No Labels New Generation of Propaganda Lite

[Independem]

No Labels New Generation of Propaganda Lite

We are not labels – we are people. We care deeply about our country. We are frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics. We are passionate about addressing America’s challenges. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Most importantly, we are Americans. We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern. We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect. We believe in the vital civil center — a place where ideas are judged on their merits. We believe that together we can make the future better and brighter — and give us what we all deserve — a government and a political system that works — one driven by shared purpose and common sense. We believe our politics can change, so that government will work again and produce better results. The consequences of inaction have never been greater, because the issues we face have never been more serious, more complicated, or more dangerous. And yet, we have a crisis of governance – A crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward. We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first. A promising future awaits us."

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

No Labels, lumping in all parties to be one, Hmmm.... sounds like the Republicans have taking complete control and are bringing it to you sugar coated. How much do you want to bet the first order will be for the Democrats not to filibuster or change the filibuster rule after republicans used it like a whip on a new donkey that thought it had power.

I don't trust any of this think tank strategy by Republican strategist Mark McKinnon.

[doc03]

1. Kinda sounds like they are promoting No Labels as

a less divisive form of the Tea Party to run on in 2012. Trying to distance themselves from the nut jobs like Beck and Palin I suppose.

[patrice]

7. We have legitimate Social Justice reasons to be at least somewhat anti-Deficit and there are Tea

Partyers (you may recall from this Summer) who will oppose the rape of Medicare (which will be carried out by a Medicare Reform panel provided for in the Affordable Care Act and which ((I think)) will be selected by what is possibly going to be a Republican president).

............................................

The importance being that a Democratically selected Medicare Reform panel will reform it to protect and improve the quality of care (and thus make it a good candidate to fight for for Medicare for all) and a Republican selected Medicare Reform panel will reform it to protect the sources of their campaign contributions and, thus, ruin it as a door into Medicare for All/a Public Option.

This is why we COULD use some Tea Party help on this.

[Independem]

2. Another $1 Million Grass Roots Think Tank Connected to hotels, oil, and insurance.

Financing
As of November 24, 2010, No Labels had raised over $1 million<5>. Major backers include Andrew Tisch, Co-Chairman of Loews Corporation; Ron Shaich, founder of Panera Bread; and Dave Morin, former executive at Facebook.

Andrew Tisch is the co-chair of Loews Corporation, the company founded by his father and uncle. Together with his brother, James S. Tisch, and his first cousin, Jonathan Tisch, Andrew oversees a holding company involved in hotels, oil, and insurance.

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

[Dr.Phool]

3. DLC brand was taking a beating.

So, all the usual New Dems, and Third Way turds started this. Will Marshall and Al From are in on this too.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9747162

[burning rain]

4. "No Labels" want us all to be pro-choice business Republicans.

McKinnon and Bloomberg are exemplars of the fiscally conservative/socially liberal ideology so favored by the MSM. No wonder they get such good press.

[patrice]

5. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. There is such a thing as knowing the labels and

being able to use them, but not being a slave to them by imposing them on every reality.

Every label is more or less relevant, so the question is how much "more" and how much "less" in every relationship. If you don't do things like that, you miss opportunities to work with persons, for example, who are fiscally conservative social justice liberals, or someone who could be authentically Pro-Life (not anti-Choice) and anti-War.

I don't think anyone is proposing that everyone be lumped together; people can still be treated as the relatively unique individuals they are without labels. Don't labels tend to lump people together? And Wouldn't free people be able to use labels or not as may be functional in a given situation, to the benefit of shared goals? Or must we just be oh so very sure that everyone and everything is all wrapped up and put in its box, never to be otherwise, and everyone salutes?

[patrice]

6. BTW, Noam Chomsky recommends that we free ourselves from labels.

"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines (labels) everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."

"Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation."

"The intellectual tradition (expert & rarified use of labels) is one of servility to power, and if I didn't betray it I'd be ashamed of myself."

There IS just one party with two labels:

"In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn't. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth. big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism. watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn't see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn't it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum."