The Third Way: 'Why are Democrats affiliated with this group that wants to gut Democratic Programs?'

[sabrina 1]

Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 06:39 PM - Edit history (3)

In this article from Richard (RJ) Eskow , some very pertinent questions now about the presence of this Wall St backed Think Tank in the Democratic Party.

Questions that are growing by the day as their control over the Dem Party shows signs of crumbling, finally.

The Democrats' 'Third Way' Quarrel Could Change Your Future

There was a big dust-up in the Democratic Party last week, triggered by a somewhat incoherent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal from the leaders of a Wall Street-funded "think tank"/lobbying group called Third Way. Many of the responses dealt with the op-ed's attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but don't be distracted by that. As Sen. Warren would undoubtedly agree, the issues involved are much more important than the personalities.

As politicians affiliated with Third Way hasten to distance themselves from the op-ed, the question remains: Why are Democrats affiliated with a group which works so strenuously to gut Democratic programs? Voters deserve more than platitudes from these politicians. They deserve clear answers about the issues.

Eskow is referring to the article written by two of the Third Way's founders, Jon Cowen and Jim Kessler in the WSJ in December.

If you have not read it, you can find it here:

Third Way Founders Jon Cowen and Jim Kessler tell us Economic Populism is a Dead End for Democrats

Out of Hand:

Clearly Jonathan Cowan and Jim Kessler blundered in writing this editorial. It's badly written and its arguments are poorly constructed -- unlike other, much slicker Third Way materials. Worse, it's misleading. (We discussed the content here. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times did an excellent analysis.)

At times the op-ed descends into vituperation and becomes, as Rep. Keith Ellison noted, "out of line" and "really ugly." We said there seemed to be "an almost palpable air of desperation" to it as well. That suspicion seems to be borne out in later remarks by co-author Jim Kessler, who said they wrote it because of Sen. Warren's support for a bill to expand Social Security. Said Kessler:
"She is a very compelling elected official and national figure. Her involvement in that particular bill, we just looked at it and said 'okay, this seems to be starting to get out of hand.'"

"Out of hand" is a telling phrase for a corporate-backed faction which has tried to keep the leftmost limits of debate very much in hand and under tight control. It has done so with striking success for decades, thanks in large part to its ability to influence politicians like Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Many people certainly agree that they have tried to keep the 'Left' under tight control, and as Black says, have succeeded for various reasons, Bush was one of them imo, 'anyone but Bush' and, as he says, its influence over two Dem presidents.

The article is long but definitely worth reading. There is SOMETHING going on, something is shifting and the Third Way IS getting desperate, showing their hand more than they ever did, making that error of attacking Elizabeth Warren eeg. The backlash to that article was probably a shock to them.

It shouldn't have been. But having become accustomed to being treated so well by the Dem Party itself, or at least by the leadership, they took the voters for granted.

Oops, underestimating voters, BLAMING them when it was their policies that cost Dems two elections so far. That is never a good idea especially when voters have discovered what the problem with THEIR party is.

And we know now that the problem is the Third Way.

They are lying about polls, something that is foolish since polls are available and show how much support SS, Medicare and Medicaid have among the voters, across the political spectrum.

Who in their right mind thinks that Democratic Voters will continue to vote for a party whose policies are so similar to the Republican Party's on their favorite issues?

Policies like this:

One of this faction's key goals is to roll back three of the Democratic Party's signature achievements: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is a measure of their power and influence that they've been able to get so many Democratic politicians to support Social Security cuts when public opinion is so strongly against them.

Putting SS on the Deficit Table, was SHAMEFUL. And I suppose they never expected the voters would be as outraged as they were/are.

It is encouraging to see them under fire as they should have been a long time ago.

Today we heard from another Democrat outraged that some Dems' support for non-Democratic issues 'causes us to wonder if they don't belong in the Republican party', he said.

It has certainly caused US to wonder the same thing.

Burned by the reaction to their article attacking Warren, they are now writing articles about the horrors of 'populism'. We KNOW they are referring to her, however.

I think we are at a turning point in the Democratic Party. As Black said, the Third Way's policies were completely discredited by the Economic meltdown in 2008.

With populism spreading like wildfire, and Warren in the role of speaking for all those who DID see the problem but were silenced by the Third Way, maybe there is hope after all!

Edited to correct wrong attribution of the article to William Black. Thanks to DUer Eomer for pointing out the error. The article was written by Richard (RJ) Eskow

[haikugal]

1. Kick!

Bookmarking for a more detailed read later. Thanks for posting this.

[msongs]

2. because they are really republican sympathizers orcloset cases? nt

[sabrina 1]

3. I think they are moderate Republicans. On issues like women's rights etc they

support them. Many Republicans do also, moderate Republicans.

But on Foreign Policies they are definitely Republican, and especially on Economics and particularly on Social Programs such as SS. There is no difference.

And you can't claim to support minority and women's rights when you don't care about the working class and want to cut programs that help the very people you are using to get some Dem creds.

It's easy to mouth 'I support women' but when you want to deny them economic security, or continue the war policies that are costing this country so much there is no money for education or to help working women, as in other countries, then no, you do not support them.

Same thing for minorities. Cutting social programs that help young people get an education, or put their parents and grandparents at risk, no, you do not support their rights.

They use these issues for one reason, to pass as Dems. Why are they NOT in the Republican Party? I think, being that their Board of Directors are almost all from Wall St, they need to control at least half of the Dem Party in order to complete their goals, privatizing SS eg. They can't get these things done unless Democrats support them.

It's scary because they have ALMOST succeeded. This is the first time as far as I know, that a Democrat has 'put SS on the table'.

[Scuba]

7. +1,000

[Enthusiast]

9. +1!

[Doctor_J]

12. They are "liberal" on issues that don't cost the 1% money. on all the others they are

far right. Make no mistake. A president who proposes cuts to social security is not moderate. He is a far right operative. Obama had no intention of ever fighting for single payer healthcare.And the ACA is such a radical corporate friendly plan that it was laughed off just twenty years ago. The pipeline was vetoed not because of the environmental disaster it would be, but because its financial boon to the owning class was negligible.

[sabrina 1]

21. Exactly, moderate on issues that don't cost Wall St anything. What WOULD cost Wall St

would be the ERA. Whatever happened to that?

Another cost to Wall St, or that is how they see it, because in their view, all of OUR money is THEIR money, would be providing help for working mothers. This is done in other developed countries.

Their hatred for Social Programs exposes them for what they are . They do NOT support minorities because if they did, they would not remove these safety nets that affect minorities more than anyone.

[world wide wally]

4. It is actually a travesty that needs to be explained to the brain dead.

If you can see the points that they are trying to make, go back and listen to some FDR speeches from the 40's to learn what the Democrats are supposed to be about.
If you think the 40's is too far back and irrelevant….. then don't bring up 1776 or "Founding Fathers"

[sabrina 1]

22. I have done that and the contrast between his focus on the needs of the PEOPLE and the current

focus of the Dem Party under the influence of the Third Way is simply stunning. No wonder we are seeing attacks on FDR even here on this forum. He makes them look like what they are, Republican Lite.

[RiverLover]

5. REALLY great info, thanks! And even scarier? Third Way is just "the tip of the iceberg"

...Having caused the worst financial crash since 1929 and the worst economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s, Wall Street is thoroughly discredited and broadly disliked throughout America. Given that the vast economic wreckage it caused is still crippling families and communities across the country, this isn't likely to change anytime soon. Unrepentant, unaccountable, unpunished, arrogant and still stuffing their pockets with billions in bonuses in the face of such suffering haven't helped Wall Street with their standing either.

But, remarkably, that doesn't matter much in too many places in Washington, D.C., which is often an Alice-in-Wonderland world where Wall Street's role in the 2008 financial crash and economic calamity are almost never mentioned.

...First, they misleadingly caricature anyone who doesn't agree with Wall Street's views as nothing more than "soak the rich" tax and spend "populists" trying to spark class warfare. It's argument by label and epithet. And, what better way to let your paymasters know whose side you're on than to do that on the Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal and to attack Sen. Elizabeth Warren by name?

That few if any serious people hold the views Third Way and Wall Street's other funded groups, organizations and people ascribe to them doesn't matter. Label them. Dismiss them. Trash them. No room for nuance when your agenda isn't to engage in a serious, meaningful or thoughtful discussion, but to create a cartoonish figure to attack.

Second, Third Way and Wall Street's other allies intentionally misleadingly conflate Wall Street with what is good, necessary and important to the American people.

Their favorite claim, repeated by Third Way: Wall Street is a job creator. That's simply not true. As the '08 crash and economic collapse proved, Wall Street is a job killer of historic proportion.

...As if perpetuating that core myth isn't enough, Third Way then exaggerates, distorts and equates criticism of Wall Street as "vilification of industry." But, Wall Street is not "industry." Apple, GM, Caterpillar, AT&T, IBM, Boeing, Facebook, Google, ADM, P&G, Home Depot and so many other companies are "industry" that create jobs and build and sell products. No one is vilifying them.

Importantly, it's not just front groups like Third Way that push Wall Street's agenda. Wall Street also directly or indirectly funds a massive lobbying operation as well as numerous public relations firms, academic advocates, advertising campaigns, political contributions, so-called think tanks as well as trade and industry groups. Much of this influence industry is greased by former senior government officials who have sold out spinning through the revolving door.

This massive, largely unseen network created and connected by vast sums of money is how Wall Street still gets its way -- largely unseen -- in Washington.

Third Way is just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-m-kelleher/how-wall-street-still-get_b_5942324.html

[aspirant]

15. "largely unseen"

How is it unseen when Obama and Dimon are reported working over congressman with phone calls?

[sabrina 1]

19. Well, we've seen this a lot over the past number of years:

Label them. Dismiss them. Trash them. No room for nuance when your agenda isn't to engage in a serious, meaningful or thoughtful discussion, but to create a cartoonish figure to attack.

They don't want discussion, they use 'tactics' to try to demonize those who see clearly what the problems with the Dem Party are.

For a while it did work, I witnessed it during the Bush years, where the Left was under attack on internet forums, from the Right and then suddenly it seemed, from what was supposed to be the Left. It was puzzling to see this.

But now we know why. And it isn't working so well anymore. That is why we see the desperation of the Third Way, in articles like the one mentioned in the OP, attacking Populism and Elizabeth Warren.

Thanks for an excellent post RiverLover ... this is where the Dem Party needs to be reformed.

[rhett o rick]

26. Great post. nm

[Scuba]

6. This isn't terribly difficult to understand ...

[Enthusiast]

8. K&R! This post should have wider exposure. And it should have hundreds of recommendations.

Shouldn't this be on the front page?

"Putting SS on the Deficit Table, was SHAMEFUL." Really!

I'm waiting to hear condemnation of the proposed rule change for SSDI funding. Outside of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders has any Democrat uttered a wimp? Has the President commented?

Geez. Is this party fucked up or what?

[djean111]

13. Yes, the party is fucked up. Which is why you won't see hundreds of

recommendations.

As far as social issues, The Third way doesn't give a fuck who gets less of a safety net, who loses jobs, or whatever. If it is married gay people - same to them, it doesn't cost them any more or any less, but sure helps snooker in those votes and support.

No, no one but Bernie and Elizabeth has commented on the SSDI change, so far as I have seen. I expect most of the other Dems in Washington will get their orders on that from Jamie Dimon, and third-wayers here will explain how it does not really matter, and Obama was forced to do it.

Yes, putting SS on the deficit table was shameful. And enlightening as fuck.
Also hilarious how, when Obama does something not Democratic, we are told that hey, eleventy-dimensional chess! But if anyone says well, he only said he would not let CONGRESS decide on Keystone, we are told only the most goofy CTs would think he might be a bit devious. We have to live under the conditions of what any president does, long after that president is happily and gainfully gone from office. So I do not see the point in cheerleading for a temporary figure. Oh, and then there is this - a Dem president or candidate could cheerfully announce the complete cancellation of social security - and GOP voters will not vote for them anyway. This is not about votes, this is about doing the bidding, and right or wrong does not exist is 99% of Washington. Only money and power.

[aspirant]

16. In criticizing Obama

where is the line in the sand of legitimacy vs over the top?

When he gives us 2 free lollipops and then 3 hugely costly rotten apples and this cycle continues with only the #'s changing, how do we let him know this isn't our idea of democracy?

[djean111]

18. You are just supposed to concentrate on those lollipops, as far as I can tell.

Excellent questions.

[Doctor_J]

37. And realize that if you don't vote, you'll just get the apples with no lollipops

[rhett o rick]

23. One reason I like the idea of this Group is that this is where these discussions should be held.

Let the progressives come and discuss. Leave the others in GD, which they are trying to convert into BOG II.

[eomer]

10. Thanks, excellent article. But it doesn't appear to be by William Black.

Looks like it is by "Richard (RJ) Eskow".

[sabrina 1]

17. Thank you for the correction, I will edit. I was reading Black's article at the same time, which are

also excellent on this subject.

I appreciate you pointing out that error.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Because they pretend to be Democrats.

And other RW pretend Democrats support them. Because Republicans realized that what matters more is electing RW politicians and enacting RW legislation rather than actually being called 'Republicans'.

[rhett o rick]

25. And they scream that we have to support them because we must be loyal to all Democrats.

The fight is between progressives and conservatives and not between Democrats and Republicans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. They're ex-Republicans (as is Hillary, for example) who find the current Republicans

to be too low-class and Puritanical, so instead of starting their own party (Conservative Rich People Who Don't Care Whom You Sleep With), they have infiltrated the Democrats with their $$$$

[RiverLover]

20. Serious points, but you still made me LOL! Thanks!!

good post.

[dflprincess]

28. You nailed it LL

[sabrina 1]

33. Lol! 'The Party of Conservative People Who Don't Care Who You Sleep With'!

[DonCoquixote]

57. ^^^^^^^^

this reply for the win!

[rhett o rick]

24. This is a great thread. One of the best I've seen in a while and not surprised it's by sabrina.

My hat off to your constant posting great posts. This thread brings out a lot of great comments.

The Third Way is trying to kill the Democratic Party of the people. We are in a fight for the life of the real Democratic Party. Those that are fighting against us get to post in DU because they label themselves as Democrats and that's the criteria.

[sabrina 1]

30. Thanks rhett, but it's no longer difficult to find material on these Wall St infiltrators.

The word is spreading, and more and more people are outraged over it. Including elected Dems themselves as we heard this week.

I think Elizabeth Warren's election and her continuing to call them out, is giving courage to others who probably knew what was going on, people like Conyers eg, but were intimidated if they dared to speak out.

Then there were the two mid terms where the voters threw out many of their candidates.

And the frustration of dems who couldn't figure out what was going on, why their party was seemingly betraying them.

And now more and more of them know.

No wonder they want to control the Internet.

If you think about it, the DLC/Third Way flourished up to the point where the internet grew and people had access to information they did not have before. They OWNED the media, kept us busy with distraction like Monica and all the while they were working to pass bills that were so destructive to this country's working class.

[abelenkpe]

27. Because they aren't democrats. Nt

[bbgrunt]

29. HUGE K and R

Many wonder WHY the dems are so bad at messaging. The answer is because the message that they are so skillfully presenting is not a DEMOCRATIC message.

[sabrina 1]

31. Exactly. So many pieces fall into place when you learn the facts. Thankfully many people are now

reporting these facts.

But they won't give up easily. They will be sending out their talking points, insinuating, as we saw in the other articles, especially the one THEY wrote, how angry they are at Elizabeth Warren because she has been the best spokesperson against their policies we have had so far, and she isn't intimidated by them as many other Dems were.

[blackspade]

32. K&R!

[Babel_17]

34. Good post/framing of events K&R (nt)

[RiverLover]

35. When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”! (Another article by RJE)

This pretty much points to what we've been saying here lately~

When will the media learn? Conservatives are not “centrists”!
From Chris Christie to Third Way, the political class mislabels the political center. Here's why it's so dangerous
R.J. Eskow 12/13/13

....The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported on “a rift between centrists and leftists in the Democratic Party” and lamented that this prevented stronger steps to reduce the deficit. The Star Tribune even included a quote from the co-chair of Third Way, which it described as “a centrist think tank.”

Third Way was in the news last week too, in a story that had media outlets tossing out the “C” word like candy.

“Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Centrist Dems on Social Security,” read the headline in liberal Mother Jones. “Coalition of Liberals Strikes Back at Criticism From Centrist Democrats,” said the headline in the New York Times. “Elizabeth Warren and Centrist Democrats Are Already at War,” read New York magazine’s header.

...The Democratic Party-friendly Talking Points Memo website wrote of “centrist group Third Way.” The Washington Post wrote that “Centrist Democratic think tank Third Way came under fire from some liberals.”

If we are to live in a world where words have meaning, they really should stop doing that.

The generally accepted definition of “centrism,” found in the Free Dictionary and elsewhere, is “The political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position.” Similarly, a “centrist” is defined as “one who takes a position in the political center.”

The polling data is clear: If anybody should be called a “centrist” in last week’s conflict, it’s Elizabeth Warren and those who agree with her.

...A 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll showed that the number of Americans who believed this country should “renegotiate” or “leave” the North American Free Trade Agreement outnumbered those who felt otherwise by nearly 4-to-1. That was the opinion of most Republicans, Democrats and independents. In a related finding, 60 percent of those polled by the Gallup organization earlier this year said that they would be willing to pay more for products purchased in the United States.

By contrast, Third Way is pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade deal that is even more aggressive than NAFTA.

How about taxation? A recent poll by Americans for Tax Fairness showed that 79 percent of respondents favored closing tax loopholes for corporations, 71 percent favored a 30 percent minimum tax rate for millionaires, and 69 percent supported ending the carried-interest loophole, which has kept tax rates low for hedge funders.

In last week’s Op-Ed, Third Way’s founders blithely dismissed all of the above as “fantasy.”

The Third Way outburst against Sen. Warren was triggered by her statement of support for Sen. Tom Harkin’s bill to increase Social Security benefits. There, too, Third Way’s opinions diverge sharply from those of the mainstream. A poll by the National Academy for Social Insurance found that “Fully 74% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats agree that ‘it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.’”...

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/13/when_will_the_media_learn_conservatives_are_not_centrists/

So, Third Way is Far Right (rethug), and WE are the centrists! ha! How the media manipulates labels & our thinking...

[delrem]

36. "If we are to live in a world where words have meaning, they really should stop doing that."

It's MSM propaganda. We hear it every day, several times a day. It's the mindless language we *use* because we're venal or lazy consumers, or cynical political manipulators.
"centrist" = "the good guys". Not "radical", not over the top, not out of the loop, not crazy. Not an unbalanced "winger".
It's the groundwork for embellishments like "reality based politics" and "pragmatic politics", all heavily pushed on DU.
It's the basis for hammering away at a "teabagger ~ leftist" meme, because once we've accepted their language as being ours, all the rest follows and we no longer have a reasonable position.

They know what they're doing. All those media pundits know what they're doing, they studied it, and Mother Jones should know better. So should all DUers.

Anyone with a progressive bone in their body should know better, and we should push back *every time* it's used -- since it's basically a lie and unacceptable.

(p.s. - I no longer go to DU homepage or latest threads. I can't take the incessant warmongering and hatemongering, bereft of any deference to truth. There are whole forums infested with cabals pushing right-wing hatred. I do follow posters like Judi Lynn, who post important content, but I can't stand to read most of the hate-filled right wing replies. Hopefully this group takes off.)

[sabrina 1]

39. 'Reality based community' was a Third Way phrase designed to make Liberals look

'loony'. 'Concern Troll' was used when a Liberal expressed concerns about the Dem Party moving to the right or doing things like agreeeing with Repubs on SS etc. I saw it a lot starting around 2004 on what claimed to be Liberal forums. Liberals were constantly under attack on DK eg, using these ridiculous phrases no doubt conjured up in Think Tanks, but coming from the Left.

And we don't have think tanks working for us. Liberals tend to answer honestly when attacked with these phrases. 'Pragmatic' was another one that was suddenly all over the place.

Ponies, Magic Wand etc is what Liberals were met with when the objected to their party not doing things that protected Democratic policies.

It is a very important part of the assault on the Left, both from the Right, see Limbaugh et al who have bag full of talking points to aim at Liberals, and now from the supposed Left.

But once aware of the tactic, it becomes easier to undermine them. Once they are exposed, they lose their ability to do what is intended, put Liberals on the defensive.

Very good post, thank you.

[nxylas]

42. I thought Karl Rove coined that phrase

It was designed as a snarl word to describe those pointy headed intellectuals with their facts and their evidence who questioned the neocons' right to "make their own reality".

[aspirant]

40. I'd rather be

a pony striving for purity than a mutt that sneers and growls at everyone.

[sabrina 1]

38. That is another excellent article. Labels & Talking points are something that should be discussed

so that Liberals know how to respond to them. THEY are super organized, they have Think Tanks thinking up ways to corner people who are telling the truth, into a defensive position, making them look weak.

Liberals tend to want to explain their positions so for years we have made the mistake of responding by defending our positions. And WE have no Think Tanks coming up with these labels.

So now that we know for sure that many of the attacks on Liberals, including on THIS forum, are bought and paid for, calculated to dismiss Democratic Policies, I hope we can learn how to put THEM on the defensive.

Most of their talking points are pretty childish, but that appears to be the point. Make them short and stupid enough that to argue with them is like arguing with a two year old, all that happens is YOU look like a mom who can't handle her child.

I think there should be a lot of focus on this aspect of their tactics. It took me years to realize that these talking points were actually coming from a Think Tank.

Great post again, RiverLover.

[RiverLover]

41. It's been extremely eye-opening, reading about 3rd Way, and then seeing the spin

with eyes wide open in the press, & here at DU. Its astounding really, their reach & effectiveness.

And then I find ANOTHER think tank masquerading as democrats & even worse, "progressives"....grrrr

Have you seen "Progressive Policy Institute"?

Here are their headlines today...

Outdated Regulations Will Make Consumers Pay More for Broadband
Self-styled consumer advocates are pressuring federal regulators to “reclassify” access to the Internet as a public utility. If they get their way, U.S. consumers will have to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for both residential fixed and wireless broadband services.

Exporting U.S. Natural Gas: The Benefits Outweigh the Risk
This newfound abundance has turned old assumptions about U.S. energy scarcity and security on their head. For the first time since the energy crisis of the 1970s, there is mounting pressure—both domestically and abroad—for the United States to once again become a major energy exporter.

Five important lessons about America’s long war against Islamist extremism
(5 "lessons" hiding the fact that we want to control the region's oil & killing lots of people & creating jihadists) & the final sentence...
At the same time, however, Congress must refrain from tying the executive’s hands, for example, by imposing arbitrary deadlines or geographical limits on its ability to confront threats to our people or our interests.

At least Third Way hasn't labeled themselves "Progressives"^^^They're brazenly stealing the name Progressive for RW BS.

We've got a real fight on our hands.

[nxylas]

43. Cowen and Kessler's argument has already mutated

As Eskow notes, Turd Way material is usually much slicker than their WSJ op-ed, and I think they realize that they blundered. This article is slightly more sophisticated, attempting to divide Democrats into "popular populists" like Hillary Clinton (!) and "left-wing populists" like Elizabeth Warren. Expect to see more along these lines in the near future.

[aspirant]

44. PP'S vs LWP's, how many P's will we end up with?

Popular populists pick a peck of pickled peppers...

[sabrina 1]

45. Left is good. Hillary is right of center. So don't let them frame the discussion. Take their

articles apart and make corrections where needed. THEY are not the teachers, as they revealed they thought themselves to be when they 'admonished' the 'naught little girl Senator' telling us that things 'were now getting of hand' and they had to intervene and put her in her place.

I will read the article, but they made a gross error when they lost their cool and wrote that article in the WSJ. I will read everything they have to say with that in mind. And so will many others.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Thank you Sabrina!

[demwing]

47. Pin of the Week!

Congrats sabrina 1, your post has been selected the Pin of the Week, and will stay pinned till Monday, 2/2/15!

[sabrina 1]

48. Thank you demwing!

[Oilwellian]

49. Great post as always, Sabrina

I need to make this forum a habit. It's such a breath of fresh air and reality.

[sabrina 1]

50. Thanks Orwellian, it really is a great forum, a lot like the old DU when people were able to discuss

issues without the constant attempts to derail topics that has plagued GD for so long now.

I am thinking of spending most of the time I have on this forum. We don't have to waste time on distractions and you are right, it is like a breath of fresh air.

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. The members of the "Third Wary" are members of the Democratic party.

and those in the House or Seante were elected by Democrats to serve in those bodies.

Unlike Republicans, the Democratic Party maintains a big tent and has not initiated a purge of members who do not pass a strict ideological test.

As a rule, Thid Way folk could not win a Republican Pimary because they are not Conservatie enough.

[sabrina 1]

52. The Third Way is politically agnostic. They are not Democrats. The are a Wall St backed Think Tank.

And yes, they would do as well in the Republican Party. They are moderate Republicans, Reagan Republicans.

Their Board consists of mostly Investment Bankers. Their goal is to drag the Democratic Party to the right.

The whole idea of the 'center' is from this Think Tank. And the lie that this country is a Center Right country, so Dems MUST move to the Right, is a Third Way lie. All polls show that nothing could be further from the truth.

Deregulation was their goal, just like Republicans.

However, so long as the Dem Party remained the party of FDR, they would not go along with these Republican policies.

So for Wall St, it became necessary, since they already owned the Republican Party, to gain power in the Democratic Party in order to accomplish the goals of deregulation, of the media, mission accomplished, and to get rid of Glass Steagal, mission also accomplished.

On Foreign Policy, they are for forever war.

On SS, they are for privatization.

'Big Tent' is their excuse for their presence in the Dem Party.

The voters have finally caught on and in the last two mid terms, have refused to elect, and/or re-elect their Corporate funded candidates.

The Big Tent was not intended for Right Wingers. Its meaning is, that unlike the Republicans, Dems would welcome minorities including women, who were not welcome in the Republican Party.

Dems were originally, until the infiltration of the Third Way, originally the DLC, the Party of the Working Class.

They needed only approx half the Dem Party to further the agenda of the Heritage Foundation, privatization, deregulation, etc, and it appears they accomplished that simply by slapping a D after the names of their deeply funded candidates.

The word 'purge' is one of their attempts to characterize the idea that Republicans have their own party where they belong, as something nefarious. Fortunately all their talking points are no longer very effective.

We have the results of their presence in the Dem Party and voters are rejecting them and their Wall St/Republican policies which have so harmed the Working Class and the poor.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. They are registered Democrats, so that does make them Democrats, by definition

Those that were elected, were registered Democrats that ran for office as Democrats and were Elected by Democrats.

People who are registered members of the Democratic Party are Democrats.

Now, I do not agree with their economic policies, but they are Democrats.

Big Tent is not their excuse, that is what the Democratic Party is. It welcomes people of all races, naturalized citizens, women, men gays, poor, middle class, wealthy, and a bunch of what used to be called Rockefeller Republicans. Rockefeller Republicans were fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They are why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. At the time, the South was staunchly Democrat and as racist as a Confederate victory celebration. Johnson could not pass the Civil Rights acts, so those fiscally conservative/Socially Liberal Republicans voted for it. In fact, all of Johnson's Great Society programs were passed with help of Republicans because Southern Democrats (Who are now all Republicans) would not vote for those programs.

Republicans have enforced a fairly strict ideological test that makes them center Right to Radical Right. As their party drifted right, the Democratic party drifted right.

I think a better term than Third way is Neoliberal, but a rose by any other name, etc. etc. etc.

So do you think the Democratic Party should enforce a strict liberal/progressive ideology? Personally, I think that is a bad idea because liberalism celebrates individuals and individual liberty.

Should these people face liberal challenges in primaries? I think that is a great Idea. I support more and better Democrats.

[Dragonfli]

58. By definition that actually makes them infiltrators within the party

Their fiscal views are classic Republican Conservatism. Where as it may be true that their registration makes them Democrats, their Republican fiscal ideology makes them Democrats in name only.

One would have to be blind not to see that or perhaps simply complicit in the fraud.

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. By the Democratic Party's rules they are Democrats.

Unless you are the head of the Democatic Party and have added a required loyalty oath to a speciic fiscal ideological policy, you have absolutely nothing factual to say the issue.

And since you chose to make a personal attack, it shows that you have no argument and nothing of worth to add.

Show me anywhere that the Democratic Party requires its members to adhere to a strict ideological political philosophy.

You can not, because such a requirement does not exist. And you have no valid proof because you can not read the minds of all neo-liberals in the party.

You just don't like their fiscal policies. Which is fine, because I don't agree with their fiscal polices.

[Dragonfli]

60. I don't like their fiscal policies because they are Republican fiscal policies

When someone votes for Republican policies, believes in Republican Ideology, and promotes Republican objectives, that person is a Republican.

Since the only thing you need to do to register as a Democrat is fill out a form and get a card, and can do so without changing a single thing about hating the Democratic platform and Democratic goals it is a simple matter to do so insincerely as a tactic to get Republican policies passed by infiltrating the other party.

It is true that some rubes will fall for any con, even this obvious one. But just because rubes don't pay any attention to what the con man is actually doing, and just because the dimmest of the rubes will help the con man maintain the deception even while he is fleecing them doesn't mean the con man is not running a con.

I have in the past registered as a Republican to screw with local republican primaries, but I still voted like a Democrat for the office, still believed in the Democratic platform and still promoted and helped work for Democratic policies both locally and nationally. You see it is a tactic, It is not that hard to understand if you take it slowly and concentrate, now this tactic can be used by republicans as well, also this tactic can be used on the running side of things as well as the voting side of things (still with me here? I know this is complex for some folks)

You see a card, a bit of paper that anyone can get by filling out a form and checking a box is not a magical item, it has no transformative power and the person carrying it can be anything from a communist to a fascist, hell even an anarchist can get such a card with any national party letter they want on it.

When someone works towards Republican goals, votes for Republican policies and believes republican dogma, then that person is not a Democrat no matter what con he is running as a tactic to achieve his republican goals.

I hope you never check the wrong box or that card can turn you into someone else in your belief system, so be careful lest you check the box for toad and lose the hands and ability to correct the mistake as you frantically hop away.

[2naSalit]

53. Because the 3rdWay PR folks used

the magic "D-word" ... marketing ploy. Seems to get 'em every time.

[Warpy]

54. Pull any strand of the anti labor, pro capitalist spider web and you find the same spiders.

The DLC was funded by the same men who gave us all those right wing think tanks like AFP and until the party manages to see just what damage they're doing, nothing will change.

Throwing the worst of their stooges out of office has gotten us Republicans in return, a game the Koch boys just can't lose at this point.

Personally, I don't see much changing in the halls of power until the next financial meltdown, one that promises to be a doozy considering how nervous the high flying banksters and financiers are getting.

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

[Maedhros]

56. Because all that matters is electing people who put a "D" next to their names.

What they believe in is irrelevant.