post Modernist idiot.
Even you, Ron…in this attempt to be even-handed in your critique, fall into the trap of feeling it necessary to substitute “equivalency tests” as a substitute for fairness and balance.
One often sees this in comparing Fox News to MSNBC. It’s not a close comparison, in fact, it’s a rather ridiculous comparison.
I try to be measured in most of my contributions, at times something sets my blood boiling and I write in a more passionate voice, but I have tried to be measured and rational at all times.
I think Obama is seeped in Marxism and most certainly has shown an open ear to socialism and even communism. Van Jones was nominated to a position of extreme power, Harry Boyte, Michael Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis were not incidental passersby in his life.
The New Party, Midwest Institute and ACORN were not distant ports on his lifelong journey.
What I fail to properly comprehend, perhaps, is why calling someone a “marxist” or “socialist”…or even a “communist” based upon their lifelong attachment to those ideologies, is somehow automatically unfair.
Based upon the evidence, it is either more likely or less likely…but it is not baseless if evidence indeed exists.
What bothers me most is the continued attempt to hide the truth. All the secrecy, the stealth, the masking and cover-up of what is a lifetime pattern filled with thousands of words, acts, deeds. It is the lying about what one truly stands for and against that bothers me. The deceit. The con game.
Not innocent political puffery and “tilting” toward the center in order to get votes type of “misleading”…but the full mask over stealth far leftism, posing as centrism.
If Frum especially is ok with that, then I am not ok with Frum.
If a position is solid enough to be imposed on the citizens of this land of ours, it doesn’t need to hide behind a charade, a facade, or a mask…posing as something else.
I am generally a live and let live type on social issues, a strong supporter of our military and national defense interests, a very Pro-Israel defender, I believe in small government and less interference in business and a believer in fair is fair, right is right, wrong is wrong “deliberator” on all other issues.
If someone wants to put a label on that, it’s fine with me…as long as it is truthful and accurately portrays who I am. I’m not hiding behind any masks or pretending to be something I’m not.
It does not appear to me that Frum and I are on the same page. I’m moving toward calling things exactly what they are…he seems to be running scared from everyone else being called exactly what they are.
And…by the way…Stanley Kurtz is right…and he’s a hero for having the skill and the guts for telling us exactly how it is. Frum is dead wrong on Stanley and owes him an apology. A public one.
Everyone has an angle.
Frum discovered he can make a good living by calling himself a conservative and appearing on liberal outlets bashing other conservatives, and giving credibility to fools by pretending to be someone from “the other side” agreeing with the libwit inanities. He’s a Harvard lawyer which means he can wash his own brain and justify anything to himself and other lawyers.
He’s getting rich doing it. He probably worships little Paulie Krugman.
cfb: I could not agree more.
In fact, I would argue that the areas of overlap are _exactly_ the problem.
America’s present situation was the fault of both the Republicans and the Democrats. This is to say the areas where they overlap (or resulting from compromise of principle) have allowed these monstrous bureaucracies to develop which, quite aside from everything else that is wrong with bureaucracies, are beginning to destroy their host States with, with, with their retirees!
It is time to present the electorate with a real choice between ideologies and rid the leadership of its squishes. On both sides. America is about choice, that defining characteristic of freedom. Have faith that the electorate, when presented with a clear choice, will choose the side that will reign in the scope of government.
Just look at what’s happening in Europe for a view into America’s short-term future in the Obama economy as Nations, unable to meet their financial obligations — a large chunk of which is retired State employees’ pensions — are forced to slash spending in other areas (aka services). There is rioting in the streets! Now we see stories of the same financial problems in municipalities and states around America. (No rioting, yet.) Governments financially failing are being forced to face reality and cut their budgets. They are being forced to make choices. Remember, it is the choices that the leadership of the sides agreed upon that got us here. Do you trust them to make more choices for you?
Getting rid of the overlap — that squishy centre that spans both sides –– will ensure that whoever wins wins because of what they stand for and will stand against. It will restore some trust in government because the electorate will have made the choices at the ballot box. All their elected representatives need do then is to put the plan in motion.
Sorry for the length of the above.
PS: Congrats on your new byline for PJM.
A tangential thought on Europe, since you mentioned that bilious continent.
When I first saw that “No Labels” movement, I rolled my eyes and thought of the European Union. Maybe the “No Labels” movement will issue lapel buttons that resemble the euro, soon to go the way of the ducat.
Okay, cf old buddy
, I will put a label on you. You are a small ‘l’ libertarian. Which puts you to the Right of me! No Centerfield for you today. 
“What they clearly want, but shy away from saying, is a new centrist party to emerge from the heart of both the Democratic and Republican parties.”
What in hell does this mean in practical terms? Does one become half a Keynesian in order to keep everyone happy? This is, alas, mushy sentimentalism disguised as serious thought. I am also reminded how ridiculous it would be to reach a centrist opinion regarding Joseph Mengele.
I hear YA’. There IS Good, and there IS evil… what cause a “centrist”? Would it call a Man 3/5ths human?
The mushy middle is an extreme all it’s own.
I believe it was Ayn Rand who asked where the compromise is between food and poison.
A strong article, but it would be stronger if you didn’t use strawmen, Mr. Radosh. I’ll only point out one (I happen to be very tired because I was up since 6am):
“I would agree that others have used that as an epithet to attack Obama, but Stanley Kurtz is not guilty of that particular sin.”
It is not an epithet to call Obama what he is. Unlike Mr. Kurtz, who has the means and time to investigate Obama’s background thoroughly to reach his conclusion, others like myself have to use whatever crumbs that come our way to try and form a picture for Obama. We have to listen to his words, observe his deeds, read his past memoir (“Dreams of My Father”, not that rushed BS to sell books “Audacity of Hope”) to come to a snap conclusion. After doing all of this, I determined that the man is a socialist, but is afraid to communicate that to the American people.
If Mr. Kurtz comes along and validates that position for you, then why can you not retroactively apply that validation to others who had to form the same opinion on the fly?
To use another analogy: Absent hard evidence, most criminal convictions hinge the ability to take circumstantial evidence and present a compelling case to a jury to convict a defendant. Most people including myself who call Obama a socialist took all the available circumstantial evidence and was convinced that it was true and therefore stuck to that assertion. Mr. Kurtz simply did us all a favor and concretely proved everything we believed to be true.
You have the “moderate” part down pat, Mr. Radosh, but I wish you would have more faith in the “conservative” part.
Don’t kid yourself. There was no lack of information about the criminal. It wasn’t “crumbs”.
In fact, there was probably more known and clearly stated about the guy than about anyone who has ever run for President in our history. The problem wasn’t lack of information; the problem was a proactive, willful, deliberate COVERUP of the truth about the guy.
American have never had traitors as politicians until Kerry and Obama came along. We automatically assume that anybody who reaches the lofty level of running for President is a highly capable and honorable person. Radicals leveraged that mindset, along with an active campaign of disinformation, to put a man in office who is less qualified than Adolf Hitler (who was an army corporal and a rabble rouser, rather than a con man and a rabble rouser), and one who has proven to be far less competant.
As I was still employed at the time working ridicules hours I had to rely on little information to form an opinion about the unknown Mr Obama. “Ill make card check the law of the land” and “spread the wealth” was all I needed to reach the firm conclusion that Obama was at best a socialist. I’m astounded that anyone could have any doubts after a few months of his regime. Walk, talk, quack.
You know, the more I look at it, the more I dislike this Alphonse and Gaston routine going on with Obama at the present.
The unhinged left of him shouts, waves their hands and screeches “Look over here, we are insane and we are angry and we are yelling at “The One”.
Obama then takes the stage and says: “Now all you crazy people, settle down. Yes, the Republicans and conservatives kick puppies, hunted and killed the Easter Bunny and bite the heads off babies for breakfast…but, you are to the left of me and they are to the right of me…which makes me a calm, reasonable, rational centrist.
So, on the political spectrum, the anarchists, the social democrats are to the right of him (as is nearly everyone else) and Communism is the new normal? (or is that small c communism?)
When someone says we need “redistribution” of wealth; you have earned enough; the “rich” are the “enemy”; takes over the auto industry and puts the workers party ahead of other creditors; breaks down the immigration system in order to gorge the system with the lowest level of workers instead of and ahead of doctors, engineers and physicists;when the Department of Justice operates as a backwoods “street shed” for “redistributing justice according to color; when states go bankrupt for the want of funding for “government workers” and their bloated pensions;
…some may not want to call that Marxist theory in action. Some may not want to call it socialism at work.
That’s fine.
Somebody explain to me what the hell it would look like, if it WAS Marxist or Socialist theory at work…and how, if one wanted to disguise it…it would look different than this?
And, while they are explaining those differences in stealth implementation, maybe they can explain to me what those screaming mimi’s to the left of Obama would want to impose instead?
Give me an appropriate name to call this…and them. How do I refer to them and what they are doing and calling for to be done?
Anyone?
OBAMUNISM?
Repressive destructivists.
I had an idea years and years ago when I was a proud urban lefty terrified along with all the other proud urban lefties that the “right-wing” (of which I knew nothing about other than what I was told by other lefties) was a carbon copy of the Nazi party and Bush was about to become Hitler. Now while sounding great and feeding all the right emotional centres of the leftwing brain, if thought about rationally, just didn’t ring true, even to me, the hardened lefty that I was.
The thought I had which kept interfering in my enjoyment of the regular “two minutes hate” that lefties engage in regarding Bush and anybody right of Stalin, was that there’ll never be another Hitler, just like there wasn’t another Napolean or Lecter or Khan (or Washington or Jefferson).
What comes next will be something so different that we won’t recognise it as being a danger or threat until the threat is upon us, it will be something that we have not seen before and by virtue of the fact that so many have their heads pointed backwards looking for the past to repeat itself they won’t be able to see nor even identify what ever it is that’s happening right now.
So I don’t think there is a label that can be applied to this current “movement”…yet. We haven’t seen the true measure of just what this movement has in store for the world, but one thing is fundamental to all movements like it; it’s the usual mix of totalitarian / authoritarian / collectivist infections that comes about at least once a century in the west.
This time though with technology, an immense state with access to and control over the individuals private life, absolutely no community cohesion and a decimated family unit and little religion the likes of which 100 years ago couldn’t have been conceived to act as buffers between the man and the state, this time we’re in for a hell of a bumpy ride.
Power-mad. Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, ad nauseum are merely means to an end. The end is power. Even the little bits of power the supporters get. They get to have power. They MUST have it! And they thought they had it, too.
It was a glorious new day. The Far Left had taken over, and their Goebbels in the Old Media made it happen. They had Power. Real Power. Constitution? “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?” – Pelosi Cue the music: “I’ve got the Power!”
Then the Tea Parties happened.
Now the power junkies no longer have their power fix. They are jonesing for their fix… and they can’t get it. So, they become completely unhinged, baying at the moon, raging at those who have denied them. They have gone mad.
Power-mad.
The label, or nomenclature, doesn’t matter at this time. Until all American Citizens are blindly obedient servants of this Democrat Regime, these demagogues will not be victorious and supreme.
Sorry, but as long as the establishment wings in the GOP and the Democrats are better displays of the Bourbons in the 21st. Century (it was said of them that they forgot nothing, and they learned nothing), than being adept at handling the challenges of the day, with the latest exhibit being this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703963704576005952462743930.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_politics
We wind up with the situation where there is a fork in the road. Either a third party, or the break up of the US along the lines of what Igor Panarin wrote, will be the result.
I’ve heard a little bit about this ‘no labels’ group from a couple of lesser known politicians locally that are part of the group. What I was told they were interested in is redistricting and making sure Republicans don’t get the lines drawn the way they would like with their new State majorities. By (pretending) to be non-partisan they are hoping to be the arbitrators when things get heated.
Whether this is true or not we will see.
In my opinion a moderate is someone that either doesn’t believe in anything and will go along with the shifts in the electorate driven by the passionate or is someone only loosely attached to their beliefs. I’m suspicious of people who have no firm beliefs for which they’re willing to fight. I loathe Liberals but at least you know where they stand. Not so with a “moderate”.
I believe that moderates are largely responsible for the condition of our nation. On the Right, moderates get elected and then negotiate away conservative attempts to restrain government only to succeed in slowing rather than reversing the slow march of socialism. On the Left, as we’ve seen with the Blue Dogs, moderates join forces with the Lefties which moves us down the Road to Serfdom faster.
Better to have two distinct partisan parties from which to choose.
The best way to solve this, again, in my opinion, is to have a strong federalist system so that the residents of the many states can choose to be Left or Right on so many of the issues the federal government has usurped from the states. A federal government properly restrained to only its Constitutional role would greatly diminish the partisanship at the federal level. With states the majority of residents can choose where on the ideological spectrum they wish to be and those that disagree can move. With divisive social issues, welfare statism, et al managed at the federal level there is no escape and thus the bitterness, divisiveness, and utter contempt for government we the people have toward our elected officials.
The Left and Right ought to be able to come to an agreement on a weaker central government. Only the socialists masquerading as Democrats are opposed because they don’t want us to escape, they want to force all of us to subsidize the welfare state. They seek to control all of us and all of our life’s choices.
If we can’t agree to live peacefully in federalism then the Left must be crushed before they manage to make indentured servants of us all.
A really interesting analysis. Analogous events in the 17th (i.e. The Glorious Revolution of 1688) century suggest that a weaker central government is the result when the Left and the Right jointly endorse somebody for president who is committed to the roll back of the central government apparatus
David Frum is an irrelevant has-been. “No Labels” would be more appropriately named “Look at Me (please!).” I’m certain his latest Quisling adventure will get him booked on Hardball a few times in the role of Mortified Conservative. Outside the fringe nuts who watch that show, he will continue to slide into a well-earned invisibility. I will be kind and describe his four-person movement as “Thought Police” although it essentially is a futile fascist effort to force people to speak and think in such a way that agrees with him.
Kurtz absolutely devastated Frum, but these days that is no different that torturing small and wounded animals discarded by the road.
Cool, let’s start with the no label census, counting “bodies” only. Then, let’s move on (no pun in intended) ending all those popular affirmative action programs that promote bodies with different labels. While we’re are at it, how about a no label registration procedure for the Selective Service, so all bodies, not just those bodies labeled “male” and 18 years old, are required to register. Then we do a truly random selection from that pool of eligible “draftees” and we get a truly random normal distribution curve across all income and gender groups for the armed forces, which should result in equal death rates for equal pay for all! Cool! Let’s do it!
“No Labels” from the LEFT?
How are Leftists going to address their ‘base’ without their favorite group-think plethora of ‘labels’?
“Women”
“Union”
“Gays”
“Blacks”
“Hispanics”
“American Indians”
“Muslims”
“Pedophiles”
“Socialists”
“Communists”
“Terrorists”
I’m not holding my breath any time soon waiting for the day when Lefties actually address their constituency as simply “people”.
Also, fingering someone as a Marxist/Socialist isn’t a a smear-tactic by any stretch (especially since many of these folks are quite proud of their status within their own group but know that their beliefs won’t jive with the general populace), it’s a truth-tactic (if it does fit I won’t acquit). The ’0-admin’ and surrounding crazy cronies, purposely appointed czars and assorted myriad of way-out-there whackadoodles all point to Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Anti-American/Anti-Capitalism and anyone who doesn’t see that firsthand has to be deaf, dumb and blind.
What I like about the Left is how often they label minority speakers or singers as Choctaw/Sioux Peruvian/Native American/Aymara or whatever and whites just by their name. Without labels the Left couldn’t use their code to let us know who the good guys are and who are the endemic white racists who’s culture basically consists of succeeding off the backs of non-whites and eating macaroni and cheese, the quintessential white dish. I love DemocracyNow, who basically admit in their name that they can’t see it.
Welcome to the Canadian Solution…
Welcome to the Canadian Solution…
Coming to you from the Left is the (not so) New Democratic Party
…and on the Right is the Conservative Party
and in the Center is The Liberal Party of Canada
which is a collection of Big Government types from the Left and the Right catering to every Leftist and Rightist special interest group it can find in its quest for votes. Strangely enough, because they have neither Leftish Social Principles nor Rightish Fiscal Principles, they are in fact The “Unprincipled Party of Canada” dedicated sole to staying in power for its own sake.
“. . . in the Center is The Liberal Party of Canada”: Tracy, I don’t think so!
The Liberals (and NDP–Socialist–and Bloc Quebecois–Separatist–and Green Party–Environmentalist) are Canada’s Democrats, and there’s nothing “centre” about them: everything is about what “tribe” one belongs to. Then, exploit one’s “affirmative action” advantage and vote Liberal (Left). But, Canadians aren’t–at least, not enough for the Liberals, “the governing party of Canada”, to form the government: again, we have a minority Conservative government. (Our estimable Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is treated by the elites in much the same way G. W. Bush was/is.)
Little by little, ordinary citizens are getting the whole, crooked, left-wing, MSM-approved picture–and rejecting it. Thank God!
Socialist is not a pejorative. It is a definition of a certain political agenda. One which truly stinks, of course.
This Third Way, these moderates, we have already tried it. It was called the Bush administration and the moderate Republican Congress.
Let’s see, which of these were not bipartisan?
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Part D (unfunded)
Patriot Act
Afghanistan
Iraq invasion
Increased deficits
Social Security Reform failure
Folks, when the Leftists say we on the Right need to tack to the center to win elections, well, this is what a moderate government looks like: the Bush years.
If you are on the Left, Bush was horrible. If you are on the far-Right (including libertarians), Bush was horrible, except his irreproachable pro-life stance.
We tried a moderate government, and it stank, unless you are a moderate. We followed with a Leftist government, and it is worse. Not much else left to try but a Rightist government. So, that’s what we did in this election. We went right.
You got a problem with that, Frum? Oh wait. I forgot. You are a moderate. You liked the Bush years, right? Lots of great cocktail parties then.
Socialism was just the gateway drug to Communism, only, now, Western countries are realizing (for the most part) the folly of the ponzi scheme and trying to rescue their countries without dictatorship.
The irony that so man Socialist countries epically FAILED whilst 0bama came into power had to be a bit of divine providence (if you don’t mind me getting a bit mystical here).
What a clever and dishonestly disingenuous way of making it look like there is this large group that agrees with him. However, let’s say it a different way using his numbers:
That looks to me like a huge majority is center-right, just like all the surveys show:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
Conservatives plus moderates equals 75% of the country, but liberals plus moderates is only 56%.
Since when do we need to include any liberals at all in this moderate-conservative majority? Frum can take a hike.
You can fuss over percentages and math geek stuff, but, isn’t it just a little bit disappointing and a sad reality-check on our body-politic that Barack Hussein 0bama got elected at all?
David Frum sums up all that was wrong with the Dubya administration. He naturally would like an artifice like a “non-partisan” political movement because he’s made himself unwelcome to the ascendant conservatives and the liberals don’t want him. He’s a man without a political home.
Funny how the conservatives have moved further to the right and yet look where we are. Among many other things fighting just to maintain a current level of taxes. Some move to the right, but such nonsense only shows who has been winning.
Re Frum & company, bet your bippie that No Name politics will go left, some so called moderate blather here and there, but left.
These domestic political terms are misleading. The similar case would be ‘Communist’ and ‘anti-Communist’. Communists have a comprehensive political/social/economic system which they are working hard even today to impose on any state they can get control over. Domestically, the people attempting to impose this system on the United States call themselves Leftists, socialists, progressives, whatever…. The fact is that they are pushing a particular agenda, and the people who oppose them are not. Rightists, Libertarians, religious — the Left’s opponents have different outlooks on politics and are united only in opposition to the Left. Fair labelling then, will designate Leftists as such and refer to their opponents only as anti-Leftists. “No labels” — what a crock! Q-who do you think benefits from this? A-people who are properly identified by a label which most folks disagree with. You notice conservatives don’t object to being called conservatives (that’s why the Left tries to label them as fascists, Klansmen, etc.). But the reason Leftists object to labels — any labels, is that it’s a quick and understandable way of identifying them as proponents of the Leftist program.
The office of the President of the United States of America has been achieved by pure LIES. The image of Obama was moulded by the media.He is not the same person that campaigned. It would be interesting to make a true list of his lies. On the other hand it is VERY disturbing that the office can be gained by ANYONE with the right backing. He is NOT Hitler, but he came to power with the same campaign machine.How much of America will be destroyed when he is finished? Will anyone have the guts to dissolve his laws ? Will the good people of America have a chance against the Soros power hungry elite?…..I hope and pray so.
Id be all for centrists to take back the Democrat Party. Then we can have a rational debate among patriots about what is best for the country.
Sideline the Communists and New Left Radical Identity Politics Groups.
that would create a force for “fiscal and personal responsibility, cultural conservatism, and a more limited and constrained social safety net.”
IOW, the Tea Party movement.
We need labels so that everyone knows where everyone stands.
This is played out. Some years ago another politician trued to “erase the horizon,” go “”beyond good and evil,” and create a “Third Way” between communism and capitalism. It was a disaster. His name was Adolph Hitler.
Why is it that whenever the Republicans win big a group of sniffy, Mrs. Grundyish finger-waggers spring up to decry the “extremity” of modern politics? Where where these guys when the Alan Graysons, the Maxine Walters and Howard Deans of the world were howling, with real venom, how much they “hated” Republicans? I won’t even mention the seven years of bilious slander directed at President Bush.
The fact that this movement is funded by Mayor Bloomberg brings to mind the character called “D.B. Norton” in Frank Capra’s “Meet John Doe.” The main difference is that Mr. Bloomberg lacks the urbane charm and witty intelligence of the great Edward Arnold. This whole thing is a stalking-horse for Bloomberg and a soft-left ploy to try and take the steam out of the Tea Party movement. The New York Times ans WaPo people will love it.
Basically this is the failed Coffee Party does anyone remember that mess, well here you have the same thing, heck with Bloomberg promoting it, a man who might be a Republican or might be a Democrat or might be well anything that helps in his political endeavors what do you expect?
I think this is just another fad that will in the next six months be just a faded memory, but not the TEA PARTY they are real and still mad and ready for a fight!
Eliminate ideology, and stand for absolutely nothing? How genius! a sure-fire way to garner support – for what, I do not know…and neither do they.
That’s my little bit of sarcasm for the day.
I just saw the kickoff press conference for this so called “No Labels” group. What I saw was completely different from the speech police Ron Radosh sees. To me, this is clearly a Democrat attempt to co-opt at least some of the Tea Party influence and channel it toward more Democrat votes. These people don’t want a third centrist party, they just want to claim support of some of the tea party canards in order to push for much of the Democrat agenda and get a few confusable Tea Party folks to cast well meaning votes for the Democrats next time. This organization is no different from Air America, the Sierra Club, NOW, AARP, NAACP, NEA, AFL-CIO, and countless other operational arms of the Democrat Party. It is designed for only one thing, to push the Tea Party to the left. This is right out of the Democrat playbook.
This is just my opinion, but we will see what this group does in the lead-up to the next election. I am hoping for a quick demise for this latest attempt to organize the useful idiots.
The center will re-emerge as soon as the Dems get rid of the marxists now dominating their party.