No Labels Party

[Parkbandit]

The group "No Labels" kicked off its first conference Monday at New York's Columbia University with just one label largely absent: "Republican."

The non-partisan initiative with the slogan, "Not Left. Not Right. Forward", is seeking to fill what the American people regularly tell pollsters is the vital center: a non-ideological space where the commitment is to getting things done. And its speakers—who ranged from Republican moderates like ex-Virginia Rep. Tom Davis to liberal Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—sang the praises of cooperation and compromise.

But the only Republicans present at Columbia University's modern, square Alfred Lerner Hall seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, such as South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, or former Republicans like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event, like the reliably liberal Gillibrand, and others whose clashes with unions - like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Newark Mayor Cory Booker - have put some distance between them and their parties.

"No Labels" was initially viewed with skepticism by the two parties as a stalking horse for the third-party presidential dreams of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spoke Monday.

But Bloomberg, who stepped onto the national stage last week with a major economic speech, then abruptly said that "no way, no how" would he run for president, appeared in a dour mood.

"It's not clear that the average voter wants what we are all advocating," he said during a panel on non-partisan redistricting, and suggesting the limits of his own third-party considerations. "In the end, when you have an independent candidate, not always but almost always, it is the two major parties that get most of the votes."

"It's not clear the average person feels themselves disenfranchised or want a lot of things that we advocate," he said.

But if the group is not a Bloomberg front - he has not, an aide said, given it a penny — it may inadvertently serve a stalking horse for President Barack Obama, whose efforts to sell his party on a tax compromise from the current Democrats and former Republicans who headlined the event.

"Not everything is a question of principle," said Villaraigosa. "The president chose, and rightfully so to, compromise on this issue."

"It's a great example," of bipartisan compromise, said Inglis, who lost his seat to a more conservative candidate in this year's Republican primary. "I'm willing to believe that that's what Obama's really been always been about," he added, blaming his own party for choosing to say "we can't cooperate - we've got to call him a socialist, we've got to call him a secret Muslim."

"If this tax compromise does pass, well, hope springs eternal," said Crist

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/No_Labels_contd.html?showall

Am I the only one who thinks they sound like Progressives that don't want to be called Progressives? The term in itself "NO LABELS!" sounds like a progressive idea... much like not keeping scores in a Little League game or giving participation trophies to everyone.

[Warriorbird]

I like the idea of a convincing third party with pockets deep enough to fuck with the corporate GOP money machine and the union Democrat money machine.

Also, who do you think could balance a budget more quickly, Bloomberg or the two major parties?

[Parkbandit]

I like the idea of a convincing third party with pockets deep enough to fuck with the corporate GOP money machine and the union Democrat money machine.

Also, who do you think could balance a budget more quickly, Bloomberg or the two major parties?

Bloomberg is a Democrat... I wouldn't trust him with the economy, unless he was getting something out of it for himself. He's also stated that he is not a contributor of this new "Party".

If I had to vote someone in right now JUST to balance the budget, I would probably lean towards Ron Paul. It's a terrifying thought.. but I don't see anyone else that even acknowledges the enormous financial problems we are facing.

[Kembal]

The group "No Labels" kicked off its first conference Monday at New York's Columbia University with just one label largely absent: "Republican."

The non-partisan initiative with the slogan, "Not Left. Not Right. Forward", is seeking to fill what the American people regularly tell pollsters is the vital center: a non-ideological space where the commitment is to getting things done. And its speakers—who ranged from Republican moderates like ex-Virginia Rep. Tom Davis to liberal Democrats like New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand—sang the praises of cooperation and compromise.

But the only Republicans present at Columbia University's modern, square Alfred Lerner Hall seemed to be those who had recently lost primary races, such as South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis and Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, or former Republicans like Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. No other senior elected Republican officials were in attendance, though a range of Democrats were present, some of them seeming a bit mystified by the bipartisan cast of the event, like the reliably liberal Gillibrand, and others whose clashes with unions - like Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Newark Mayor Cory Booker - have put some distance between them and their parties.

"No Labels" was initially viewed with skepticism by the two parties as a stalking horse for the third-party presidential dreams of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spoke Monday.

But Bloomberg, who stepped onto the national stage last week with a major economic speech, then abruptly said that "no way, no how" would he run for president, appeared in a dour mood.

"It's not clear that the average voter wants what we are all advocating," he said during a panel on non-partisan redistricting, and suggesting the limits of his own third-party considerations. "In the end, when you have an independent candidate, not always but almost always, it is the two major parties that get most of the votes."

"It's not clear the average person feels themselves disenfranchised or want a lot of things that we advocate," he said.

But if the group is not a Bloomberg front - he has not, an aide said, given it a penny — it may inadvertently serve a stalking horse for President Barack Obama, whose efforts to sell his party on a tax compromise from the current Democrats and former Republicans who headlined the event.

"Not everything is a question of principle," said Villaraigosa. "The president chose, and rightfully so to, compromise on this issue."

"It's a great example," of bipartisan compromise, said Inglis, who lost his seat to a more conservative candidate in this year's Republican primary. "I'm willing to believe that that's what Obama's really been always been about," he added, blaming his own party for choosing to say "we can't cooperate - we've got to call him a socialist, we've got to call him a secret Muslim."

"If this tax compromise does pass, well, hope springs eternal," said Crist

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/No_Labels_contd.html?showall

Am I the only one who thinks they sound like Progressives that don't want to be called Progressives? The term in itself "NO LABELS!" sounds like a progressive idea... much like not keeping scores in a Little League game or giving participation trophies to everyone.

Probably. Outside of Booker, none of those people are that progressive. (Gillibrand's not reliably liberal. Don't know how Politico came up with that.)

Non-partisan redistricting would be nice though.

[ClydeR]

So it's like the reverse of the Tea Party. It's for Democrats who don't want to be called Democrats.

[ClydeR]

Bloomberg is a Democrat...

How do you figure that?


Bloomberg secretly gave $900,000 to a barely regulated "housekeeping" account for the Senate Republican campaign, two sources confirm.

The account doesn't have to report its finances for another month, but the sources confirm Bloomberg pumped that cash in - an initial donation of $650,000, then $250,000 more to help push the GOP over the edge.

More... (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_bloomys_hedge_bet_on_gop_pays_dividend.html)

[Latrinsorm]

Am I the only one who thinks they sound like Progressives that don't want to be called Progressives? The term in itself "NO LABELS!" sounds like a progressive idea... much like not keeping scores in a Little League game or giving participation trophies to everyone.What do you think progressivism means?

[Warriorbird]

What do you think progressivism means?

SATAN.

[Androidpk]

Ron Paul 2012.

[Tgo01]

What do you think progressivism means?

I only trust Firestorm Killas meaning of the term progressive.

[Firestorm Killa]

What do you think progressivism means?

Depends on who you ask. But for the most part Progressivism is just the American version of Fabian Socialism. They changed the name here because Socialism does not sit well with most Americans. Their goals are socialism through gradual reform rather then revolution. This is why we have things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bailouts, Abortion(Eugenics), Health Care, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Justice, Homeland Security, TSA, the UN, and much more. The goal of Fabian Socialists and Progressives is to build a one world socialist society. Notable Progressives include Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Hillary Clinton, and Wealthy Billionaire George Soros. People believe that Progressives are only a Democrat belief but there are Republicans who are also Progressive, such as Both Presidents Bush.

EDIT: Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a Progressive.

[Warriorbird]

You guys can fix the budget too.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

[Firestorm Killa]

Bloomberg is a Democrat... I wouldn't trust him with the economy, unless he was getting something out of it for himself. He's also stated that he is not a contributor of this new "Party".

If I had to vote someone in right now JUST to balance the budget, I would probably lean towards Ron Paul. It's a terrifying thought.. but I don't see anyone else that even acknowledges the enormous financial problems we are facing.

I agree with you on the Bloomberg thing, though I would say he is definately a Progressive with him wanting to ban junk foods and such. But I am curious on why Ron Paul is a terrifying thought to you?

EDIT: Terrifying to me would be Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin.

[Back]

Am I the only one who thinks they sound like Progressives that don't want to be called Progressives? The term in itself "NO LABELS!" sounds like a progressive idea... much like not keeping scores in a Little League game or giving participation trophies to everyone.

What if it was just what they say it is? You know, people sick of the partisan bullshit looking to find a middle ground party? Oh, right, that does not fit in with your black and white view of the world.


I agree with you on the Bloomberg thing, though I would say he is definately a Progressive with him wanting to ban junk foods and such. But I am curious on why Ron Paul is a terrifying thought to you?

EDIT: Terrifying to me would be Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin.

Amen on that brother.

[Parkbandit]

Probably. Outside of Booker, none of those people are that progressive. (Gillibrand's not reliably liberal. Don't know how Politico came up with that.)

Non-partisan redistricting would be nice though.

How is Gillibrand not a reliable liberal? What vote did she cast that sided with the Republicans when other liberals voted the opposite way?

[Parkbandit]

What if it was just what they say it is? You know, people sick of the partisan bullshit looking to find a middle ground party? Oh, right, that does not fit in with your black and white view of the world.


It would take an idiot of epic proportions to believe that.

[Latrinsorm]

How is Gillibrand not a reliable liberal? What vote did she cast that sided with the Republicans when other liberals voted the opposite way?http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4744

According to these fellows, Senator Gillibrand was a moderate on economic and social issues in 2008. She took a sharp liberal turn in 2009, insert your own former semi-conservative joke here, but I would guess that people saying she's not reliably liberal are recalling her 2008 performance.

[Kembal]

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4744

According to these fellows, Senator Gillibrand was a moderate on economic and social issues in 2008. She took a sharp liberal turn in 2009, insert your own former semi-conservative joke here, but I would guess that people saying she's not reliably liberal are recalling her 2008 performance.

Correct. She may have done it to ensured she would not face a primary challenger, or for another reason, but it would take another couple of years of voting like she has in 2009 and 2010 before one could pronounce her as reliably liberal.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4744

According to these fellows, Senator Gillibrand was a moderate on economic and social issues in 2008. She took a sharp liberal turn in 2009, insert your own former semi-conservative joke here, but I would guess that people saying she's not reliably liberal are recalling her 2008 performance.

Since getting into the Senate, she has voted along side Chuck Schumer on every important vote.

I would never consider Chuck Schumer a moderate anything.

[Latrinsorm]

Since getting into the Senate, she has voted along side Chuck Schumer on every important vote.

I would never consider Chuck Schumer a moderate anything.I'm not sure you read what I posted. Senator Gillibrand joined the Senate in 2009 - exactly when I said she took a sharp liberal turn. She displayed a moderate record during the period before she joined the Senate; namely, in 2008.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure you read what I posted. Senator Gillibrand joined the Senate in 2009 - exactly when I said she took a sharp liberal turn. She displayed a moderate record during the period before she joined the Senate; namely, in 2008.

House and Senate are two different things. In the House, you are forced to vote more closely with the district you represent... in her case the NY 20th.. which is moderate.

Schumer is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and Gillibrand is his bitch. She will vote exactly how he does as long as they are both in the Senate together.

It doesn't get much more reliable than that.

[Firestorm Killa]

House and Senate are two different things. In the House, you are forced to vote more closely with the district you represent... in her case the NY 20th.. which is moderate.

Schumer is one of the biggest liberals in the Senate and Gillibrand is his bitch. She will vote exactly how he does as long as they are both in the Senate together.

It doesn't get much more reliable than that.

Another reason why the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.