While our party worries about "the left", the centrist No Labels is making a move.

[madfloridian]

I got an email today from No Labels inviting me to a phone conference tonight with its national leaders. I don't know which list gave them my name and email address, but I quickly unsubscribed. I told them I thought it was way past time for our party to act more partisan and to stop compromising with extremists.

Like Unity 08 before them (same bunch I wonder?) they appear to be planning to attack the president from the right.

From the email:

I love our country. And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America. But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.

Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington. And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders’ steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty. Americans can’t find jobs. Small businesses can’t get credit. And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.

We are better than this.

Three weeks ago, I asked fellow business leaders to join me in urging the President and the Congress to put an end to partisan gridlock, and in its place, to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence.

Partisan gridlock? They think the president is being partisan? Maybe they are not paying attention.

That email was from the head of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.

Recently The Irregular Times put together some research on No Labels and a group called Americans Elect. Very interesting.

No Labels and Americans Elect: A List of Known Connections

The article points out that both groups call themselves a "501c4" corporation. Both were "founded last year and headquartered inside the Washington DC beltway that does not disclose the identity of the people who are funding it."

Here is more connecting the two groups, one of which (like Unity 08) sounds like it plans to run its own candidate for president.

From the Irregular Times link:

A major goal of Americans Elect is to run its own candidate for President of the United States in 2012. A major goal announced by No Labels at its launch is to organize in all 435 congressional districts and spend money to influence campaigns for Congress in 2012.

When No Labels made its public launch in December 2010, the Americans Elect Communications Manager staffed the No Labels social media desk. In April 2011, Americans Elect promoted No Labels on the front page of its website. When Americans Elect made its public launch in July 2011, No Labels Co-Founder John Avlon published the first mainstream media piece about it, a column praising Americans Elect in glowing terms featuring quotes obtained by special access to the group.

In the fall of 2010, when hardly anyone know about either No Labels or Americans Elect and Americans Elect had only a handful of Facebook fans, four employees or contractors of Americans Elect were Facebook fans of both Americans Elect and No Labels: Zack Hubbard, Daren Bascome, Jim Jonas and Kellen Arno.

Under its old name of Unity08, Americans Elect held secret meetings with staffers of Michael Bloomberg, registered the web domain draftmichaelbloomberg.com, shared office space with the Draft Bloomberg Committee and made a financial contribution to the Draft Bloomberg Committee. In November of 2010, Bloomberg senior aide Kevin Sheekey reported interest in using Americans Elect to put Michael Bloomberg on the presidential ballot in 2012. According to Monica Langley, No Labels was formed following a meeting arranged by Bloomberg aide Kevin Sheekey.

Here is the Americans Elect website.

Americans Elect

Here's what it says:

The first direct presidential nomination. No special interests. No agendas. No partisanship.

A greater voice for all Americans, no matter their party. Every registered voter can be a delegate.

Any constitutionally-eligible citizen can be a candidate.
The power to choose your candidate in the 2012 election. Real issues. Real candidates. Real votes.

Here is their Who we are page.

Who we are

Here is the No Labels Who we Are website:

No Labels, Our People

You have to click each face to get the name. A few stood out for me right away, like Jon Cowan, Third Way Founder who is anti-Social Security. There is Dan Gerstein, the former Joe Lieberman consultant, who dislikes liberals intensely and wrote about it often. There is Nancy Jacobson of the DLC and a co-founder of No Labels. There is John McCain's former speechwriter. I could go on.

Perhaps instead of fretting so much about keeping "the left", the "liberals" on board next year, our party should start paying attention to what those who call themselves moderates and centrists are doing. They are openly speaking of opposition to the president.

[leveymg]

1. Nice line of research there. Looks like Mayor Mike wants to play spoiler in '12

Hope it blows up in his face and his Wall Street buddies catch the shell fragments.

[madfloridian]

7. I see you caught that little bit, too.

Sounds like Bloomberg is indeed interested in being opposition.

[leveymg]

8. Not sure he wants to be opposition, he wants Wall St to maintain power over Main St.

This is his way of exercising leverage to keep Obama and the corporate Dems moving Right.

Just the threat of a well-financed run just to the Right of Obama is probably effective to keep them moving in that direction.

[SteveM]

48. He's also virulently anti-2A, and will aggressively pursue that issue.

Good job. Folks who are liberal and progressives need to look long and hard at the Democratic Party, and decide what they want to do in the face of right-wing/center-right politics. The goal of this amalgamation is the institution of the corporate state. And they will make an earnest effort to continue the destruction of ANY sort of progressive political movement.

By now, that should be abundantly clear.

[xchrom]

2. 'centrists' like these aren't centrist.

and therein lies a problem -- who will assert that these are corporate extremists?

they get to say what ever they want -- and there will be little challenge.

[madfloridian]

19. I agree with that.

Actually I do not think it is about the middle or center at all. I guess I was using familiar terminology to show the utter foolishness of blaming the left. The more I search those names the more uncomfortable I feel.

[TheWraith]

3. Same shit, different year.

Almost every presidential election for decades, there's been somebody thinking that they can turn themselves into some great political movement of the center. It always dies a swift death, primarily because they lack any sort of cohesive force.

It's like the old saw about the revolutionary sitting at the cafe as a mob runs by. He thinks, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going, so I can lead them!" Trying to "poll the wind" with a group of people who are generally discontent, politically clueless, and not committed to anything, is a recipe for failure.

[madfloridian]

4. The danger now is not from people who form groups.

The danger is those who feel discouraged and worried enough not to be part of one.

But I find it odd that the party is more concerned about "the left" is going to do when there is really no organization going on there.

I say to the president to worry about the centrists.

[SteveM]

49. As a political force, there is no Left left. The term is used to scapegoat...

and cow down anyone who would suggest policies which question corporate power; just an updating of the "Socialism!" charge. I think Obama is seen as a "failed centrist" (in reality, he is), and this "new" outfit is trying to move even further to the right than Obama by accommodating itself even more to corporate power, and selling itself to corporatists as the more "reasonable" and "common sense" (non) party, esp. when compared with Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman.

[brooklynite]

5. FWIW -- they're not strictly "centrist"

Having met with their leadership, while they tend to fall into the middle of the political spectrum (both Democrats and Republicans) their institutional focus is not on advocating a centrist philosphy; it's on pushing both side to work cooperatively on problem solving (which might indeed end up with "in the middle solutions).

[madfloridian]

21. Since the president is working hard to work cooperatively....

why are they going to run someone against him? That is my point. President Obama has been very very bipartisan in all areas. He tends to compromise early on, too much I think. If that is their goal, why do they need to give him an opponent?

I would think they are even more corporately inclined than "centrist"...I just use the word because too many centrist Democrats are always nagging the left to get on board. And here they are planning to oppose the president.

[SteveM]

50. Dem GOPer don't compromise. nt

[Dawson Leery]

6. The corporate financers of this "third way" candidate

(call them the "third way" as that is what they are) will do whatever big business orders them to do.
We are on to their game.

[SteveM]

51. Yes, indeed. nt

[State the Obvious]

9. I received a phone message yesterday, too.

......about the "No Label" townhall conference tonight. They were vague enough in their message to make you think it was a good idea. I briefly looked at their homepage where it listed some of their supporters.......David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, John McCann, Mary Landrieu, and several others whose names I do not recall. I looked at the site this morning, and didn't see that particular list.

I see it as just another political deception......BUT it could gather enough momentum to pull in the" hangers-on" in EITHER party.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Good stuff, Mad. Good stuff.

[madfloridian]

15. ....

Why thank you. :hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

11. They are all Republicans and Thrid Way DLC types, all of them.

"No Labels" is just another way to relabel the tired old brand names and pretend to be something else, just as the 'Tea Party' is just a re-branding of Republicans after the Bush era. Many of the same lot tried the same thing under another name early in the 08 warm up, that one failed to generate heat in part because what they had in mind was running a Republican under a different name and trying to make it look like an independent grassroots happening. That just happened to deliver a mainstream Republican President.
They will not be able to sell this, because they do not mean 'No Labels' they mean 'Forget Who We Are'. They want blank slates for already rejected policies and candidates. If your label said 'Poison' you'd want to remove it as well.

[Fuddnik]

33. Here's a list of American Elects Board of Advisors. Read it!

All neocons, hedge funders, DLC, Cato Institute, and worse. And the elder Ackerman serves on the board of a foundation with Rumsfeld, Feith, Otto Reich, and worse.


http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/americans-elect-board-of-advisors-names-and-connections-july-26-2011/

[State the Obvious]

12. These tactics are insidious, and we need to pay attention. nt

[madfloridian]

17. I agree. Insidious is a good word.

They are planning on undermining the president while the left is getting the heat.

[WDIM]

13. I would love to see a Third Party Republican group like this run!

Split the republican and independent vote.
Would help left leaning voters.
Although our only choice so far is a corporatist.
I say Jesse Ventura for President!

[madfloridian]

14. L.A. Times covered this from Irregular Times....names mentioned.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-americans-elect-20110728,0,116246.story

""The only political philosophy we have is that people should be greater than parties," said Elliot Ackerman, the group's chief operating officer. Still, many of the group's experienced political operatives hail from centrist circles: Chief Executive Kahlil Byrd is a GOP strategist who worked for Massachusetts' Democratic governor, Deval Patrick. Pollster Doug Schoen worked for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Democratic presidential campaign, as well as for New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an independent.

One of the main financial backers is Elliot's father, Peter Ackerman, a private investment executive who made tens of millions of dollars working with junk bond trader Michael Milken in the 1980s. He alone has given at least $1.55 million to Americans Elect, according to tax documents the group filed last year while it was briefly organized as a political organization. In October, it changed its designation to a 501(c)4 social welfare group, as first noted by blogger Jim Cook, who has been tracking its activities.

.."The group has an eclectic board of advisors that includes former FBI and CIA chief William H. Webster and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, a cofounder of No Labels, a group that seeks to advance partisanship-free politics. (Bloomberg has backed the efforts of No Labels, but a spokeswoman for Americans Elect said he is not involved in its project.)"

[JDPriestly]

16. Destined to fizzle. That's my take.

Bloomberg is a New Yorker. New Yorkers like him.

That turns off the rest of the country.

[madfloridian]

18. More No Labels involved politicians. Most interesting.

"Update, July 29 2011: Another connection emerges. Douglas Schoen, who is on the Americans Elect Board of Advisors, is a pollster for No Labels and a promoter of a Michael Bloomberg candidacy for President.

Update, July 30 2011: Another connection emerges, although No Labels is shoving it down the memory hole. Conservative Democrat Will Marshall has been a Citizen Leader and active blogger for No Labels, and is now a member of the Americans Elect Board of Advisors.

Update, August 1 2011: Yet another connection emerges, although No Labels has also shoved it down the memory hole. Philip K. Howard, a prominent corporate lawyer and proponent of deregulation and cutting social programs, is on the Americans Elect Board of Advisors and has been a No Labels Citizen Leader."

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/07/28/no-labels-and-americans-elect-a-list-of-known-connections/

Interesting.

They just keep relabeling themselves.

[freshstart]

55. Good research madfloridian

This all sounds similar to some research I did on the conservatives from the mid-70s.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30910FC3C5F137B93C1A81789D95F428785F9&scp=1&sq=conservatives%20vote%20to%20shun%20party%20labels&st=cse

The full articles states that during this meeting in 1976 called by the Conservative Caucus they voted that they wanted no party labels "neither Republican which most of them were, nor Democratic but would work within all parties and groups." It goes on "the main order of business was discussion on how to organize at the local level; with the aim of replacing Democrats and Republicans with conservatives." This group included Ron Paul, Jesse Helms, James Buckley, Howard Phillips and others. The members overlap a bit with the John Birch Society started by the Koch brothers daddy Fred.

In the mid 60s, the conservatives were considering starting their own party...but later opted to take over the current parties.
Here:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C10FF345415738DDDA80894DD405B858AF1D3&scp=5&sq=conservatives%20put%20off%20formation%20third%20party&st=cse

It is no surprise that they were also behind school vouchers, particularly conservative caucus member Gov. Meldrim Thomson Jr. from New Hampshire:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A11FC38551A7493C2AB178FD85F478785F9&scp=1&sq=voucher+system+in+schools+gains&st=p

[madfloridian]

56. That bunch really did take over the GOP....wish articles weren't pay.

Sounds fascinating, would love to read them. I did have a NYT paid subscription until recently, but just got tired when there is so much still for free.

That bunch and those like them have really wreaked havoc on the the GOP. In my mind it's like the corporate-minded centrists have basically done the same to ours....both went right.

Thanks for sharing. :hi:

[freshstart]

57. I get them through Proquest

I tried to send a personal message, but it says I don't have enough posts yet. I'm not sure if I can post the articles or if it would be copyright infringement? Anyone know? I have pdfs of the entire articles.

Some of the conservative caucus members were democrats, so I'm not sure if they were confined to the GOP.

[madfloridian]

58. I have an idea.

When you get enough posts to pm me, send me a copy of one of them. That would be quite okay, just one article through pm. Maybe you can send a copy of another article to someone else here as well. We could at least post a quote or two from the article. Trouble is pdf is impossible for me to copy/paste...I always have to transcribe.

BTW what's Proquest?

[freshstart]

60. Sounds good.

Do you know how many posts I need before I can send a pm? Proquest is a service that is linked up with my university's library. I think many of them use it. You can search the NY Times and other publication archives for free with a student or staff password.

On this site they list some of the "accomplishments."
http://www.conservativeusa.org/35years.htm

This is what they were referring to in the first headline about the shadow cabinet.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bgFaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ukoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6913,1208676&dq=ron+paul+shadow+government&hl=en

[madfloridian]

61. Great article about the shadow government.

Don't know the number of posts, sorry, never heard the number.

Ok, I remember hearing about Proquest. I used something like that, can't remember the name, when I was taking refresher courses before I retired from teaching.

There's a similar program I used for research when doing genealogy the last few years. I forgot all about it, my membership probably died. It accesses old old newspapers that are being archived.

[freshstart]

62. I'll keep posting comments...and checking to see if it will

let me send a pm. I used to use google news archives (that is where that article came from), but they seem to have disabled it. I can't get it search the old papers anymore. Something tells me that there is more to that group than meets the eye and it may be connected to what you are researching.

[madfloridian]

20. It's odd.

All the outrage when the left, the progressives, are upset over the president's compromises...very little of it when a group actually says it will run their own candidate because the president is not bipartisan enough.

It's odd and it's amazing.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Kind of telling, isn't it?

We are the whipping boys of the Democratic Party.

I honestly wish we could put forth a primary challenge via the union.

[jberryhill]

22. It's a typo of "no liberals"

[Honeycombe8]

23. Excellent, informative post. Thanks, Mad! nt

[JoePhilly]

24. while Democrats fight each other ... the GOP laughs.

That is the real story.

Those who support Obama would LOVE to focus on the enemy in front of them, the GOP. But that's hard, when some parts of the Democratic party won't focus on that same enemy.

[madfloridian]

25. But the problem is that SOMEONE needs to focus on the needs of the people.

And right now both parties are failing to do that.

I would love to focus on the GOP as the enemy, BUT I am too busy trying to protect Social Security from the Democrats in DC.

[JoePhilly]

39. I'm sure you'll have much less trouble defending it from the GOP.

[Little Star]

44. You know actually she probably would have less trouble....

because if it were the GOP trying to put SS on the table Dems would not stand by and let them.

It is bad now because the Dems won't go against their own president who put SS on the table himself.

Yep, she probably would have less trouble.

[madfloridian]

45. Actually the GOP is using it to its advantage.

I have seen ads here for their candidates protecting Medicare from Obama. One or two ads have mentioned his attacks on SS as well. They of course do not point out their own attacks on it.

Trouble is it is hard to tell someone they are wrong, when in actuality Obama did put them on the table.

Here's one ad:

[Fuddnik]

34. It would be nice, if some in the Democratic Party didn't focus on us as enemies.

I won't vote for anyone who continues to vote AGAINST my interests, and the interests of the working class, no matter what initial they have behind their name.

We'd love it if people would hold Democrats feet to the fire, and demand some accountability for their actions.

[Odin2005]

26. "Centrist" = kinder, gentler Fascist.

[madfloridian]

29. Just wanted to let you know I have really enjoyed reading your blog.

It's a topic dear to my heart as a teacher. (I say that though I am retired...the teacher part doesn't go away.)

You describe some of the most fascinating children I ever worked with. Thanks for sharing that blog.

[Odin2005]

31. You're welcome!

[Raine]

27. I heard what they had to say and they don't fool me ... they are NOT on my side. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Thank you for your research!

I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to be "between" the Republicans and Democrats. You'd have to be as thin as a playing card to fit in that space.

[madfloridian]

32. lol "thin as a playing card to fit in that space."

Love that statement...how true.

[tooeyeten]

35. not a chance

not in this climate.

[ibegurpard]

36. nice work!

[dameocrat67]

37. I suspect that what is really happening is that the lieberdems know Obama

may lose so they are trying to coopt any leftist move to an independent candidate. nolables and secrecy are important since many of them sound progressive. read some of Ed Kochs more recent posts at huffpost, yet he is a lieberdem all the way in terms of the candidates he supports.

[sulphurdunn]

38. Utopia or Dystopia?

"The first direct presidential nomination. No special interests. No agendas. No partisanship." Is the end of politics, sort of like unleashing capitalism was "the end of history?" :rofl:

[madfloridian]

40. "No special interests. No agendas. No partisanship."

And all one has to do is to look at the people involved at those sites...special interests all over the place.

:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. yeah, that's the killer!!

but I can imagine a number of people being vulnerable to this snow job. After all these are the same common mimes that have been going on for decades now - The Republican Party is dominated by the extreme right - which is true. The Democratic Party is dominated by the extreme left - which is preposterous. Given that this new group appears to consider Obama/Clinton triangulation as too partisan, too ideological and too unwilling to compromise - I can only imagine what direction these folks are pushing and who their generous grassroots contributers might be.

[SteveM]

52. Like a beautiful mannequin with no genitalia. nt

[Uncle Joe]

41. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. thank you for that heads up!! Very Interesting, to say the least!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. they KNOW that a Bloomberg candidacy would pull away far more Obama votes than GOP votes

These people are not political neophytes or naive do-gooders. They are hard nosed pros who know the realities of politics very, very well. They do not believe for one single second that a Bloomberg or similar type of third-party ticket could possibly win. They know the institutional structure and political history better than most. They know for certain that this would perform the same or similar dynamics as the 1980 John Anderson candidacy. They know for absolute certainly and beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Bloomberg or other similar image type candidate would pull at least two or three times more votes away from Obama then they would pull away from any Republican candidate. They know this. They are pros. That is why they doing this.

[jtown1123]

47. Check to see if there are ties with the Peter Peterson Foundation. This smells like them.

[RedCloud]

53. tell those non fucking No Labels that not until we get a full century of revenge!

Fuck that shit.

[chervilant]

54. hmm...

"They are openly speaking of opposition to the president."

And, yet, Mr. Obama chooses to be condescending and dismissive toward liberals and progressives...

[Shagbark Hickory]

59. I am impressed and angered all in one.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

63. I'm not surprised. The opposite actually, I expected as much.

There's some excellent research in this thread. I've bookmarked it for future reference. I'm sure it's going to be needed over the next year and a couple of months.

Here we go again.