What the "no labels" folks really are

[DonCoquixote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels

A simple wikipedia page shows who these folks are, the Jon Hunstmans, The Joe Liebermans, the Howard Kurtz of Starbucks, Joe manchins, Cory Bookers. All of them are famous for playing a game where they say just enough to lure Democrats, but then, when push comes to shove, they glady sing the praises of "entitlement reform" "education reform", and any number of measures that wind up being "take away money from government and give it to those clowns on Wall Street who will either gamble it off or outright steal it.

Simple put, the so called "centrists" have been very good at infecting both the Elephant and the Donkey, especially the Donkey. Clinton sold the Donkey a whole load of infected feed, telling him it was medicine to keep from getting beat up by that Elephant that the Koch brothers and Churches pumped full of steroids. The Donkey did get stronger, but it got unhealthy, and addicted to the feed. The poor Donkey could not even do half of what it wanted to do, even when they won an election, because it sold it's health for the cheap mojo Clinton peddles. On the other hand, those Steroids the Elephant took made them so unmanagable that even the Wall Street ringmasters panicked, after all, the dumb beast was just supposed to be the muscle, not the brain!

So, for all those people who wanted all the money, all the power, but not be held to any sort of principle (especially ones involving the middle and lower classes), but did not want to admit they were evil (after all, you cannot infect a host if you are honest about being a parasite) they had to think fo something new, a new host to feed off of. Enter no Labels, which is another way of saying "we know that a label implies a brand, that implies principles, and we cannot have that because we want to disown people when the right moment comes." In short, No Labels is just the latest morph of the fine folks that will betray anyone and everyone, as long as they get paid well. We saw this back when Huffpo supported Jon Huntsman, and we can expect Huffpo, MSNBC, and the usual "reasonable folks" to gild these cheap knockoffs and sell them as antiques.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. I never trusted the "No Labels" group ever since I saw that Mark McKinnon had co-founded this

moderate Republican front group.

He was a campaign adviser to GW Bush, and that was enough for me to tune them out.

[Laelth]

2. k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t

-Laelth

[cui bono]

3. I second that. n/t

[Dragonfli]

4. You have them pegged perfectly IMO. The no label goals

are the same ones they have been selling from within both parties since the bipartisan attacks from them began against the country in the eighties.

Their pet projects include, and have always included, free trade, "entitlement reform", financial deregulation, tax "fairness" for corporations and the investor class, and privatization of everything in site.

They like to claim that accomplishing these goals are the result of sensible compromises that this country needs to get past gridlock and accomplish the work of government.

That of course assumes that the work of government is to achieve profit for the top, while extracting protections and government support from the bottom, they are increasingly successful and their victories are bringing a new gilded age of extreme class stratification that is creating a neo-Dickensian era for the 21st century right before our eyes. A world populated by the hopelessly poor with no chance of ever being anything else and a lucky few possessing incredible wealth and a new and increasingly extensive immunity from the rule of law with increasingly fewer between them as the middle class becomes more and more nothing but a memory.

I have labels for them, none of them polite or flattering.

[cali]

5. My rep is a member and he's without doubt one of the most progressive members of

Congress and has never endorsed any right wing shit. he's far, far to the left of the President and 95%+ of congressional dems.

Peter Welch, btw

Welch supports a Progressive Democratic position on most issues, as evidenced by his high ratings by Progressive interest groups and low ratings by conservative ones.[6]

On the issue of abortion, Welch was given a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. However, the National Right to Life Committee gave him a rating of 0.[6] Welch voted no on the November 7, 2009 amendment to President Obama's health care bill that prohibited federally funded abortions.[7] On the issue of gay rights, PFLAG and the Human Rights campaign rated Welch as 100% supportive of their position.[6] Welch has sustained a liberal stance on the issues of abortion and gay rights despite his identification as a Roman Catholic.[8]

Several organizations such as Americans for Fair Taxation and the National Taxpayers Union gave Welch 0 percent or F ratings. Though these organizations state they are nonpartisan, their pressure for a flatter tax rate has garnered them support from mostly Republican politicians.[9] Welch also voted no on the 2009-2010 Defense Spending Appropriations bill.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Welch

[TheKentuckian]

6. You ought to write him and see why he is giving the other fucks cover then.

Or why he thinks he needs cover from them.

Either way he is suspect due to association and he sure as hell doesn't make the organization any less suspect considering the broader membership and aims.

[DonCoquixote]

9. bingo

Because a Jon Huntsman and a Joe Lieberman will make sure to undo whatever good this guy does.

[Zorra]

7. Shitty people often don't like to be identified by what they do. nt

[kydo]

8. Don't they wear that round and red pin

Seems like they labeled themselves with the pin they all wear. I see lots rethugs wearing them so it makes me think they don't mean it. I mean they have been wearing the US flag pin while they burn the country the last 10 years. What makes you think wearing a no label pin will make them ditch the political rhetoric.