My double-sided, ad-hoc, focus-group tested, and nearly 100% favorable demonstration/protest signs simply say:
WAR is the ultimate example of 'Negative Externality Cost' LOOTING in our world.
'NEGATIVE
EXTERNALITY
COST'
LOOTING
vs.
'POSITIVE
EXTERNALITY
PROFITS'
FOR PEOPLE
Instead of NO LABELS, I would suggest, NO EMPIRE.
BTW, since the First Amendment's legal acceptance during the Vietnam War of the critical 'Free Speech' label of "Eff the War" --- the same might be said of "Eff the Empire".
Love how "Progressives" (aka: Democratic Socialists) lecture us on No Labels. It was Progressives that lost a winnable Senate Senate in Wisconsin and barely pulled through in much easier Pennsylvania. It was Progressives that cost Democrats control of the House. A moderate Democrat would have won against Boebert and Maloney's seat would have been retained, had a Democratic Socialist, who did not even live in the district, not interfered by pushing a primary she lost badly.
The fact is that the Democratic Party loses when it puts forward "Progressive" extremists. I also find it interesting that "Progressives" are now pro-Biden, when it was they that voted, along with the Freedom Caucus Party, to default on the nation's debt. Sure I voted AGAINST Trump by voting FOR Biden, but in the end I ended up with Bernie. I didn't vote for many of the disastrous policies pushed by "Progressives" and endorsed by Biden. Maybe the real reason he struggles in the polls is because more dedicated Democrats like myself are disenchanted, while "Progressives," hardly a reliable bloc, are quick to turn on Democrats.
It also goes without reminder that it was "Progressives" that helped elect Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein, in protest of Bernie being rejected by Democrats. Had Stein's votes went to Clinton in MI, PA, and WI, then there never would have been a Donald Trump. The real problem isn't No Labels. The real problem are "Progressives" who have zero affinity to the Democratic Party, and whom in many cases seek to destroy it, remaking it into the Democratic Socialist Party.
I tend to agree with your visceral reaction, but based on his recent writings, I wouldn't accuse Mr. Klein of promoting destructive goofy policies. The one thing that bothers me about his current essay is a faint note of paranoia, which seems more developed in your comment. In any case, it's a shame that moderation has such an uncool media footprint.
Instead of this frightened expression of fealty to the Democrats, why not a column urging the partisans in both parties to devote their energies to fielding candidates acceptable to the vast majority of Americans who have expressed their unwillingness to vote for either of the seriously unfit front-runners?
You mistake my motive on all counts. This is about Donald Trump. Period. We need to prevent him from becoming president again, lest we lose our country. He is in a different category from every other candidate.
As usual, Joe Klein, you are 100% correct. Of the many questions I’d like to ask the leaders of No Labels are these: 1) Who are your donors and how much have they donated? 2) Where, exactly, has the money gone? No Labels brags about polling 50,000 respondents, with the work done by HarrisX; HarrisX is owned and operated by Mark Penn. My thought: Is self-dealing a possibility? Maybe. Maybe not. But let’s find out. Other questions to follow.
In a political continuum that extends from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the left and Trump and Majorie Taylor Greene on the right, I'd say Joe Biden is pretty close to the middle. If No Labels has become a Trump front operation, I would say that it is more dangerous than timely.
Dump "No Labels" and vote for "NO EMPIRE"
NO EMPIRE tm
My double-sided, ad-hoc, focus-group tested, and nearly 100% favorable demonstration/protest signs simply say:
WAR is the ultimate example of 'Negative Externality Cost' LOOTING in our world.
'NEGATIVE
EXTERNALITY
COST'
LOOTING
vs.
'POSITIVE
EXTERNALITY
PROFITS'
FOR PEOPLE
Instead of NO LABELS, I would suggest, NO EMPIRE.
BTW, since the First Amendment's legal acceptance during the Vietnam War of the critical 'Free Speech' label of "Eff the War" --- the same might be said of "Eff the Empire".
Love how "Progressives" (aka: Democratic Socialists) lecture us on No Labels. It was Progressives that lost a winnable Senate Senate in Wisconsin and barely pulled through in much easier Pennsylvania. It was Progressives that cost Democrats control of the House. A moderate Democrat would have won against Boebert and Maloney's seat would have been retained, had a Democratic Socialist, who did not even live in the district, not interfered by pushing a primary she lost badly.
The fact is that the Democratic Party loses when it puts forward "Progressive" extremists. I also find it interesting that "Progressives" are now pro-Biden, when it was they that voted, along with the Freedom Caucus Party, to default on the nation's debt. Sure I voted AGAINST Trump by voting FOR Biden, but in the end I ended up with Bernie. I didn't vote for many of the disastrous policies pushed by "Progressives" and endorsed by Biden. Maybe the real reason he struggles in the polls is because more dedicated Democrats like myself are disenchanted, while "Progressives," hardly a reliable bloc, are quick to turn on Democrats.
It also goes without reminder that it was "Progressives" that helped elect Donald Trump by voting for Jill Stein, in protest of Bernie being rejected by Democrats. Had Stein's votes went to Clinton in MI, PA, and WI, then there never would have been a Donald Trump. The real problem isn't No Labels. The real problem are "Progressives" who have zero affinity to the Democratic Party, and whom in many cases seek to destroy it, remaking it into the Democratic Socialist Party.
I tend to agree with your visceral reaction, but based on his recent writings, I wouldn't accuse Mr. Klein of promoting destructive goofy policies. The one thing that bothers me about his current essay is a faint note of paranoia, which seems more developed in your comment. In any case, it's a shame that moderation has such an uncool media footprint.
Instead of this frightened expression of fealty to the Democrats, why not a column urging the partisans in both parties to devote their energies to fielding candidates acceptable to the vast majority of Americans who have expressed their unwillingness to vote for either of the seriously unfit front-runners?
You mistake my motive on all counts. This is about Donald Trump. Period. We need to prevent him from becoming president again, lest we lose our country. He is in a different category from every other candidate.
I wish I disagreed with you.
As usual, Joe Klein, you are 100% correct. Of the many questions I’d like to ask the leaders of No Labels are these: 1) Who are your donors and how much have they donated? 2) Where, exactly, has the money gone? No Labels brags about polling 50,000 respondents, with the work done by HarrisX; HarrisX is owned and operated by Mark Penn. My thought: Is self-dealing a possibility? Maybe. Maybe not. But let’s find out. Other questions to follow.
If you think Joe Biden is governing as a moderate, that is PRECISELY the reason No Labels is timely..
In a political continuum that extends from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on the left and Trump and Majorie Taylor Greene on the right, I'd say Joe Biden is pretty close to the middle. If No Labels has become a Trump front operation, I would say that it is more dangerous than timely.