Why the Third Way would love a race between Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul

[woo me with science]

Why do corporatists and investment bankers infiltrate a party? Why the massive corporate backing of groups like the Third Way and the pouring of billions into running corporate candidates and establishing a strong corporate presence in the Democratic party?

It's because the Democratic Party *was* the opposition party standing in their way. Now they own it.

Here's the important part: They didn't buy it because of some perverse affection for the Democratic Party or the color blue on the Democratic Party pom poms. They did it to advance the corporate policy agenda that rakes in billions in wealth and power.

They don't give a rat's ass what party actually wins, as long as the win accomplishes the goal for which they spent billions running candidates to infiltrate the party in the first place. They are the same people backing corporatists in both parties. They will work together and USE the parties to ensure the victory of whichever party or candidate can best serve their interests at the moment.

Running HIllary to the right of Paul pretty much locks in the agenda they want either way. And running Paul has the added benefit of possibly appealing to those who are disgusted with both parties, by giving the illusion that something radically different is being offered. It could dupe a lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us for at least one more election cycle, by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.



__________________________________________________

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

.

[SidDithers]

1. ...

Sid

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. +1000

You win the "Internets" today Sid!

[MohRokTah]

10. ...

[stonecutter357]

19. .

[pnwmom]

34. "Running Hillary to the right of Rand Paul." The OP's disconnect from reality. n/t

[woo me with science]

39. Well, denial is nice and everything, but

he will run on reining in the military, he will run on ending the drug wars, and he will run against NSA spying and the security state.

Hillary would be the candidate standing there defending more war, more spying, and more war on drugs.

[pnwmom]

42. Compare her Senate record to his and then you will see how they stand.

They both have a history which is recorded. Campaign promises mean little, as even you should know by now.

[woo me with science]

43. If you're going to make an argument, make it.

This is awfully vague. Are you trying to suggest that Rand Paul *won't* campaign on these things?

What are you trying to argue, specifically?

[pnwmom]

44. He proposed a budget that would cut food stamps by 30%

while cutting taxes on the 1%. His economic policies are as right wing as they come.

[woo me with science]

45. And so? What does that have to do with my point?

I have argued all along that he will gut social programs.

The point here is that he will run on Libertarian positions of reining in the military, ending the drug wars, and against spying on Americans and the security state. Hillary is placing herself on the other side of these issues, AND she works for an administration that just did this:

Gotta pay for the new war somehow! Signed, pissed off!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025435545

You don't see that as a problem?

[pnwmom]

46. You said she would be running to his right. That is false. She's far to the left on economic issues

and she's pro women's rights and pro marriage equality.

[woo me with science]

47. LOL. Well, I consider warmongering, drug wars and mass surveillance to be extreme right-wing

positions, and I suspect that most people would agree with me.

And I consider it a big....no, a HUGE....problem when the "inevitable" Democratic candidate plans to be running on the PRO side of these things, against a Republican who will be opposing them.

[pnwmom]

48. You don't know what she's planning to run on yet. She's not even a candidate. n/t

[woo me with science]

49. Really?! You think she will reverse herself and run antiwar? Anti-surveillance?

After all her record and public pontifications to the contrary?

Hell, knowing Hillary, she might. Just for the election, mind you...But do you think it would be convincing?

I don't. I think it would cement the already widespread opinion that she is a political opportunist who will say anything to get elected. That's more status quo, by the way.

Meanwhile, I'm damned *sure* that Paul would run as the anti-Hillary. And I think there are a lot of people out there who are so disgusted by all the corporate pandering and lies from both parties, that they will just eat that up with a spoon.

[pnwmom]

60. You think Rand Paul will reverse himself and care about minority rights?

And about how African Americans are treated in this country?

Rand Paul on Ferguson: "There is a very good chance that this had nothing to do with race."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025439015

[theaocp]

69. Um, I guess nobody does.

Campaign promises mean little, as even you should know by now.

[pnwmom]

71. But we DO know her Senate record, which was very progressive. n/t

[joshcryer]

61. Clinton will evolve on the drug war.

Clinton will also run against NSA spying because she has cred for voting against telecom immunity (and was herself spied upon by Germany, so she can use that "personal experience" thing she loves to go with).

Rand Paul can't win without supporting the MIC, and therefore his shot will be gone in any white male dominated areas with military bases, which is almost every district in the country.

[Number23]

53. Reading the list of OPs for the forum, this had 51 recs. Open the thread and suddenly it's 49

[Progressive dog]

66. Yay Sid ^^

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Corporate, aka Capitalist, Politics-as-usual.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. Marie Beyle (Stendahl)

[woo me with science]

9. Perfect quote.

Thank you.

[nationalize the fed]

64. Meet Trevor...

Ridiculed, mocked and cast aside.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. cool story bro!

[JJChambers]

6. You seem to be very invested in seeing Hillary win. I wonder why?

Hillary Clinton, Champion of the 1%, should never be president.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. I am invested in whomever can beat the pants off Republicans....

what else are YOU invested in?


And until YOU produce someone besides Hillary that has a polls to back that up......so are YOU whether you like it or not!

[cantbeserious]

13. False Left Right Duality - The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own Both Parties

eom

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. Yeah....you keep telling yourself that on a Democratic forum....

besides...making the claim here that both parties are the same is also a violation of the mission...sorry

[cantbeserious]

27. Guess One Missed The List Of Third Way Board Members - Almost All Investment Bankers

eom

[cui bono]

54. Which is the point of the OP, but it goes over a lot of people's heads on DU. n/t

[cantbeserious]

65. Thank You For Noticing

eom

[A Simple Game]

22. I hope the Republicans run Romney again, that way

we can have a race between two losers. Poll numbers two years out, wow now I know who to vote for.

[AlbertCat]

28. Poll numbers two years out, wow now I know who to vote for.

Doncha love "News of the FUTURE!"?

[winter is coming]

23. The only poll that counts will be taken in 2016.

I heard the exact same "Hillary's the only one!" arguments used in the run-up to '08, and she couldn't even swing the nomination. Everyone told me the nomination was hers to lose, and she blew it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the same thing happens again in 2016 and some Dem who's currently being dissed as "unelectable" wins.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. Says YOU....

the polls that count right now say...HRC kicks Republican ass...

What have YOU got to counter that?


Diddly squat.....wish in one hand shit in the other my grandmother used to say.

[winter is coming]

29. That poll's results have more to do with name recognition than anything else.

A poll taken more than two years before Election Day is meaningless.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. So? Who do you have that can beat ALL Republican ass?

AND who can raise the money?

Who do you have that can do that? Until you can do that....SHE is it!

[winter is coming]

38. *Any* nominee we select should be able to beat anything that comes out of the clown car.

Polling and fundraising to date is all about name recognition, which is not the end all and be all you imagine. If it were, Hillary would be President now. If you want to pretend she's "it", go right ahead, but given how things turned out in '08, that's a tough sell.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. "should" and actual polling proof are two different things...

put up!

Odds on Favorite my friend!

[winter is coming]

59. No one has any polling "proof". As multiple people have tried to explain to you, polling at this

point in an election cycle has no positive predictive power. It's more likely to be an indicator of who won't be the nominee.

[cui bono]

56. Is she wins we will have a Republican ass for president.

If you think she's anything more than a moderate republican you are mistaken. That's all any Dem that's allowed to be president by TPTB is any more, as evidence by our current POTUS.

[JDPriestly]

37. She has name recognition.

The polls that count are the primaries. Half the people who say they like Hillary won't even bother to vote in the primaries. They identify as Democrats and answer their phones but they won't vote in the end.

The polls that count are the primaries. Hillary did not do well in 2003.

[JJChambers]

36. Some republicans lose to tea partiers.

I'm a man of principals over party. I bleed blue, not purple.

[pnwmom]

35. V.R. is invested in the truth. For the OP to be claiming Hillary

will be running to the right of Rand Paul is nonsense.

[conservaphobe]

5. Paging Nurse Ratched. nt

[JoePhilly]

16. Lol!

[Autumn]

8. Our democracy has been sold to the highest bidders.

Recommended.

[Teamster Jeff]

11. Kick & Rec

[cantbeserious]

12. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

eom

[glowing]

20. And they use the police and the alphabet soup of federal policing agencies

to keep people in line. There is a reason the NSA is spying on you and keeping track of you, and it has nothing to do with "keeping America safe from terrorists". Shoot, they couldn't "find" the Boston Marathon attackers plans? The initial FBI interests in the older brother didn't raise any red flags? And then there was the weird connection in FL that led to the death of a man who was being questioned and had no weapons or seemingly any threats toward FBI questioners being killed during that questioning. And we all saw the roll out of police and their toys and people staying inside and allowing a door to door search for two men into their homes without warrants (but don't worry, the police delivered milk)... They Shut down an entire metropolitan city and the people sheepishly complied... And now, "Boston Strong" TM is a logo much like 9/11 has become.

And does no one seem to think it odd that there are so many British ISIS persons lobbing off an American journalists head? They have agencies similar to the CIA and the CIA has been operating in the ME since oil was found under their sands. (And the crazy thing is that we have the technology and capability and people around the world who need decent paying jobs, to change our energy sources. Obviously there are wealthy elements around the world who wish to keep people paying them for expensive energy resources and fighting lengthy wars over it... The next resource to heat up will be over fresh water wars.)

I guess since 9/11 terrorism wars are winding down, we need another crisis to keep the war machine involved. How else can we steal workers taxes that should be finding schools and infrastructure to find its way into the pockets of the war contractors and private security firms?

There has been quite a bit of assertion that ISIS is a terroristic threat to the Homeland being rattled about on the TV by "experts" and Hillary Clinton running to the right of McCain and the Republicans... Is anyone wondering when that threat might manifest itself? Or because of the hatred towar this Pres, would a republican be inevitable over a terrorist attack? Lord knows, the country wouldn't give him the pass that the republicans got for themselves (you know, like the Bush admin took office on 9/12 or something).

I know, I'm sounding like a tin foil nut, and I hope I'm wrong about innocent lives being destroyed because of the war machine and it's wealthy benefactors... But this song and dance seems so darned familiar.

[cantbeserious]

24. + 1,000

eom

[woo me with science]

68. +2

[blkmusclmachine]

14. The DEMS increasingly work for the same CEO's as the GOP does: the 1%

[Enthusiast]

15. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Wake the fuck up, people!

Thank you, woo me with science!

[Broward]

17. Great post, thank you.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Dead on, woo. What's more, this strategy has already been field-tested successfully. n/t

[joshcryer]

21. You clearly have been watching Rand Paul mouthing off recently.

Particularly about his Clinton as a war hawk claim.

Of course you were utterly wrong about Paul Ryan, as you are here.

Rand Paul doesn't have a fuck chance in hell.

[DonCoquixote]

31. a signature worthy quote

Running HIllary to the right of Paul pretty much locks in the agenda they want either way. And running Paul has the added benefit of possibly appealing to those who are disgusted with both parties, by giving the illusion that something radically different is being offered. It could dupe a lot of people into remaining passive about what is being done to us for at least one more election cycle, by making them believe, one more time, that merely voting is going to be enough.

MY only disagreement with you is, contrary to the usual flogging of Obama supporters that is now in fashion, many of us realized that voting was only the appetizer, not the entree.

[leftstreet]

32. DURec

[stupidicus]

33. yep, it's the same good cop/bad cop game they've been playing for decades

and they've got the blind/ignorant/etc, pants/bedwetters so fearful of modern rightwingnuttery that it'll work as it long has.

That's why for example, the inequality problem has continued to grow under repub/dem admins alike, etc.

Only the profoundly stupid think things like that happen by accident as opposed to design.

[Wounded Bear]

40. They love the far right vs center right battles...

Win more or win less. It's all the same to them.

[brooklynite]

41. Third Way Honorary Chairs:

James Clyburn

John Dingell

Ron Kind

Joseph Crowley

Jared Polis

Thomas Carper

Claire McCaskill

Mark Udall

Jeanne Shaheen

Kay Hagan

Chris Coons

Gabrielle Giffords

Which ones are you ready to throw over the side?

[Scuba]

50. Nailed it, woo. The corporatists now own both parties. Notice how those who have tried ...

... to discredit this OP have exactly nothing to counter what you wrote. Of course Hillary is a right winger on both war and the economy. Of course Paul's positions would be seen as to the left of her on both these issues, plus the war on drugs. To claim differently is either dishonest or delusional.

[Rex]

52. Oh come on now!

is a powerful retort!

[woo me with science]

73. +1 We are to deny reality.

Proles must fervently agree that 2+2=5.

It's really fascinating to watch.

[Purveyor]

51. Romney will be the GOP nominee and Clinton the Dem nominee. Romney will

win.

Wish it otherwise but we better concentrate on the Senate to at least have a divided gov't.

btw...I'm thinking the Senate goes GOP in Nov '14 as do most of the other pundits.

Working hard here to keeping the MI Senate seat in DEM hands and so far so good but this State is seriously 'bipolar'. (Peters).

Bookmark this post...

[WillyT]

55. Yep... K & R !!!

[JEB]

62. K&R

There is no party willing to oppose the corporate take over. Union beat down, regulation delegated to the foxes, NAFTA and the other trade agreements, Citizens United. Looks like they got it sewed up.

[Thinkingabout]

63. If your issues is to halt all wars and stop the war on drugs, how is this going to solve the problem

we face in the US. It is more than what Rand Paul stands and will ever stand. He switch hits every time he is up to bat, never know where he will be next. He has been associated with halting civil rights, and now he is all for what ever he thinks someone wants to hear.

His stand on the issues is pitiful.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm

Hillary on the issues

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

I can't see the GOP running Rand Paul as their primary pick, he needs to try in the Libertarian Party, they like his crap.

[betterdemsonly]

67. I agree

but what can you do? Good candidates just aren't running?

[Zorra]

70. We need a Democratic candidate who'll leave no doubt that they are way to the left of Paul. nt

[woo me with science]

72. Boy, do we. nt