Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing

[kpete]

Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.

For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent as Sen. Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.

The New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House, plans to unveil an economic policy platform as soon as this week in an attempt to chart a different course.



MORE:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing

[Autumn]

1. Good luck. That curtain has been opened.

Try closing it, some of us have already seen inside.

[Agschmid]

2. Kick, worth the read.

[leveymg]

3. Welcome to the Truman era, complete with a New Cold War, loyalty oathes, and party purges.

[betterdemsonly]

4. Same old! Same old! n/t

[think]

5. In the real world Warren is a moderate Dem /nt

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Sadly, the real world ended in November, 1980.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. YES - the pieces were in place

The past 35 years have just been a consolidation.

[erronis]

20. My thoughts exactly. Thanks.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. Saw a listing of the 'liberal/moderate' ratings of folks the other day, and found it amusing.

Both Warren and Sherrod Brown were listed as only 'moderate', rather than liberal.

But that's a measure, I suppose of all their positions, all their stances, not just economic and labour ones.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. And that's how they end up close to Hill

on the "liberalism" scale. The scale doesn't distinguish between social and economic liberalism.

I think the fact that Hill & Liz score near each other on some dubious "liberalism" scale, which is composed of summating unrelated factors (e.g. gay rights & bank regulation), is not going to cause Wall Street to see them as equivalent.

[Marr]

45. Funny, right? Her critics like to cite the fact that she was a Republican as if it's damning.

What's damning is that someone who used to be a Republican can edge over to Democratic Party, and STILL be so far to the left of the DLC/Third Way types.

[Scuba]

48. +1,000

[CanadaexPat]

6. Centrist Dems think it's the '90's, fail to notice that economy has changed

[geek tragedy]

7. Ugh, Howard Dean, really? nt

[HappyMe]

8. k&r

[IDemo]

9. Different acronym, same old DLC

Otherwise known as the Milton Friedman wing of the Democratic Party.

[KeepItReal]

11. "You can't redistribute wealth that you're not generating." - that's the money quote

Focus on economic growth?

Has this "centrist" dude been paying any attention to the stock market and corporate profits?

[closeupready]

12. "Centrist Dems" = "Republicans-In-Democratic-Clothing"

[HereSince1628]

18. Center-of-what Dems? Triangulation makes any such reference point temporary,

arbitrary, and subject to capricious selection.

[closeupready]

28. As to your last point, that's how Republicans strategize with the 3rd Way -

(which actually should rename themselves "Their Way&quot Republicans know, a priori, that they will compromise, so make your demands as extreme as possible, so as to make getting what you really want (or even more) more likely.

[HereSince1628]

31. triangulation always BEGINS with a compromise, it doesn't even follow negotiation

It's supposed to be used to neutralize -popular- positions of your opponent with "me, too!"

The numbskulls who employ it have come to use it outside of campaigning, and even when an opposing position of an opponent isn't popular.

[Savannahmann]

13. I think the most interesting point.

Is the effort to turn away from populist positions in favor of Republican lite positions. Why is it Bi-partisan means we have to surrender on the left?

[nashville_brook]

17. while at the same time Rs are coopting our populist message

these centrist Dems will sentence us to Rove's 40 years of irrelevancy without Rove lifting a finger.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. Many of them were Republicans, but jumped ship because they were embarrassed to be seen

in the same party as the theocrats and forced birthers. But they brought their economic supply-sidism with them when they 'became Democrats'.

[brooklynite]

14. Gee, I thought this was how Parties worked...

...coalitions try to sell their policies and positions to the voters, and and the voters choose.

If there's only one CORRECT policy, I guess we can save time and eliminate the Primary process.

[cyberswede]

23. Debate is good. The media wants to make it a "fight."

[HereSince1628]

25. you're right the subject line suggests personal fight and

debate about ideas -is- good.

[HereSince1628]

15. Just to be clear about the rhetoric of centrism and moderatism

they are used for their emotional appeal to people who think in terms of the middle as following some sort of 'Goldilocks Principle' that always yields what is 'just right'. That's especially true for people disgusted with "the politics of both parties''.

It plays on the assumption that popular political thinking follows a unimodal symmetrical bell-shaped curve with most measured elements close to the center. But that assumption has become a word trick, something that uses seemingly mathematical logic to build plausibility rather then reflecting reality

All centers are not the same...each is relative to membership in a set.

The center of the democratic party base is not at all the same center referred to in 'centrist politician'. Indeed we know from repeated polling on war, on immigration, on trade, on bank/financial regulation etc that the center of the electorate, turns out to be well left of the center of the center for the elected.

When a politician or the media declare something as 'moderate' or 'centrist' we must ask ourselves center of what? Moderate compared to what?

If the center describing the politician isn't the same as the center you desire in a policy or a candidate, there is a need to reconcile your support for the policy or politician relative to the meaning hidden in that difference

[think]

16. Good description of the false "center" /nt

[fleabiscuit]

26. BINGO! n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Very well put. n/t

[cyberswede]

34. Great post! nt

[Jack Rabbit]

39. Center of what?

Obviously, the "centrist" Democrats and the Republicans, taken together, are the Huns.

Attila is the center. At least the centrist Democrats are to the left of Attila, and that makes them better than Republicans, who, as we know, are to the right of Attila the Hun.

[HereSince1628]

43. Seems like an argumentum apologeticum

it's at least a construction with many assumptions about positioning...

and it seems the assumptions were chosen to keep alive the belief our worst are better than their best...which you know is just an appeal to chauvinism which is characteristically irrational.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. It is true that our worst are better than then their (for want of a better word) best

However, all Huns believe in neoliberalism, the doctrine that corporations are not only people but Übermenschen entitled to be exempt from taxes and laws against shady business practices. Democratic Huns, who, like Republican Huns, embrace neoconservatism, are more moderate and likely to try diplomacy before laying waste to the Middle East in order to keep morally bankrupt oil corporations supplied with a product that should be left in the ground. Democratic Huns are not weighted down by racism, misogyny, homophobia and sectarian bigotry as are Republican Huns. Republican Huns believe in separate but equal fascism, while Democratic Huns believe in an equal opportunity fascism except for corporate Übermenschen, who hold a favored position against the unwashed masses.

[HereSince1628]

59. Neoconservativism is OK with laying waste to foreign lands...

Neoconservatism as it emerged with the 'mugged liberal' Irving Kristol as it's main voice grows out of the social philosophy of Leo Strauss who believed all people need enemies.

Having enemies draws people together, provides united purpose and defines good and evil.

Without such clear distinctions in ideological boundaries, as occurs under the tolerance associated with liberalism (as Strauss referred to it, but, imo, he meant something like complete individual freedom of libertarianism as we might discuss soverign citizens) societies decay.

There are many philosophies that arise from the late 19th century and the notion that people (whom Americans would recognize) like Morgan, Carnagie, Rockefeller were heroic near superhumans is one of them. Men who by genetic background and strength of character rise up to assume natural roles above others.

As I understand neoconservatism, it isn't associated with restraint against war, or with notions of individual superiority.

[closeupready]

40. The media NEVER refers to "Centrist Republicans". EVER.

ONLY in reference to Democrats. "Liberal media" my ass.

[HereSince1628]

44. IIRC Susan Collins was characteristically the "moderate Republican"

It's hard for the media to speak of the right-wing of the party on the left.

[RedCappedBandit]

57. ++++++++++++++++++++

[msanthrope]

24. Crap from "The Hill"--- ratfucking 101. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Forming a phalanx around Our Next President™

They are getting worried.

Good.

[closeupready]

41. lol, love that trademark note.

[Doctor_J]

32. unfortunately imo it's a done deal. They have the wall street money and other

Republican lite advantages, and are just as contemptuous of liberals as hate radio is. They are willing to give away the congress as long as they can keep the white house and thus get rich from the wars and security apparatus.

[HereSince1628]

38. Congress still gets to 'inside trade' off knowledge that their actions move the market

Get elected, take advantage and get RICH!

It can turn an Illinois H.S. wrestling coach into a multimillionaire.

I'm not at all sure they must have control of the WH to get rich.

[vi5]

33. NPR did a hit piece on her last week....

Every other word to describe her supporters was condescending. "Fan Club"....."Groupies".....etc.

And then they had on Evan Bayh of all effing people to say why he thought her rhetoric was "divisive".

[Agschmid]

46. I don't know if I'd call that a hit piece...

[Marr]

52. Then imagine it with Hillary Clinton, and Ralph Nader instead of Bayh.

See it now?

[Agschmid]

53. Ok I did...

Still not a hit piece to call people a "fan club"...

[FLPanhandle]

35. Look at the wording in that article.

Strike, Forces, Fight back, Fear, Sharp Turn, Barbed Attacks.

This article is bullshit. It's designed to divide Democrats.

The article's meat is that some Democrats are putting together a economic policy proposal. Politicians do it all the time. This is worded to sound like some war.

[Liberalynn]

36. Warren and Sanders are the most vocal messengers of dissatisfaction with the

Status Quo Republican lite economic policies that are pushed by more conservative leaning Dems but they are not only voicing their opinions but those of a considerable number of other party members. Just how many is open to debate but a plan that does not acknowledge or address any of the concerns raised by the more pro-liberal side isn't going to shut down the debate even if they were able to somehow convince Sanders and Warren to keep their concerns to themselves.

I voted but there are those who didn't and if the party is really interested in rebounding in 2016, they need to be asking why the Democrats who stayed home did so even though they may have been able to at least improve democratic numbers, if not totally change the outcome of the 2014 elections. I sincerely doubt the answer would be, the Democratic candidates weren't open enough to Republican and Wall Street policies.

[JEB]

37. I guess the "new Democrats" will take opposite

positions.

From the OP:
For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent as Sen. Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

New Democrats for Wall Street crimes, for income inequality and for the "rigged economy" and all for boring and underwhelming voters.

That's the ticket. Argh!

[dissentient]

42. The Republicans will become the dominant party if the Dems keep trying to out right-wing them

The Republicans don't need competition on which party can be more pro-military use as a first resort, or which party can be more pro-Big Brother, or which party can be more pro-corporate.

Those issues are Republicans turf, and so Democrats should be sharply against them.

Trying to out right wing the Repubs is a losing strategy, and if Dems keep it up, not only will they lose both halves of Congress, but the presidency as well.

[Scuba]

47. By saying a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections ...

... they mean that progressive/liberal Democrats might actually win. Can't have that.

[Oilwellian]

50. Yeah, disastrous for the 1% n/t

[Dems to Win]

49. The most popular politician in the country -- and they are trying to cut her legs out from under her

quote:

2. At a recent 12-person in-depth focus group in Denver conducted by Peter Hart and reported in The Washington Post by Dan Balz, the only national politician who was viewed favorably was Warren — even by some of the Republican voters in the focus group.

3. Why? Because she is the only politician who is even talking about the powerlessness of the average person — and the seemingly too powerful corporate and Wall Street entities.

4. This issue cuts across all political lines. It is the issue that catapulted President Teddy Roosevelt into the political hall of fame. His trust busting led to today's anti-trust regulations and the belief that the federal government's role is to act as a neutral referee to ensure a fair playing field. But no one today believes the feds are neutral — or fair. Instead, big government is seen as corrupt and as "rigged" as big business.

5. Indeed, there isn't that much that separates Occupy Wall Street from the Tea Party. One blames big business while the other blames big government for our problems. But more and more, people see the two as in bed with each other in a cynical game to line their own pockets and to preserve their power — all at the expense of the average American.

6. This underlying fear is the hidden issue in the 2016 race — and so far, only Warren is even talking about it.

end quote

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/231599-why-warren-will-run-against-clinton-in-2016

Howard Dean is doing his utmost to make sure the Dems lose with Hillary rather than win with Warren -------WHY?????

[drm604]

51. I think more populist rhetoric would help the party, not hurt it.

Republicans are losing on the social issues. We've discovered that the country is surprisingly liberal about things like gay marriage and marijuana. Nobody thought that the tide would turn in favor of marriage rights so quickly and decisively. I think the truth is that a lot of people were in favor of it but afraid to speak out and say so, until it became obvious that so many other people thought the same way.

I think we may see a similar phenomena regarding more liberal economic policies. People are thinking it but not talking about it for fear of being labeled "liberal" or even "communist". If someone who talks like Warren were to have the national platform that comes with a presidential run, it could become more acceptable for people to discuss different economic ideas.

[Half-Century Man]

54. Bring It.

We fear the new dimwit coalition not.
If the third way wants to have any of their candidates elected they need to come over here, We are 5 steps to the left.

[treestar]

55. Fantasies

Of people who somehow seem to love to be victims. Oh now the big bad centrists are opposing you?

And they feel entitled not to be opposed. They can bet Republicans don't respect that.

[NCTraveler]

56. I understand Warrens verbiage connects with the left.

But I have yet to be convinced she isn't a centrist herself. I really think most of this is manufactured.

[mmonk]

61. Bring it on and all your Republican brothers and sisters. The fight must be fought.

Now that I'm a gerrymandered voter, I've got ZERO to lose and EVERYTHING to win. The war between humanity and corporate greed is on. The question is, whose side are you on?