How the Left Cut Down a Democratic Frontrunner

[DonViejo]

David Freedlander

Rep. Allyson Schwartz was up by 25 points in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary for governor. Then came accusations of centrism—now a dirty word in a party with an energized left flank.

There are a couple of hundred well turned out, professional women sipping $9 white wines at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Philadelphia, and Allyson Schwartz is determined to kiss every single one of them on the cheek.

It’s not hard, as they are all gathered for a fundraiser for a nearly 40-year-old women’s health group that Schwartz helped found, and so she seems to know half the room.

“I tell everyone, ‘Vote for my girl, vote for my girl!’” says one older woman after emerging from her own cheek peck. Another grabs Schwartz by the shoulders and looks searchingly into her face. “Tell me,” she implores. “Are you OK?”

In eight days, the voters of Pennsylvania have a chance to make Schwartz the first female governor in the state’s history. Last year, the five-term congresswoman and political powerbroker from the upper reaches of Philadelphia and its wealthy northern suburbs was up by as much as 25 points and looked like a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. With Republican incumbent Tom Corbett notching some of the lowest approval ratings in the country, Schwartz could have been forgiven if she had started to measure the drapes in Harrisburg.

Now she is down by nearly that much. While her campaign was buried under an avalanche of gauzy television advertisements from wealthy businessman Tom Wolf, who now holds a commanding lead in the polls, the Schwartz campaign was knocked off course by a surprising incident toward the end of last year.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/how-the-left-cut-down-a-democratic-frontrunner.html

[Blue_Tires]

1. Shades of Ned Lamont

While not quite the same situation, he was cruising towards a win until he was kneecapped by the most unlikely of backroom Democratic-Republican alliances...

[myrna minx]

3. This immediately made me think of Ned Lamont too.

[merrily]

13. Lamont was not a liberal, just seemed more liberal than Joe.

Was Lamont really cruising toward a win? I know he won the primary, but those in the party who campaigned for Lieberman in the primary--Clinton, Obama, Schumer, et al.--left Lamont a fairly damaged candidate for the general. Or, so I read. (I am not in CT).

[Blue_Tires]

63. The GOP candidate was dead in the water

which is why Joementum had to cut a deal and get all those disaffected GOP voters to fall in line behind him...

Lamont may not have been a 100% lead pipe cinch to win, but he was in an excellent position...Just imagine what would have happened if the Democratic party had, you know, actually BACKED Lamont...

[merrily]

64. I don't think it was an accident that the GOP candidate was dead in the water.

The GOP did not back him, either. Bush owed Joe and they both knew it.




And, who knows, maybe the Republicans already knew that Joe would be backing their guy (and gal) come 2008.

Why the Democrats left Lamont damaged and "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" is another issue.

But, clearly, Joe was supposed to win.

[myrna minx]

2. If the left pushes back against the "third way" the left is the villain, but if the third way

cuts down someone like Ned Lamont, it's for the good of the party.

[Scuba]

6. You noticed that too, huh?

[HooptieWagon]

7. Understand....

From the Third Way's perspective, The Left are a greater enemy than Republicans. Rahm Emanuel, DWS, and others have come right out and said so on occasion. Remember, it's the same big $ sources that are controlling both of their puppet-strings.

[yurbud]

35. your last sentence explains the dynamic perfectly. the Rahmbos treat Repubs with kid gloves

because they are the favorite dog of the same master.

You don't become the new favorite by killing the old favorite--but if a THIRD dog comes after your master, why you would tear him to shreds even if he happened to be the same breed as you.

[villager]

66. Perfect analogy, Yurbud. But as the election draws closer, we can expect more handy narratives...

...about the big bad left (which seems to have all this mysterious power), once again cutting down the oh-so-reasonable "centrists," who, of course, just can't quite do the right thing in office because, gosh, some other office holders are Republicans.

[yurbud]

76. and no matter how few Republicans, centrists will have no choice but to compromise with them

to the point of even proposing GOP ideas before the GOP does themselves.

[villager]

77. Exactly. As long as there is a single Republican anywhere, their agenda must be enacted.

It is, after all, only "reasonable."

[yurbud]

93. and bipartisan. Unless that single Republican suggests something rich people don't like

we can never be bipartisan about stuff rich people don't like.

[scarletwoman]

8. Very well said!

[merrily]

14. Nailed it.

[Fumesucker]

17. Booom!

And tiny fragments of the OP gently splash into the water hundreds of yards away from the impact zone.

[yurbud]

34. that's how it will play in the press--even if the "sensible centrist" loses the general election

[Doctor_J]

42. And, while "centrist" my be a slur some places, it garners support and big boxes of money elsewhere

Just ask Blanche Lincoln.

[pa28]

47. Yes, lots of whining and scapegoating in defense of a mediocre candidate here.

Here's how Philly Magazine described her candidacy:

"her lackadaisical campaign style, poor political judgment and blown opportunities will likely keep her off any future ballots. Distant second place finish."

But no, the OP's article says it was "the left". Such bullshit.

[bobduca]

82. Shhh!!!! now here are a bunch of blue links that prove why you are wrong!

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. ...

[socialist_n_TN]

87. Or Bill Halter in Arkansas........

I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this trend.

Anyway, isn't this what the Party hacks have told LibDems to do? If you've got a problem with centrist Dems, take care of it in the primary and then back whoever wins the primary in the general. Of course, that wasn't what happened in CT was it? Or for that matter Florida. When the Third Way candidate LOST in the primary, he ran as an "independent" and thus guaranteed a REPUBLICAN win. Which leads me to believe that the Third Way types would rather see a Republican win than a leftish Dem win.

[on point]

4. Not the left's fault. Not about marketing, about leadership. Her fault

[merrily]

36. True, but also, how about the centrist ad diminishing Warren and DeBlasio?

And the tons of money the Corbett campaign spent on ads?

[okaawhatever]

45. Yes, it is exactly about marketing. Wolf used $10 Million of his own money to come out early

as the champion of the alienated worker. People aren't even questioning that he's a 1% and that his campaign donations don't come from the working class. He's sold them a bill of goods. What is wolf going to do that Schwartz isn't?

There are some, who I don't believe are sincere, who are using anger over the financial situation and Wall St to do the same thing the Tea Party did. They're buying elections with 1% money and getting voters to salivate over the prospect of getting even with Wall St. That would all be great if it were true, but what exactly are these folks going to do that Schwartz isn't? How are they going to get it past Congress? Where does their campaign money come from? Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

[hfojvt]

59. I am kinda skeptical

that the "non centrist" candidate is a "wealthy businessman".

Then again, Ned Lamont was like that, and also Minnesota's Mark Dayton, supposedly the most liberal senator when he was in the Senate.

Maybe I should be skeptical of that too, since there are many definitions of liberal, not all of them favoring the working class.

[okaawhatever]

60. I think the left is primed for something like a tea party takeover. People are angry and

frustrated, which makes them vulnerable to messaging like "anti-Wall Street" and "anything but Bankers". The same way the tea party backers used taxes and big government as their dog whistle. I want to know how a candidate would have handled the last couple of years differently. How would they have bypassed Congress, say on the minimum wage bill? It didn't come up for a vote, blocked by Republicans. What would they have done to make that happen? If they don't have a different way of handling it they are no different on minimum wage than the other candidates. Same for other issues. What would you have done differently? If not, don't criticize those that have held office in the last few years.

[hfojvt]

92. I am not really about process

More about policy.

And there are differences, or could be if anybody suggested alternatives.

For example, during a Presidential debate it was mentioned about raising the cap on social security taxes. A number of candidates were for it, but first Richardson and then Clinton strongly objected, saying it would be a big tax increase "on the middle class".

A democrat who jumps up to defend somebody making over $97,000 a year is not on the same page as me. I want one who does fight for the minimum wage worker.

When and if the working class majority defenestrates the politicians who don't represent US, then process takes care of itself. And some DLCers and third wayers need to be included in the defenestration starting at the primary level.

[JPZenger]

70. It's simple - Dems liked her opponent better

A very small group of people cared about Schwartz's affiliations. They did care that she would be easily painted as a liberal from the hated Congress in the November election. She also has some past history in the part-ownership of an abortion clinic, which Corbett was waiting to use against her in October.

Most people outside of the northern suburbs of Phila. didn't know much about her, and she was late to hit the airwaves. When she and McCord did finally run TV commercials, too many of them were pure negative (and inaccurate). Then she attacked Wolf for being wealthy, while ignoring the fact that Schwartz and her husband are also worth multiple millions. She attacked Wolf for getting $20 million from his family business when he sold it, but tried to ignore the fact that Wolf re-invested $11 million of that money back into the company after the Great Recession threatened hundreds of jobs.

The voters were open minded. They loved the life story of Tom Wolf. They liked to have a candidate who could not be blamed for the mess in Harrisburg and DC. They wanted a guy who understood business, but who also had a long history of working for and funding of progressive causes. After all, Wolf provided large donations in the past to Schwartz and had Schwartz dine in his house for a fundraiser.

Wolf has donated multiple millions to charitable causes and to progressive candidates. His commercials also accurately portrayed him as a progressive boss who cared about his employees and who offered profit-sharing.

[blue neen]

71. Excellent synopsis.

Most PA Democrats were unaware of Schwartz' behind the scenes campaign "drama". To be honest, people just really starting paying attention to the race about a month ago, certainly not last year when the article claims the damage was done.

Tom Wolf has run terrific ads; they were out early, they were positive and informative. Schwartz did not do herself any favors by going negative.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

74. Meet Tom Wolf

http://tom.wolfforpa.com/

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...nt

Sid

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Here we go...

We scream about those damn centrists and how the left must take over the party, but when it does here and there we scream, "Well, not that race.

Not that this is exactly a demonstration of "left power", what with the rich guy pretending to be more liberal. Maybe it just means that Democrats can be as stupid as Republicans who let the teabaggers run things.

Anyway, with all this blather we forget that the overriding goal of an election is to elect somebody. With maybe one or two worthwhile contenders in the midst of many overly ambitious blowhards contending, we get what we can into office.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Exactly what many here want to do to Hillary Clinton.

I wonder if they will have the same success.

[merrily]

22. She led Obama by 30 points and lots of recognition, but he ran to her left.

[Nye Bevan]

29. Yep. He proved that America was ready for an unapologetic socialist firebrand (nt)

[merrily]

30. He didn't run as a socialist and he sure as hell hasn't governed that way.

[L0oniX]

23. Don't worry ...Hillary is doing it to herself.

[Phlem]

37. ...

-p

[Enrique]

50. of course we do

I want to have a primary, I don't want Hillary to run away with it.

[HooptieWagon]

11. The Left didn't cut her down...

the wound appears self-inflicted.

[magical thyme]

15. agreed. the third way party chose that moment to highlight

their preferred candidates differences from those awful populist leftists, like Elizabeth Warren...

[winter is coming]

65. It's a scaremongering tactic, intended to quash those lefty malcontents.

Vote for us, even when we don't represent you.

[Capt. Obvious]

12. Nice cliff hanger

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, two leaders of Third Way, a pro-business, centrist Democratic group that listed Schwartz as an “honorary co-chair,” warned the Democratic Party against following the example of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose elections the previous two Novembers seem to herald a new, emboldened left flank. De Blasio’s and Warren’s ++ideas about reducing inequality++ [], the Third Way leaders wrote, were “a fantasy-based blue-state populism” that would lead the party over “the populist cliff.”

Progressive groups and bloggers were outraged, and Schwartz’s rivals, seizing on the dust-up, hammered the congresswoman for her association with the group. The campaign, her advisers acknowledge, was rattled. Schwartz eventually dropped her association with Third Way, but the polls have been trending downward ever since.

[merrily]

16. De Blasio was not in a statewide race, but a Mayoral race that a Democrat had not won since 1989.

So, the "blue state" bit is bullshit as to De Blasio's win.

As for Warren, she was in a statewide race, and one that had a lot of symbolic value to monied Republicans like Koch.

She unseated a very popular incumbent, who just happened to be a Republican with long time name recognition in the state due to his service in the state senate, a wife who worked in local media. (Warren did not have the same name recognition, except to political insiders and junkies). So, I don't know how much it applies to her either. (National Republicans had backed Brown to the hilt, as had local media.)

Let's face it. After all these years of both Republicans and public Democrats discrediting liberals, there is no easy win for a liberal, even in a blue state. Brown, after all, had taken Ted Kennedy's seat.

[Capt. Obvious]

24. Very accurate portrayal of what Warren accomplished in that race

and the state/history of Ma. voting and polls at the time.

For whatever reason, her victory gets crapped on here as if it had no significance.

She gets mocked for winning in a blue state but at a smaller spread than the President without acknowledging what she was up against.

[merrily]

31. I live in Massachusetts.

I know that doesn't guarantee accuracy, but I also paid close attention, esp. when Brown won what so many of us referred to as "Kennedy's seat."

Of course, Warren had more support from the party than Coakley did, but that is another story entirely.

[Capt. Obvious]

39. There's a faction of membership here

who show up on any Warren 2016 thread to misrepresent that race and our state politics.

[merrily]

41. Don't know about misrespresentation of Mass. politics, but it's

been obvious to me that the fix has been in for Hillary for years.

It's been very extensive and very well coordinated and that coordination no doubt includes paid posters, who, if they succeed, influence others here.

[quinnox]

18. lol, bashing lefties already. I expected that season to arrive later

closer to the midterm elections, as its always the lefts fault when Democrats lose. It could never be the fault of crappy centrist, uninspiring candidates or the president's low popularity.

[merrily]

20. Leftist bashing is always in season for both Democrats and Republicans.

Especially now, as it becomes clearer and clearer that rightist ideology is both bankrupt and bankrupting.

People are tired of Congress seesawing between the loony right and the wiley centrists, with nothing changing and no one accountable.

[villager]

78. And, of course, for many, ahem, "Undergrounders"

Though maybe their farcical use of that name, on this website, is intended as a kind of theater...

[bobduca]

83. A Kabuki Theater

These Third-way personas here are part of the plan.

De-legitimize actual liberal policy debates, drown out dissent, smear smear smear, just let the lying personas/algorithms post the contents of their clipboards in an ethics-free-zone and watch the fur fly!

[villager]

94. Which also explains their ultra-thin skins. They love bullying, snark, and shout-downs, but alert on

...everyone else.

All part of that "drowning out" motif...

[fredamae]

19. And, I'm willing to bet

Instigated by "Koch Money".
We have to learn to ignore the ads...Mute, Recycle Flyers, Stick your fingers in your ears , Screen calls, "Fast Forward" thru TV Ads...Billboards, street signs etc...
If "they" are going after one of "ours" then use your noggins-at All levels of government from City to National-That is the person We Want

It is one of the more powerful means to cost them any return on the Billions going to be invested into defeating Anyone who is Not with the Most vile and extreme in this country.
Confusion followed by uncertainty followed by FEAR is their greatest weapon.
Apparently in PA they're falling for it.

[merrily]

32. Are you implying that "they" would not go after any Democrat?

Especially one running on Obamacare:

That Republican opposition to Schwartz means that there is something special as to Schwartz?

If so, I disagree.

Should Pennsy vote for a Republican? No, but that is a different issue.

[fredamae]

46. Thanks for asking

You did mis understand...
I suggest that we need to think differently and reject, ignore and shun Every ad, do our own research, talk to friends and neighbors and If there are confusions about statements/positions etc? Call you candidate, ask them the hard question MSM won't.
Listen to what every politician doesn't say when they're asked a specific question because Most of the time, they're all experts at switching the issue and conversation. No one calls them on that.
We have total control over the campaigns (if we want it) in that-we can become more aware of their tactics and screw that up---by rejecting them.
The problem, of course-is getting enough folks to see it and hell, maybe I'm just that Naïve'--but I don't think so.
We see this "shunning" of people and issues work Everyday--on a much smaller scale with-in our smaller social groups....We need to "go really big".
They're buying the loudest message-If we don't listen--does "it" still make noise?

Shun the Kochs, shun their money, shun their message, Educate, Educate, Educate and think differently. Plus, of course and always - personally vet you candidates and communicate with them before we vote.

[merrily]

53. I understood about shutting out the ads.

It was this comment of yours that I was questioning:

If "they" are going after one of "ours" then use your noggins-at All levels of government from City to National-That is the person We Want
It is one of the more powerful means to cost them any return on the Billions going to be invested into defeating Anyone who is Not with the Most vile and extreme in this country.
Confusion followed by uncertainty followed by FEAR is their greatest weapon.
Apparently in PA they're falling for it.

That sounded very much to me as though you meant that, if they (the right) are going after Schapiro, she must be the one we want.

My point is that the right will go after any Democrat they can go after. That does not mean that the Democrats they go after are necessarily the Democrats we want or should want.

But, yes, of course, make up our own minds about candidates, not going by ads alone, or endorsements alone, etc.

[fredamae]

58. Ahhh, I see

And I don't disagree..we don't want "just any old Dem"--that statement couldn't be more true and I swear---"they" (dems/gop) huddle in small dark rooms and plan to run the worst just to get the Best corp Dem In...Now, lol-that said...it's likely a bit paranoid, but that won't change the consequence of most election cycles since Clinton in the '90's when the Dem party really started leaving people like me in their corporate dust-that leaves me wondering, none-the-less.

[merrily]

62. Me, too.

Except I didn't get that Clinton was a major shift. I wasn't paying close attention until after Obama was elected. I thought getting Democrats (period) elected was all I had to worry about.

But, lately, I wonder if I didn't see it wrong all along anyway.

Was FDR really that liberal, or, after the Crash of 1929, were people like him and Joe Kennedy terrified of a people's revolution, like the ones that had at that time occurred fairly recently in Russia (1905, then 1917-23)?

Was LBJ a liberal (on domestic policy, anyway) or only afraid of what MLK, Jr and others were bringing to the forefront?


And, if so, are they ever going to be that afraid of us again, given how armed they now are and how surveilled all of us now are?

Even if I did not misread the New Deal or the Great Society, were they aberrations, or typical of the Democratic Party? (The New Deal began to be dismantled under FDR. The convention wisdom here, of course, is that the Republicans did it, but that is not entirely accurate and I don't believe that FDR vetoed any of the "dismantling."

I am not saying my musings are correct, but they are food for thought. Food for my thoughts, anyway.

[fredamae]

67. IMO-Clinton's Pres Was

a major shift with NAFTA/CAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 that opened the door for Bush and Co to crash the economy.

I believe the New Deal was a furthering shift to a progressive party for that era in that time toward the Dem Party we know now. (or knew before the corp dems screwed us)
Remember, Democrats used to be assholes to the nth and the Republicans were the "nice ones".
That all said, Hell-I'm in the ongoing learning curve myself-I was a "single mother" who was "had by Reagan" and barely survived that time...In the '90's-I was still in that situation but admittedly doing much better...but still didn't have time to really delve into politics...but when GW announced His candidacy, I decided I'd better start paying close attention. I didn't like his dad much and the stories about Gw scared the living hell out of me...turns out I was right to be afraid.
I think LBJ was misunderstood, Like PBO he was handed a freeking mess with the VN war and a faltering economy also--he knew how to herd delinquents in congress tho, so I'm not sure about his fear of MLK et al ...I don't know that I'd call him a liberal, but he was a progressive, imo. Maybe not all that to all people-but more so in my opinion.
I believe we can quash the current oligarchy-it will take time and imo--it will take people who don't normally agree on much getting together in agreement on this huge and important factor---because we can't solve the rest of the disagreements and our problems unless and until we get Money out of the equation, imo. That's the hard part cuz right now--they're focused upon keeping us segregated from one another by constantly telling us diversity and differences matter most so that we'll keep on angrily hating those who are not just like "us".
Welcome to my world of learning-

[merrily]

68. You are stating a more conventional view.

I am considering a less conventional one.

I don't say I am converted to that way of thinking yet, but I see it as a definite possiblity, especially in light of things I heard during the coverage of the 50th anniversary of the march on Washington and the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.

As to the latter, to observe the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Meet the Press showed a clip of JFK being interviewed, wherein he said that Democrats had saved capitalism in America. I assume he was speaking of the New Deal, in which his father had very actively participated.

And, after the crash, Joe Kennedy had been quoted as saying, "I would gladly give half of all I have in order to be able to keep the other half in peace." So, what most Americans saw as a benovolent government program, the architects of the program may have seen as forestalling a revolution, so that they could hang onto most of their wealth "in peace," even if it meant a little more in taxes.

The New Deal did have a lot of components that were very beneficial to banks and Wall Street, too. So, it wasn't all Social Security and Conservation Corps. Indeed, in terms of government dollars (as opposed to payroll deductions), the provisions that were designed to protect banks and encourage investors to get back into the stock market cost a hell of a lot more than the other bits of the New Deal.

Maybe. It's a huge paradigm shift, but no propaganda efforts have been devoted to publicizing the version that I am considering. On the other hand, many billions have been spent trying to avoid a people's revolution.

As far as "progressive" versus "liberal" I don't think either FDR or LBJ would have called themselves "progressives." And I try to avoid the term "progressive" like the plague. I find a lot of Third Way/DLC types use it to describe themselves.

[socialist_n_TN]

89. This is my view of the situation.......

There was definitely a revolutionary surge in the USA in the early part of the last century. A worker's government was possible and maybe even probable, IF capitalism didn't show a more "human" face to the lower economic classes. So, being very adaptable, it did and convinced the majority of people that it could have a capitalism that benefited everybody.

It's no coincidence that the rise in the system we have now really took off after the USSR fell. Although FAR from perfect, the Soviets at least TALKED the talk, even if they didn't walk the walk. After that counterweight was gone, capitalism showed it's true colors.

[merrily]

97. Being a socialist in TN can't be easy. Respect.

Your view is kind of the one that I have been coming to, with some exceptions.

For one thing, I don't think that the counterweight is gone. The anti-left movement is alive and well, even at DU.

Also, I don't think we have only one counterweight. We will always be demonizing one or more "others," even if the others are leftist Americans. Or, for that matter, rightist Americans. Moreover, we seem to be in nouveau anti-Soviet mode, even as we type.

Besides, Winston, as you know, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

And need to be. It's very useful in many ways.

I do think the fear of a people's uprising has diminished, though. Well, maybe not the fear of an uprising, but I don't think they fear a successful uprising. That was one of many advantages of 911. We now have the federal government officially all over the US in the form of Homeland Security, the NSA, etc. They are well-armed and we are well-surveilled. I think they are now relatively confident that any uprising will be quelled before it can hurt them. And, they may be correct about that.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. Well being a socialist in TN is lonely sometimes for sure.........

The counterweight I was talking about was a counterweight to capitalism in the form of the USSR which at least talked the talk about worker's rule. The "others" we're demonizing don't have the clout of a nuclear armed state with worldwide influence. But yes, capitalism will ALWAYS come up with a "boogyman" to divide and frighten the working class into supporting it.

As to your last paragraph, that's always the case. The state always has means of oppression and the only counter to those means of oppression is if the lower ranks of the oppressors turn on the upper ranks. Since the state has the guns, there will be no successful revolutionary surge without soldiers in the military turning their guns on the officers and the political leaders. That's an historical fact.

[merrily]

100. Yes, I did get from your first post that you meant the USSR.

Since the state has the guns, there will be no successful revolutionary surge without soldiers in the military turning their guns on the officers and the political leaders. That's an historical fact.

Not only the military. Since 911, we've turned local police stations into the military too, at least for purposes of squashing any nascent uprisings.

I wish everyone could have seen the streets of Watertown the day the Tsarnaev was captured--all night and all day. The local police had vehicles all over Watertown that looked like black armored tanks. And, then, there's all the surveillance. And, they're all but broken unions, except for people who work for govt. So, it would be really hard to get any concerted action going nationwide.

Moreover, as we've been noting, the USG will come across with something (raise the minimum wage?) when it feels threatened to any realistic degree. (Of course, so far, raising the minimum wage is only talk and a campaign strategy. ) And, if you think about how we live and how Russian peasants and military lived during WWI, there is quite a difference in desperation level. You have to get to the point where "Just shoot me now" is a serious alternative for you. I don't think it's like that for most Americans.

Besides, message boards allow us to vent harmlessly while we remain safely indoors.

I am not saying a sudden revolution will not happen. I am saying that, IMO, it's really an outside chance. I would like to see a tax strike, but I don't know that we could get even that going either.

[socialist_n_TN]

105. Nope we're not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation....

But we can hear the roar of the waterfall ahead from here.

As to tactics, yes a tax strike would be a necessity, but I would go even further. Not only taxes, but NOTHING needs to be paid. No credit card bills, no car notes, no nothing. The only thing that money get used for is food. And this will have to go along with a labor strike of the general variety.

But those are tactics for a situation that hasn't arisen yet.

[L0oniX]

21. Centrists are to be blamed for their own loss ...and ya better take this as a warning.

What's worse is a fucking cloaked Dem centrist who after winning the office begins to do the will of their corporate sponsors.

[Marr]

26. Yeah-- this script never changes. When Third Way types win...

it's an endorsement of their policies. When Third Way types lose, the left is to blame.

They've been running this line of bullshit since the 90's, like clockwork.

[L0oniX]

28. Centrists win by trolling for repuke votes.

[merrily]

69. In the wrong way.

Nothing is wrong with Democrats trying to attract Republican votes--unless their idea of trying to attract Republican votes means becoming more like Republican politicians.

[Marr]

25. I sure wish corporatists could decide whether "the left" is an insult or their favorite club.

I also wish they could decide whether "the left" is a potent political force, or a fringe minority that can be safely ignored.

It seems to change with the tide.

[bobduca]

85. Its a difficult maneuver, co-opting "The Left" while simultaneously vilifying it

They must destroy the village of leftists to save it or something.

[merrily]

27. What a misleading headline!

Last edited Mon May 12, 2014, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Apparently, Schwartz's record in Congress and her gubernatorial campaign were not good enough to beat Corbett once he started running lots of ads. Then, centrists ran an ad bashing popular Democrats, like DeBlasio and Warren.

But, who does the headline seem to blame? Schwartz? Corbett? The Centrist ad? Nope. "The left."

Wake up, America.

[G_j]

48. a popular tradition

.. "hippie punching"

[merrily]

51. I have never been a hippie, yet I object to the deceptive headline.

ETA: Maybe I should have said, "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a hippie."

Because it is starting to feel a little like McCarthyism.

[woo me with science]

81. More lying from the Third Way.

Lying commercials seem to be the default of corporatists posing as Democrats.

[merrily]

96. I used to post on boards where all political views were welcome (in theory, anyway).

It's been my experience that the right posts like the right, regardless of declared party affiliation.

[JVS]

33. Awww how sad.

[Jim Lane]

38. Per the linked article, she's a deficit hawk.

"On the federal level, I have been clear: The country needs to balance its budget and deal with its debt."

Granted, as Governor of Pennsylvania she wouldn't be called upon to implement Keynesian fiscal policies for stimulus purposes. Nevertheless, this does give some indication of where her head is. Progressive Pennsylvanians who deplore the effects of deficit hysteria and the resulting austerity are entitled to take that into account when deciding how to vote.

[reformist2]

57. History has shown that not only are centrists useless, they lose elections!

[merrily]

40. More facts:

Schwartz was a member of the New Democrat Coalition and an honorary co-chair of Third Way. In January, she left Third Way because Third Way's actions, including as to Social Security, were hurting her campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024378405

The left dealt her a blow, my ass. It was rightist positions on things like OASDI.

She was also--may still be--National Chair for Recruitment and Candidate Services for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

(Just a wild coincidence, no doubt, that Third Wayers, DLCers, etc. get positions within the Party involving recruitment of candidates, not that the party has long been making an effort to steer the party right in ALL districts, not only allegedly purple or red ones. )

[HooptieWagon]

43. inre: recruiting...exactomundo!

The Dem Party of Fl is tied at the hip with the Third Way. FL Dems like Bill Nelson and DWS pretty much call all the shots, and decide who the candidates will be. As a result, this Nov Im expected to vote for TWO ex repukes... Crist for Gov and Ed Jany for Congress. OK, Rick Scott totally sucks, and I can hold my nose and vote for Crist, maybe. Sure as hell not going to do it twice on the same ballot though. The Third Way can just go fuck themselves.

edit: BTW, a REAL Democrat who had entered the Congressional 13 race was forced out by threats from party officials. Jany can't even run on the Dem ticket, since he switched parties too late. Plus he doesn't live in the district (same thing that hurt Alex Sink). Won't even get in to his fabricated academic record.

[merrily]

44. We're told repeatedly that the deck is not stacked, but that the Party is not going

to run a liberal in a district/state where a liberal cannot possibly win.

Guess what, though, when you put people like Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen in charge of the DCCC, you are likely to get centrist recruits.



As I am sure you know, there are many more offshoots of the DLC than only Third Way. It's more the philosophy than the particular think tank or label.

DLC (now defunct) Progressive Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, Bipartisan Policy Center, No Labels--the list goes on.

[bobduca]

86. Yes better update the labels for the cancer that is Third Way

Progressive Policy Institute.

One thing it's not is progressive. Just like the National Socialists in 1930's Germany were not actually socialist.

"The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. "

Similarly the notion of "progressive" is co-opted by third-way politicians to mean "Give the Republicans half of what they are asking for."

[merrily]

98. Yes, many organizations, one philosophy.

[Enrique]

49. good

if "cutting down" centrists means opposing them in primaries then I'm all for it. Cut away.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Want the votes of the Left? Don't blame the left. Run to the left.

It's up to the candidate to appeal to the voters. If she doesn't.....don't blame the voters.

[hedgehog]

54. Maybe I'm being naive, but Mr. Wolfe's website indicates that he still ives in the house he was born

(although that was clearly not a log cabin or shack!), that he spent 2 years in the Peace Corps, and that after selling out his share in a family owned company, he later re-invested in that company to save jobs when the company got caught in the recession.

Then - there is this:

As president of Better York, Wolf and his associates cobbled together an alliance of mid-sized cities throughout Pennsylvania in the mid-’90s to lobby the state legislature for laws that would turn back the tide of new development onto older central cities and towns, and rescind subsidies for new suburban sprawl, like highway widenings and the expansion of sewer lines and other municipal infrastructure into undeveloped areas. York, Lancaster, and Chester even proposed implementing growth boundaries that would contain new development within compact areas near existing infrastructure.

The efforts resulted in the fairly weak Growing Greener laws passed during the Tom Ridge administration, but the push for stronger regionalism policies continues today from groups like 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, PennFuture, and local groups like the Southeastern Pennsylvania First Suburbs Project and Renew Lehigh Valley.

Wolf was one of the most visible advocates of the Rusk report's recommendations, supporting more shared services between the poorer non-white population in the city and its wealthier whiter suburbs, regionalizing the tax base and land use planning, and improving public transit connections.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/05/08/tom-wolf-racial-politics-rob-mccord-attack-ad/

Now, I'd love to see him push a ban on fracking as well, but I'd love to have a pony, as well! All in all, he looks like a good guy. I don't think being welathy automatically excludes a person from being a good Democrat - look at FDR, JFK, LBJ and teddy Kennedy.

[ChangeUp106]

55. PA Resident Here

Schwartz was not taken down by this. Wolf ran great commercials early and often and no other candidate had a prayer. The real problem is that Wolf had the most money to run ads and people are swayed by what they see for 30 seconds on TV.

[AlinPA]

56. Her ads against Tom Wolfe, the Democratic frontrunner are downright vicious. IMO Democrats

turned against her for that. McCord (D) is also putting up some vicious ads in the primary campaign. I thought they were Corbett's ads when they first started.

[femmocrat]

73. I agree.

The negative ads have hurt both of them. I fear they will turn off voters and end up suppressing turnout.

At one point I was for McCord, then Schwartz,... now I'm leaning toward Wolf. I think if he makes a strong showing in the primary, it will make corebutt crap his pants. Hehehehe

[Dawson Leery]

61. Tom Wolf wants to levy an extraction tax on shale gas.

He also opposes "pension reform".

His status as an outsider to politics is helping in the polls, this includes the general.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

72. Meet Tom Wolf

http://tom.wolfforpa.com/

Figure it out for yourselves.

[bunnies]

101. Well now. That definitely puts it into perspective.

Thank you.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

104. Yep, do your research people!

Which I'm sure DUers do, no matter how many bullshit left-bashing articles are posted.

[bunnies]

106. lol. Oh, totally.

No way anyone on DU would jump on anything (true or otherwise) just to bash the left. That would *never* happen. Nope. Never.

[Agony]

75. "How Pennsylvania Democrats are choosing a decent gubernatorial candidate"

there, i fixed that fucking headline.

[Number23]

79. That is insane.

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, two leaders of Third Way, a pro-business, centrist Democratic group that listed Schwartz as an “honorary co-chair,” warned the Democratic Party against following the example of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose elections the previous two Novembers seem to herald a new, emboldened left flank. De Blasio’s and Warren’s ++ideas about reducing inequality++ [], the Third Way leaders wrote, were “a fantasy-based blue-state populism” that would lead the party over “the populist cliff.”

What a stupid thing to do. Glad they caught hell for it too but it's a shame that it's claimed this woman's scalp in the process.

[JPZenger]

84. In 2010, Dems nominated a horrible campaigner who did not get out the vote

Corbett won in 2010 because Dems stayed home. Part of that was disappointment among Dems across the nation that the economy was still in the toilet. The Dems nominated a candidate who had appropriate experience in 2010, but who ran an incredibly weak campaign, with the world's worst TV ads.

Wolf is a candidate that people WANT to vote for, as opposed to simply voting against Corbett. Wolf has a great team around him who quickly respond to attacks. He also is now battle-tested.

Read much more at the PA. section of DU.

[Orsino]

80. Yes. It's the Left that really needs to use its political omnipotence more wisely.

Or something.

[99Forever]

88. Run a Turd Way candidate...

... lose the election.

I fail to see anything wrong with that.

[bobduca]

90. 'Reccomending' Counterfactual Narratives is the Third way

Notice it's the same 12-25 Hippie-punchers here who will rec this kind of left-hating bullshit.

[Chan790]

91. Oh, if it only happened more often.

I'd be thrilled...thrilled...to see lefties come out of the woodwork to end more of these PPI, 3rd-Way, DLC, and assorted friends of Wall St. Democrat's careers.

Good riddance to bad Democrats everywhere.

Ally Schwartz can suck an egg--support free-trade and balanced budgets; you get the hooves.

[bigdarryl]

95. Allyson Schwartz was NEVER the frontrunner in this race she is an

Establishment candidate to be honest I don't think she can beat Corbett in a General election.She doesn't seem to inspire that many people a lot of the establishment dems are backing her because she's a woman

[mike_c]

103. centrist, third-way dems are part of the problem, not the solution....

I'm fine with sending that message, forcefully. We need a party that presents alternative visions of the future rather than simply asking for the reins of the status quo.

[TheKentuckian]

107. I'd say GOOD!!! but the headline is bullshit, the Turd Wayer flushed her self