General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThird Wayers are better than most Republicans
And while they often top that unbelievably low bar, the Third Way and all of their incarnations - past, present, and future - are a disaster for the 99%. They simply want to steal all of our @#$%.
But there is a difference - unlike Republicans, who seem to enjoy hurting their prey, Third-Wayers simply don't care about their prey. They start wars and starve the poor to gain money and power, not particularly to kill stuff. But if stuff dies... oh well.
And yes, they'll @#$& all people, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation. Rah.
That is all.
So please return to your regular programming. But remember: the Third Way and their enablers are not your friends, not at all, not a bit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)
Zippyzagnut
(77 posts)They are worse. They are merely Republican wannabe's
LiberalArkie
(19,807 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Republicans talk the talk, but they are cowards compared to the Third Way when it comes to passing unpopular legislation.
Most all those conservative dream legislative accomplishments that screwed up our country starting in the early 90's were promoted and signed by Hillary's (then) DLC (now Third Way) President/husband.
Reagan and Bush Sr. both talked about doing those things, but it took a Third Way Democrat to get them enacted.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That President Bill Clinton (D) was worse than Presidents Ronald Reagan (homophobe) and Bush Sr. (incompetent)? Really? That's a serious claim that you are making on a website that is supposed to support Democrats. I've had my complaints about various Dems over the last 30 years, but there isn't a single Republican president I'd prefer in office to William Jefferson Clinton (other than maybe Theodore Roosevelt), and I'd like to think that Democrats on this website agree. What "unpopular legislation" did President Clinton pass that wasn't popular and supported by Democrats at the time of passage?
DJ13
(23,671 posts)By passing the proposals promoted by both of those Republicans, yes he was.
We expect Republicans to promote deregulation, to want to end welfare as it had existed, to be foolish enough to think banks really could self regulate, but those were all things done by Bill Clinton.
Which proposals did President Clinton pass that were promoted by Republicans and were not supported by Democrats at the time? I'm not interested in prevarication or hyperbole, but am legitimately interested in discussing what he did wrong (based on concrete examples). I don't pretend to know the answers to all these questions and am willing to learn something new.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
ETA: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain
DJ13
(23,671 posts)
Third Wayers are defined as all Dem Congress people, except for Bernie. And sometimes Elizabeth.
At least the reichwingers and neo-fascists don't like about what they intend to do to the 99$. Baldfaced lying about their true intentions is all the Turd Wayers know how to do.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is this sarcasm? If "third wayers" are disaster for 99% of people (which is statistically unlikely) that must mean Republicans are REALLY bad for some portion of the remaining 1%. Is this an attack on Democrats as a whole? Or just amped up hyperbole?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Good luck with your jury!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)One will stomp you on the head, and his partner will only stomp on your balls.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)
....are not to be taken seriously.
Our party has been hijacked. Many, but not all, Democrats are going along with all of this corporate power and special-interest influence in our politics.
The problem is---We The People are pushed to the outside, to the point where we are viewed as annoying insects who want to spoil the party. They only kow tow to us and pretend like they care during election season.
It's annoying as hell.
You cannot take seriously any Democratic candidate who participates in this corrupt system. We have to get the money out of politics and we need a candidate who has the decency and the fortitude to do it.
Our democracy is at stake.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)You hit the bull's eye so hard you knocked it out of the target.
MerryBlooms
(12,248 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example, Republicans really, really wanted to end Welfare. But couldn't actually do it. It required third-way Democrats to actually end Welfare.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But would be interested to know when we eliminated welfare and who was responsible. Cites?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But good job pretending they're the same thing. Maybe third way will give you a cookie!
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)You just deflected my question instead of answering it though. When did welfare end and who was responsible? More than happy to discuss or admit my error if you can support your claim. Far as I know, people in every state still receive state assistance.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
Welfare was replaced with TANF.
Conservatives pretend TANF and Welfare are the same thing, claiming that "end Welfare as we know it" meant Welfare itself continued.
Nope.
First, people in every state used to receive assistance from the federal government instead of the states. The PRWORA changed that so that the feds sent a block of money to the states. This allowed states to "tweak" their welfare rules and keep some of the money.
Second, TANF benefits run out after 5 years.
Third, not all states comply with TANF, including shorter eligibility periods.
Fourth, there are work/school requirements on TANF funds. It should be noted that it isn't possible to, say, get a degree while on TANF. It doesn't pay enough to survive.
Because your question demonstrated you either know nothing about the subject, or are being massively disingenuous.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)that was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract on America
"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22). President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is what I'm talking about - a concrete example of what President Clinton did that people don't like. Thanks for the post. What exactly is the complaint with this law (which I assume passed both houses of Congress)? It seems to have had relatively broad support.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Ie: The Iraq War for instance.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/tragic-end-woman-bill-clinton-exploited-poster-child-gutting-welfare
That was the woman Clinton used and then threw out. She isn't the only person who suffered for Bill's political gain. The Third way sold the idea that there would always be jobs if people were willing to work. Not only did they not follow through on that, they forgot about it as soon as the damage was done.
Too bad though- we'll do it one better and get everyone a minimum income instead. When you're too blatant in your greed, others notice.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Five years later nobody doubts that the law was indeed a landmark — not only because congressional efforts to update the country’s vast communications industries for the first time since the 1930s had themselves dragged on through the ’80s and well into the ’90s but also because the Telecom Act, as it became known, unleashed unprecedented deregulation and media consolidation, among the most pronounced in American history. Nowhere has that consolidation been more acutely felt than in radio — where just two companies, Clear Channel and Infinity, now dominate the nation’s commercial radio stations. The result, many longtime radio industry observers feel, has been the degradation of commercial radio as a creative, independent medium.
...
In late 1995, when the Telecom Act was being assembled, it was most often portrayed by its backers as a way to allow Baby Bell phone companies to get into the long-distance business, promote competition, introduce the V-chip to parents, police Internet porn and deregulate cable rates. Indeed, the Telecom Act’s laundry list of initiatives covered nearly 200 pages of legislation. Down toward the bottom of that list, though, was a provision, one that received very little public attention (Clinton never even mentioned it during his extended remarks at the bill signing), that lifted all ownership limits for radio station broadcasters nationwide — and allowed them to operate as many as eight signals in the country’s largest markets.
To describe the new law’s sweeping implications for radio as “radical” would be an understatement. Prior to this law, tightly regulated broadcasters could own just 40 stations nationally, and only two in a given market. Years earlier, those limits had been relaxed, very cautiously, by the Federal Communications Commission. But suddenly, without the FCC’s input or any public hearings, the kind of sweeping deregulation that most broadcasters hadn’t even fantasized about two years earlier was ushered in overnight.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)But it really fits. The pure soullessness of the Third Way policies and even the people that rep for it is crazy. It's as if it weren't really people their policies affect to them, just numbers on a board who are not on their team.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)I wonder, if they were where they were supposed to be in the Republican party, would we see them as moderates and more social justice minded, or would we mark them as the worst of the worst for having no convictions?
SandersDem
(592 posts)bottom line has lost us elections...they have cost us a congressional majority, lost governorships, lost State houses, led to republican gerry mandering in all but a very few states using redistricting commissions. The Third Way means Democrats lose at the polls and lose by big margins. It means mid term electtions get largely ignored by those who think voting for dems in the "center' is simply like voting for their father's republicans.
I will take a pass and instead fight for the soul of my Party. I will also vote for the one candidate that performs better against republicans in the general election.
It means, I am feeling the Bern, and you should too because we need to take back this Party and not only keep the White House, but maintain a 50 State strategy AND bring voters BACK to this party.
eom
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Was President Clinton? Jimmy Carter? JFK?
Just want to make sure I'm clear on the definition.
SandersDem
(592 posts)but to answer your question.
Jimmy Carter: NO Pre-Third Way
Bill Clinton: Yes, The First Third Wayer, back when it worked. We paid for that, but you can see multiple posts about that.
Joe Biden: No
John Kerry: Yes
JFK: Pre Third Way.
Obama: Not First Term, but Second Term, Likely.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*"making EFCA (Card Check) the "Law of the Land" was completely forgotten. Never mentioned again.
*Immediately calling the PM of Canada and re-negotiating the terms of NAFTA to protect American Workers turned out to be just a cheap campaign scam.
*And then he did this:
[font size=4]
The DLC New Team
Liberal, Non-Warmongring Democrats Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
Although the majority of Democrats in DC voted AGAINST the Iraq War,
not a single Democrat who voted AGAINST the Iraq War was appointed to a position of power or authority in his administration.
The much vaunted "Public Option" of the Obama Campaign that would "Keep the Insurance Corporation honest" hit the trash can in the first week. (I believe he just stole that idea from Edwards because it was polling well, and really had NO INTENTION of EVER including it in his "reforms".)
3rd Way ALL the way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's a long list.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And even identified that causality exists, but you inverted the driving function. But that's a biggie.
No points for you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to call out the third way haters.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)a Turd Wayer.
Reagan/Thatcher economics and love for oligarchy + militaristic imperialism, always, but doesn't mind equal rights for gays and legal abortion, as long as they don't ever have to pay for it = Turd Way.
The equation is not disprovable.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I can't think of anyone to whom it applies.
Joe Lieberman comes close, but he was an enthusiastic backer of GLBT rights, not just someone who didn't mind them.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)or doesn't really care much about "social" issues. I probably should have phrased it that way instead. But they care very much about Reagan/Thatcher oligarchic economics and empire. Which is why they are able to fool so many people, including here.
Repubs who couldn't abide the crazies, xenophobes and jebus lunatics infiltrated/bought the Democratic Party and turned its institutions and structure into the Turd Way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)were.
Their core ideology was a hatred of government itself.
Reagan's hatred of government was the probably the most extreme ever--the one goal all of his executive appointees had was to do their jobs as poorly as possible (except for his Secretary of Military-Industrial-Complex).
Meese, Watt, Burford, Stockman, Andrew Lewis (the unionbuster), Samuel Pierce, etc.
Not to mention the supply-side nuttiness.
There's a lot of Democrats who are way too cozy with the rich and uninterested in helping the working people and poor, but aside from some holdover Dixiecrats, you'll find very view Reaga clones.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I know how crazy most of them were. But atthat time there were still plenty of more moderate Repubs like Howard Baker, many Senators and congresscritters and they weren't crazy. So the worst ideas kicking around never got enacted because of the reasonable aduls, though plenty of awful ones did.
Those moderate Repubs who liked Reagan's economics and militarism but not his crazier notions, wound up in the Democratic Party while the fly-eating religulous loonies and professional paranoids took over the entire GOP , both during the Bush I and Clinton years.
Interestingly, Stockman recanted very publicly and said all of Raygun's economics were a colossal fraud.
https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-part-2-2011-05-24
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)For one, there was nothing crazier than "voodoo economics."
For another, his economics were driven by a cultural/ideological hatred of government, not a desire to serve the plutocrats per se. The reason Republicans settled on low taxes as their mantra is that it's a lot more marketable than slashing the stuff government does that everyone likes.
The plutocrats are certainly on board, for obvious reasons, but Reagan running the federal government really was like ISIS taking over ancient archaeological sites.
I do see nominally liberal people making some of Reagan's arguments, e.g. trickle-down economics.
But mostly what I see is a different conceit, that the idea being we'll have policies that allow the rich to make a lot more money, but then we'll tax it and redistribute it with an eye towards lifting everyone up.
Problem being, the rich get to rig the government such that the redistribution thing never happens.
yourout
(8,823 posts)And I am going to lump Obama in this as well.
When you belittle and mistreat traditional Democratic voters at some point they say "Why bother to vote when we are just being pissed on".
Third Wayers lead to midterm catastrophes because they turn off the base.
In this way they are worse than Republicans.
Noisy Republican assholes help increase Dem turnout.
Noisy Third Way assholes drive down Dem turnout.
That really gets to the heart of the issue then stomps on it. I hope you have a job that is dependent on seeing the big issue clearly and explaining it to people in a way that they can get it immediately and with clarity.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)are the only thing that moves them to action.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"That'll be the day."
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)they don't learn from their mistakes:
Along with the abandonment of political reform and increasing identification in the mind of the public with Court corruption, the Clinton administration failed to develop economic proposals which would ease the growing economic insecurity that had done much to generate Country antagonisms toward Washington and which needed to be allayed in order to restore public support for activist government. One aspect of this failure in economic policy was the administration’s early decision to sacrifice some of its more populist economic proposals at the alter of deficit reduction. This strategy met with the approval of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the bond market, but despite Clinton advisor James Carville’s comment that if he were reincarnated that he would want to come back as the bond market, since then "you can intimidate everybody," the bond market has little ability to provide the types of tangible and lasting economic benefits necessary to build and sustain a majority coalition for the Democratic party or to allay Country fears that the government is acting in the interest of ordinary citizens (Phillips 1994: 77 and Woodward 1994: 125-126). The focus on deficit reduction also forced the administration to propose a set of regressive energy and gasoline taxes (the latter of which was finally enacted), which promised to further pinch the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans. Moreover, by so quickly and cavalierly jettisoning some of his central campaign promises, Bill Clinton created more doubts about his promise to end "politics as usual" and increased Country cynicism towards his administration.
The Clinton administration also have erred in its staunch support for NAFTA. Not only does the agreement put further downward pressure on U.S. wages, thereby increasing the income inequality at the heart of Country anger at government, but in aggressively pursuing passage of the agreement, the Clinton administration put itself in conflict with organized labor. By attacking one of the Democratic party’s most important constituencies, the administration succeeded in further weakening the Democratic coalition and exacerbating the party’s organizational decline. Also, the time and resources spent by the White House and labor lobbying for and against the agreement would have been better spent on measures of benefit to both groups, such as lobbying for health care reform, an overhaul of campaign finance, or upgrading the organizational capacity of the Democratic party.
Finally, the Clinton administration failed to deliver on the central component of its economic agenda, health care reform. Health care reform represented the type of a broad-based government benefit program that had engendered popular support from activist government in the past and provided the glue which held together the Democratic party since the New Deal. Passage of health care reform would have helped to ameliorate Court and Country divisions by providing evidence that the government can work to resolve complex issues in a way that benefits average Americans. Alas, with the demise of health care reform, the Democrats failed to use the power of government to revitalize their coalition, and in the process furthered the public’s impression that government is incapable of acting in the national interest.
http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/home/2002/faculty/pklinkne/94.htm
Sound familiar? This is great article that explains what happens when they go down this path. We need to go in a different direction or:
By any measure, the elections of 1994 were a significant reverse for the Democratic party; losing fifty-four House seats, eight Senate seats, and majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty-two years is no small achievement.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Why doesn't anyone name names? Call them out. It's talked about like some kind of secret cabal that posters here on DU refer to. Do they have secret meetings? Is it some kind of centrist conspiracy? Is it semi organized like the Tea Party? Are they elected officials? If so, how do they get re-elected? I only hear about them on DU. I'm in the dark. Please shed some light.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)A group of prominent Democrats who decided to forgo "traditional"sources of Democratic funding. They wanted to go after corporate funding.
At their founding conference, you had "luminaries" such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Liebermoron,....
Their website had a big picture of some of their more prominent members, almost all of which were sitting in Obama's cabinet. Then they became the Third Way, and the New Democratic Coalition. Obama himself stated "Make no mistake, I am a New Democrat", at a Robert Rubin hosted Hamilton Project speech. You can google the transcript of that speech.
Response to Fuddnik (Reply #36)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)His hiring blueprint is triangulated Buy Partisan. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal and a healthy chunk of change from the US taxpayer in the great bankster bailout of 2008, Swiss-owned UBS has opened specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management for former president Clinton and former pretzeldent Bush.
http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I wouldn't call the President's cabinet "shadowy". There are in plain sight. The only thing that is kept in the shadows is their ties to the Koch brothers.
Rex
(65,616 posts)have. It is just that simple.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)2. Only purists could prefer Bernie over Hillary.
3. Bernie is impure.
4. Therefore, Bernie supporters are ignorant purists.
QED, eh?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Warren to run for a job she didn't want.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)I'll never give up hope that our first female President will be a natural born leader, such as Warren.
Yes, she may not be ready to be President yet, but were she to at some point accept a job in Bernie's administration, I feel it would only be a matter of time . . . namely, 2024!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But not one whose role model seems to be Margaret Thatcher (all for the rich, and war, war war!) Liz Warren, OTOH? Big HELL YEAH for her!
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)the same way as you have stated.
In fact, Hillary herself has stated during the first debate that her being a woman is the most unique thing she brings to the Presidency.
And that being said, it would therefore not be unreasonable to imagine that she has quite a number of supporters who, upon realizing her gender to be her most original or uniquely distinguishing feature, will abandon her support in droves, in favor of Bernie.
get the red out
(14,031 posts)I never saw a yellow lab, golden retriever, yellow border collie, etc.... that I wouldn't vote for over any damned Republican!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It's the difference between neglecting people to death and torturing people to death.
But at the end of the day dead is still dead.
Romulox
(25,960 posts) Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Water down.
Water down.
Water down.
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
After awhile the victim would break down and speak, because the monotony was so overwhelming.
It wasn't invented by the DLC, Third Way or New Democrats. But they all make great use of it. They water-down RepiglyCON policies to the point where they ALMOST look Democratic, then move on to other topics, claiming they have solved a problem by watering down the RepiglyCON solution when in fact, they have made it worse, possibly bogging us down in calamity for generations to come.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm just like your family pet.
Trust me, I work for the shepherd says the sheepdog chasing lambs into trucks to be turned into Easter dinners. I help the shepherd take care of you and protect you from nasty coyotes....
It's not that I mind paying dues by being sheared every time I turn around, but at some point we have to quit acting like sheep with Stockholm Syndrome.
It's going to hurt the politicians when voters look elsewhere in the party, but it's time to look at electing leaders that are distinctly more Ovine, leaders that will actually work for the sheep and forget about the damned elite canids altogether.
What difference does it make to have your throat cuts after being led to slaughter by a sheepdog, or having it torn out by a dog that's gone feral? Deads dead.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Your post is full of it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2015, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)
economic, political, education and many other important policies are very conservative. They are only liberal on LGBT, drug and other justice reform, (not really). They are not shouting about ending for profit prisons, eliminating those voter ID laws. They are not promoting a better funded education system, nor spending for infrastructure, etc. etc.