It's not surprising that Third-Way Democrats are coming to hate being called Third-Way Democrats

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 11:00 PM - Edit history (4)

(PRDP group post - stick to facts and no personal attacks.)

Back when that same crowd was the DLC, they fled from that label once its "economic theories" were shown to be nothing more than cons for taking money from the 99%, to hand over to the 1%.

The same group (more or less) of rich rogues then went off to found the Third Way. Same awful neoliberal "economic theories", same @#$&ty results for the 99%. And now, Americans know that "Third Way" is a synonym for "@#$& sandwich". Time to ditch this moniker, too!

The Third Way is a real organization that's mainstream on social issues and far-right on economic issues, particularly around those that involve rich people grabbing more stuff. If a Democrat fundamentally agrees with that group on economic issues, it is totally reasonable to label them a Third Wayer. It's not an all-purpose curse, but it is a specific description.

That does not mean that anyone in history who ever did anything that the Third Way would tend to favor is a Third Wayer - this is a silly sophomoric argument used by people who don't want to acknowledge what they, or their favored political candidates, favor awful policies. Being a Third Wayer has to do with a totality of a person's thinking, not any individual issue.

That being said, some individual issues - like embracing the TPP, or cuts to Social Security - are such egregious assaults on struggling Americans that it's difficult to imagine that the embracer, if a Democrat, is anything other than a Third Wayer.

And that is my rant for tonight - I hope you haven't made it this far, I apologize if you have.

[Scuba]

1. Hey, if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.

[billhicks76]

14. Whom The Cap Fit Let Them Wear It

Denial won't help them. They must own it. To me they are nothing more than Trojan Horse operatives and candidates that Wall St and Military/Security CONtractors snuck in.

[nikto]

116. Boo-Yah!

[merrily]

31. Or, let them buy you.

[cantbeserious]

2. All Too True

eom

[Phlem]

3. Spot On!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Maedhros]

4. For some people, actual policy is unimportant.

They are concerned only with winning, and if we have to elect a horrible candidate in order to beat them, then it's our job to convince ourselves that our candidate isn't horrible.

Continuing to recognize the horribleness only hurts Party unity.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. That brings up an interesting question - if someone embraces Third-Way policies

but only in order to support a Third Way candidate... are they truly Third Wayers? Perhaps they should be called Third Way fans instead?

[Maedhros]

26. They don't embrace Third Way economic/foreign policy, they just ignore it

in favor of the candidate's social justice politics. We've seen entire threads around this behavior.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. I don't think you could even legitimately claim that.

Given that Bernie would have the same politics on social justice, it has to circle back around to the electability argument or economic preferences. They actually believe Bernie would lose in the general to someone from the Republican clown car, or else they really do prefer Third Way economics to 'socialistic' economics. When both potential nominees are judged and a preference given to one or the other, it HAS to be based on something other than the places in which they agree. And they agree on social justice issues.

[Maedhros]

85. Remember all those threads about economic vs. social justice?

The subtext was that because we are criticizing Hillary's economic policies (support for TPP, Wall Street connections, etc.) we do not care about social justice.

That ridiculous argument was flogged to death, and we saw no arguments about how Hillary's economic policies were superior.

[MannyGoldstein]

87. The ones where the posters were always too busy to link to examples,

or didn't know how to use search, or DON'T PLAY WITH ME YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT?

I hope they're gone, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think they'll just get a little more subtle.

[Maedhros]

89. They're not gone, and they're not more subtle.

But most are on my ignore list...

The problem they face is that Bernie is easily as good or better on social issues than is Hillary, and he has a very long track record to prove it. However, on economic and foreign policy issues Hillary's record is pretty much a dumpster fire.

So, not only do they insist we vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to the general election, they are also insisting we vote for the lesser of two 'goods' in the primary.

I'd rather just vote for the better candidate in both.

[sabrina 1]

83. As Jon Stewart said regarding the political scene, it's more like a cult. I think that is changing

though, I admit to have participated in the 'anyone but Bush' campaign and probably would have supported whoever won the primaries at that time just to beat the Republicans.

We didn't win anyhow, until 2008 when we heard what sounded like a progressive message for the most part, AND opposition to the Iraq War.

I have to say I am glad Obama won in 2008.

But times have changed since then. We've seen the collapse of the economy, the bailing out of economic terrorists while Main St sinks deeper into despair.

We also saw the dismissal of War Crimes among other things.

We saw some good things also.

But now it is clear that there needs to radical change or soon the takeover will be so complete it will be too late.

[merrily]

32. On the flip side, for some people, actual policy is very important.

If you are literally a limousine liberal, you just may actually want policies that are favorable to limousine owners. However, to sell those policies to traditional Democrats, you have to dress them up as something else. So, you drone on about electability, no matter how strongly America has been rejecting Third Way Democratic politicians. Even after the rout of 2014, posts here leapt to defend Third Way on grounds of electability. Hello, it's not working on the electability front.

And Third Way issued a statement about how it was clear that people were rejecting gridlock, so Democrats were going to work harder than ever to "compromise" with Republicans.

Oh, well, TPP and the voting machines will probably make us entirely irrelevant soon.

[swilton]

91. The ends justify the means approach

But if in the process of gaining the ends, you are unrecognizable (you sold your soul to the devil), are the ends worth having?


And on Obama's opposition to the Iraq War...???? I'm not certain that was not a convenient opportunistic tactic rather than a deeply held principled position. Since becoming elected, we certainly haven't found deep-seated principled opposition to Bush & Co. foreign and defense policies. Some of the Obama Administration advisors are neo-con holdovers from the Bush Administration. The policies are almost indistinguishable, except Obama uses targeted killings with drones.

On social justice and economic justice - some people hold that support for women's right to choose and same sex marriage and abolishment of the death penalty = policies that O'Malley holds make an individual progressive on social justice - on the other hand O'Malley as governor/mayor practiced economic injustice implemented austerity measures for the sake of balancing the Md. budget. In my view, social justice begins with economic justice = a right to have food on the table, a living wage, health care and a college education. This also appears to be Sanders' position by his rhetoric as well as his record.

Perhaps this issue will be clarified in the coming months....

[4now]

5. Call me whatever childish names you need to make yourself feel better.

The pain of being ignored by the media is starting to show.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Do you disagree with the OP?

Or just here to sell straw men?

[4now]

8. I feel your pain

And if calling me names helps you sleep at night...Go for it.
I have supported losing candidates in the past and I know how sad and lonely it can be.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Since the PRDP is a protected group

reserved for discussion of facts, not for personal attacks, I must ask you to either remove your posts, or lose group posting privileges.

[4now]

10. I don't think you will find any "personal attacks" in my posts.

But if removing my posts make you feel better.
Then do what you wish.
It won't change anything.

[merrily]

53. A group host cannot remove a post, only block posters. Posters are expected to respect the group

enough to stay out of it or post within it only consistently with the group's purposes. Obviously, you are not that respectful.

[merrily]

36. Maybe being sad and lonely has more to do with you than with which candidatesyou support?

[NRaleighLiberal]

16. my vote for weirdest post I've seen here all day. Perhaps most pathetic as well.

Yours, not Manny's.

[bravenak]

101. This post was alerted. :(

On Tue May 26, 2015, 06:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

my vote for weirdest post I've seen here all day. Perhaps most pathetic as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8246

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a deliberate effort to insult another DUer, without giving any specific reason for why the other poster was wrong.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 26, 2015, 07:04 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hmmm.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Wha..huh?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: About the post... Not the poster.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NRaleighLiberal]

103. .

Wow...!

[bravenak]

105. I found it funny too.

[merrily]

33. And a press that ignores Presidential candidates who want to help is okay with you? Good to know.

[rhett o rick]

11. This OP has been alerted on for violating the SOP of the Group. Someone alerted

to complain that this OP is mocking an OP in the HRC Group. Why that poster is monitoring this Group is weird. Having said that, I want to point out as a host that I am to decide on the merits of the alert which is tough because I have been banned from the HRC Group for being a Progressive and have no idea what the alerter is complaining about, nor do I really care. But, I must recuse myself from the decision of whether to lock this thread or not. Had I not recused myself, I would have been attempted to lock except that the OP author is also a host with more seniority than me and can kick me out of hosting at his whim. I will say, risking the wrath of MG, that he is often caught speaking out against the oppressors and that pisses some people here off. And trying to stay as objective as possible, GOOD FOR MANNY.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. "Third Way" is an important phrase for Populists to retain

Saves many keystrokes over "Socially moderate, economically far-right".

But do what you must, I'll respect your decision.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Oh, SOP alert on a host post!

As regards the behavior of the now blocked responder to the OP.
I support the block, and glad that it was preceded by a gentle reminder.

As to whether this OP is inside or outside the SOP of the group: I think we should strive to not bring meta discussions from GD into this group unless it's truly productive discussion that might lead to truly reforming the party.

Inter-DU member group discussion aren't what I hope to see happening much in this group
This is not an OP I'd have authored for this group, I do my fighting in GD., but I think this one won't ruin us.

[merrily]

37. The only fighting that goes on in this group is a result of posters who do not

belong here posting here to disrespect both the purpose of the group and its members.

Just from the Latest Threads page alone, I can assure you that carrying issues from DU into groups goes on in Rick's Casino in quite a few DU groups, and in a far nastier way that Manny's OP has done.

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. hasn't half of DU been blocked from that group?

[daleanime]

27. I still think my blocking was the best.....

I got banned for "................". Don't know if that a first or not.

[merrily]

45. I almost blocked you from this group, just for quoting it.

KIdding, of course.

I guess, in that case, context really was everything?

[daleanime]

67. I don't know, I actually think the context makes it worse.....

since I was responding to a "STFU".


Shouldn't let it brother me, but I do try hard to keep it friendly (being human I'm sure that I fail often) so when the subject comes up I can't help but think of it....

[merrily]

69. I am going to take a wild guess:

Whatever post of yours elicited the "STFU" reply was actually the post you got blocked for.

I don't know why people care about being blocked. I asked in the Admin forum if there was any board consequence to it, beyond not being able to post in the group, and there is not. That being the case, I am relieved to have been blocked. Wandering in by mistake and apologizing was getting old.

[daleanime]

72. Wrong!

The ".............." was my only post.


I was responding to a poster who had said that they couldn't wait for the primary season to be finished so that they could tell people to STFU. Not a direct quote of course, but the STFU is what got my attention.

Now let's face it, they are perfectly free to block who ever they want to and if they insist on lock step marching then I'm probably a good candidate for it. Even with Bernie, who is the closest to my views, I have no problem singing out when I disagree.

But thanks for letting me get that off my chest, sounds silly but I feel better about it now.

[merrily]

73. Please accept my apologies for my incorrect wild guess.

I am glad you feel better now. Let's face it: If you belong in this group and/or the Bernie Sanders Group, you probably don't belong in the Hillary Clinton Group. So, all's well that ends well.

[daleanime]

88. No need to, I should be apologizing to you....

thanks again for listening.

[merrily]

90. You have no reason to apologize to me.

[rhett o rick]

74. I got banned for saying "I didn't know that." Seriously. I think it was my first post. nm

[daleanime]

76. Ouch....

That's up there too.

[rhett o rick]

78. Actually I support that they have that safe haven. Seriously. nm

[daleanime]

82. I hear you and I agree....

but I do worry that they aren't doing themselves any favorers by being that timid.

[billhicks76]

18. I Was Banned From HRC Group Too!!!

Just for professing progressive viewpoints. How disgusting is that? Total censorship. Why even have a group that comes up in popular threads. They should make their entire mindset private because most people are sick of the Hillary entitlement. She's gonna lose and they can't see it coming. They are setting is up for republican victories because they aren't allowing other legitimate democratic candidates to step forward without intimidation. They are nothing more than 1980s republicans who have set the bar even lower. Good work Clintonites!!! Maybe you can further deregulate telecoms and Wall St, let the Bush family off the hook and ramp up the Drug War again!!! Worked great for you last time. Payback is coming as you can't avoid the karma for that.

[merrily]

38. I have no problem with someone who is not a Hillary supporter getting blocked from the Hillary

Last edited Tue May 26, 2015, 02:19 AM - Edit history (2)

Group. If someone is not there to post consistently with the purposes of the group, they should be blocked. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of having a group, which is supposed to be only for like minded posters to discuss what they want to discuss. It's one spot on the board for them versus your being able to state whatever views you want to state in every other forum on the board.

I got blocked from the Hillary Group for wandering in by mistake by clicking on thread titles on the Latest page without being attentive as to which group they were in. I have no problem with that. In fact, right before I got banned, I planned to ask a host to block me so I would not keep wandering in by mistake.

It would be nice, however, if Hillary supporters had that same respect for this group and the Bernie Sanders Group.

[billhicks76]

58. Exactly...They Shouldn't Be In "Trending Now"

Last edited Tue May 26, 2015, 05:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Or "Greatest Threads". I didn't know I was wandering into a den of snakes either. They should have their private group as invite only just like Hillary's politics. They just want to pat each other on the back and have no debate. Most thin skinned I've ever seen.

[merrily]

59. I'm not here to debate DU policies with someone who I see as being on my side politically, which is

more important to me than DU policies.

However, a group is not supposed to be a place for debate.

It's supposed to be the one place on this board where like-minded people can discuss something without being interrupted or distracted by debate.

Also, neither Hillary supporters nor members of this group control what shows up on Trending Now or Latest Threads. Some Hillary supporters have used the excuse of being on the first page as a reason to disrupt the Bernie Group and this group. It isn't. Debates are for GD, LBN, Politics, Video, anywhere else.

Again, though, I just wish they would all have the same degree of respect for this group and the Bernie Group as they want for their own group. I mean, geez, they're not only posting here and refusing to stop until they're blocked. Now they're alerting on posts in this group by the hosts of group as being inappropriate for this group.



Gman is a poster with whom I've never agreed. Not only that, but I did not like his style. However, as soon as he was reminded that he was posting in the Bernie Group, he deleted his post, apologized to the group and left. To me, that is both the respectful and classy way to treat an accidental foray into a group. It raised my opinion of him a lot.

[billhicks76]

61. Obviously Change The Indices That Put Groups On Front Page

Or change the formatting. I didn't know I was in a special group. Like Facebook Wayne should have to ask to be invited and them approved by any member. That would stop the confusion and it would stay out of the Hillary Supporters Group because all I would have to say about that honorary Bush family member would indeed be negative. If I thought the entire country was filled with backwards conservative racist swine then I would understand her "centrism". But that just a cover that FOX News fronts. They are trying to make up for the fact that the country has permanently shifted liberal due to minority population growth nonwithstanding DLC, Third Way types pushing the center to the right. Without Gerrymandered districts and apathetic liberals not motivating to vote or voter suppression the Republicans wouldn't hold the Senate or the House. They are louder and more active though because of FOX.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

64. I actually didn't know that.

It's supposed to be the one place on this board where like-minded people can discuss something without being interrupted or distracted by debate.

I assumed I could post in any group as long as I did so respectfully and carefully. I don't have a problem, for instance, with honest debate over Bernie's positions on Israel or guns. I say 'honest', of course, because we've probably all seen dishonest attempts to oversimplify his positions in an attempt to discredit him or attack those who support him.

Likewise, I would have hoped that folks in other groups wouldn't ban someone for simply asking honest, real questions (or making honest, factual statements) about the positions of their preferred candidate. But perhaps I'm being naive.

[merrily]

71. Every group bears this note:

This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group. For detailed information about this group and its purpose, click here.

The welcome post of this group includes this language:

I hope you make this spot your DU home page. Please check the PRG Folder, and share your ideas and content... we especially appreciate your positive strategies for populist, progressive reform of our Democratic party.

SOME GROUND RULES:

• The PRG is a safe house for DUers interested in the progressive, populist reform of our Democratic party.
• If you disagree with PRG's message or goal, that's OK. Find a group that fits, or enjoy the DU forums.
• Everyone starts out as welcomed. No one earns their way in - only their way out.
• Follow all DU rules. Don't put the group at risk



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=1

[nashville_brook]

20. Results of Jury Service --> 0-7 LEAVE IT

On Mon May 25, 2015, 11:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This OP has been alerted on for violating the SOP of the Group. Someone alerted
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8236

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Betrays confidentiality as a host to talk about an alert. This sort of blatant abuse of a hosting position should be hidden.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 26, 2015, 12:08 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If he had mentioned the name of the person who sent the SoP alert then I might feel a small inclination to hide. But I see nothing wrong with saying in public that a post has been alerted on.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Some would call the alert "transparency".
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is no confidentiality when hosting or MIRT'ing having said that as a former host and member of MIRT I find what Rhett did to be in extremely poor taste. This is not high school where you run back to your friends or cliques and clue them in on what's going on. This kind of shit makes DU suck in the worst fucking way possible. You're not trying to stay objective, being objective would mean doing your job as a host and not this high school drama bullshit. I hope you feel better now that you've run back and told your friend all about how his thread was alerted. I cannot vote to hide this as I don't think it crosses any lines other than extremely poor taste. So I will leave this. signed. one_voice.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rhett o rick]

24. I would like to respond to the juror comment about my post being in bad taste.

I feel, as a host in this GROUP that the alert on the OP posted by a host, should be discussed by the GROUP. I will yield to the decision of the GROUP. I also, think the alert was made without basis.

[merrily]

42. Seems as though at least juror 3 agreed with you.

Usually, I give ""no explanation" when I think the reason the alert sucks is literally too obvious for words.

[Fairgo]

60. When the alert is used for other than its intended purpose

It ceases to be an alert. The "alert" was either performance art, or an act of harassment...thus it has content worthy of discussion. And my thought is that Mrs. Kravitz failed at both.

[merrily]

39. So many things wrong with the alert I don't know where to begin. However, I must note,

doncha just love how two hosts of this group got alerted on for behavior in which no host of this group should supposedly engage, by an alerter who obviously is not a host of this group and has no clue how a host of this group should behave.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. I would suggest that the alerter

not only was obviously not a host of the group, but also very likely a person who, if they posted in the group, would no doubt be saying things that would get them banned from the group.

[merrily]

70. Let me put it this way: It was not a Bernie supporter.

[whereisjustice]

23. I'm not exactly sure what happened here, but can't keep myself from staring at it :-)

[merrily]

40. As one might do with a train wreck.

[merrily]

34. Monitor is one thing. Why members of DU's right attempt to post in this group and why they were

among the first to sign up for the Sanders Group are the real puzzles to me.

Then again, I don't understand why Conservative Cave members brag about being DU moles.

Groucho Marx famously said that he would never join any club that would have him as a member. I have a different view. I really don't want to be in any club that would not welcome the real me as a member.

ETA: O, my prophetic soul. I posted the above before I had read down the thread as far as Reply 30.

[BrotherIvan]

92. Yes, what is with that?

The "stealth supporter" thing is one of the oddest things I've ever seen. And then outing yourself in a few days? Even trying to be a host of the Sanders group. So bizarre.

[merrily]

111. You are asking me to explain behavior I consider inexplicable. I can't do it. nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

15. Like I've said many times here recently, money corrupts - too much money corrupts absolutely.

Great rant that I completely agree with.

[Joe Turner]

19. Just like Neo-Con Republicans don't like to be called Neo-Con Republicans

Even though they coined their own name. Once their agenda was repudiated by most Americans they got sensitive about their name.
3rd Way Democrats - Neo-Con Republicans = Good Cop - Bad Cop with the same agenda. Endless wars, ever increasing defense spending, corporate trade deals and privatizing social programs. Same old Con. No way to 3rd Way.

[delrem]

21. For my own peace of mind I decided to believe that the DLC aka Third-Way is a myth.

I feel much better now that I've made that decision.

To reinforce my decision I read an article by the renowned fabulist Al From
Recruiting Bill Clinton
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/recruiting-bill-clinton/281946/
where I learned from reading between the lines that Al From is himself a mythological creature, hence should know whereof he speaks.
I moved on to research the mythological creature Al From at wiki, the source for all that is true and truthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From
I discovered numerous references to the Third-Way myth, replete with references to mythological creatures of a less than varied sort.

Combining my decision to believe that the Third-Way is a myth with my ever present awareness that the past is fungible (I like the expression "X is fungible", it answers all my prayers), that history is arbitrary, has had many beneficial effects. For one thing, my ulcers vanished almost overnight.

[Paka]

22. I made it all the way through.

No problem. It's a good rant.

[Ford_Prefect]

25. The truth hurts, eh? 3rd Way, DLC, 1% shock troops, its all the same economics-without-a-cause.

I once said that the Tea Party cannot understand basic math and physics. This is a statement of fact not an opinion.

I fear the same conclusion must be drawn about the Third Way folks since their economic model will bankrupt us both personally and nationally. They talk social justice but divorce it from economic equality. You can not have one without the other.

If you don't like the name, or the fact that people are getting wise to your deceptions, you could always change registration. I hear there is lots of room in the other party for those with similar economic beliefs. Of course you will have to moderate your positions on Abortion Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights.

[delrem]

44. The "Tea Party" is a creature of the American Enterprise Institute,

which wiki describes in the most truthy of true terms as a "center right think tank". This "think tank" is associated with the Republican Party.

The Progressive Policy Institute of the Third-Way faction of the Democratic Party is similar to it.

This is why the Republican Party and Third-Way Dems can get together and pass TPA, and soon TPP -- because there is a certain similarity that binds them.

By "similar" I mean in terms of money and general economic backing.

I think the economic backers of these movements are getting what they're paying for. They're getting good results. They are controlling the political discussion.

eta:
http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/economy/ppi-applauds-senate-passage-of-tpa/
"PPI Applauds Senate Passage of TPA
PPI applauds the Senate for passing Trade Promotion Authority and taking a key step in assuring that America continues to be a global leader in crafting strong, progressive trade rules that will help grow our economy and support good jobs—while also advancing important American values."

[nxylas]

49. But at least you can see why teabaggers would object to being called that

They were unaware of the sexual meaning of the word when they chose it to describe themselves, so it's totally understandable that they would want to disassociate themselves from it once they found out. Why Third Wayers would treat a name they chose for themselves as some sort of insult is less clear to me.

[merrily]

56. They called themselves Tea Partiers, but hung teabags from their tri cornered hats.

I think it was the left that called them teabaggers, but they did kind of ask for it.

I am so furious because I live in Boston one of the bluest cities in American and they've tarnished the name of Boston and of one of our proud historic sites.

Well, not totally proud, given that the original Tea Partiers dressed up like members of First Nations, but prouder than the Teabaggers' legacy anyway.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. Nope, they came up with it.

From a crooks and liars article that links to a bunch of other articles -

But most amusing of all is the notion that calling Tea Partiers "teabaggers" is a horrendous, unforgivable slur. As Dave Weigel says, it's clear that Tea Partiers find it offensive now, so that's probably reason enough not to use it if you're interested in conversing with them. That's a big if, though.

Moreover, as Jay Nordlinger at National Review admits, the term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders:

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

Tommy Christopher at Mediaite has it about right:

The origin of the term is relevant in determining the relative size of the Tea Party’s violin. What wasn’t pointed out to Tapper is the fact that the Tea Partiers not only invented the term, they did so in order to inflict a similar double entendre onto the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general. Hence, it’s a violin so small, you need an electron microscope with a zoom lens to see it.

[merrily]

68. They were not calling themselves Teabaggers though. They were using tea bag as a transitive verb.

As in,"They thought Tea Partiers should tea bag Washington, D.C."

Tea bags were not involved in the Boston Tea Party anyway, but they probably have not figured out that one.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

75. If you're the one doing the teabagging, as they suggested, that makes you the 'teabagger'.

If you do the verb, that automatically makes you the noun.

And the people who came up with the idea certainly seem to have had the double entendre in mind from the start.

They just didn't think it through as to what that made them.

[merrily]

77. Ahem.

My reply 56 said

They called themselves Tea Partiers, but hung teabags from their tri cornered hats.

I think it was the left that called them teabaggers, but they did kind of ask for it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. And my earlier reply said

Moreover, as Jay Nordlinger at National Review admits, the term "teabagger" was introduced to the political lexicon by Tea Party movement leaders:

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

It wasn't about 'hanging tea bags from their hats'. It was about 'sending a tea bag to the Oval Office' to 'tea bag the liberal dems before they teabag you'.

You can't get any more explicit than that, and on 'the first big day for the movement', arranged by the organizers themselves.

[merrily]

81. We're going in a circle, but see my reply 68. There is a difference between using tea bag as a verb

and expressly referring to oneself as a teabagger.

My reply 56 was in response to Reply 49, which said they had referred to themselves as Teabaggers before anyone else did. That is not so. Even if they used the term tea bag as a verb, they referred to themselves as Tea Partiers.

[Mnpaul]

98. There is a lot of things they haven't figured out about that event

and they probably never will due to their choice of listening material and the lack of curiosity.

Based on their ideology, they should call themselves torries.

[merrily]

54. The DLC, which the Koch brothers supported by both dollars and by serving on its Executive Council,

was incorporated in 1985 and no doubt talked about before that.

I've always wondered if the DLC gave the Koch brothers the idea of forming a group that tried to change one of the major political parties from the inside.

Interesting article on the Kochs. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations It says, among many other things, that the Kochs were, in the mid 1980s, thinking about the Boston Tea Party as a nonviolent model for social change.

Of course, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like a movement to change King George's government peacefully from within, but whatever. I can't answer for the Kochs' reasoning.

[delrem]

55. well blow me down with a feather .... now.

I guess this is why the subject is increasingly verboten.

[donco]

28. What's the

nomenclature to be a third way Democrat?

[whereisjustice]

29. Being a virtual Blanche DuBois, they have always depended on the kindness of corporations. eom

[RandySF]

30. Bernie Sanders deserves a better group of supporters.

[merrily]

35. Please delete or revise your post quickly. We don't bash Bernie supporters here.

FYI: This is neither the Bernie Group or the Hillary Group.

[malokvale77]

41. I made it to the end.

I totally agree with your rant.

I don't like Third Wayer's. I do however like TWM. He's a trip.

Thanks Manny. You are one of the bright spots on DU.

[merrily]

43. Third Way is by far not the only DLC offshoot think tank.

Democratic Leadership Council, Progressive Policy Institute (begun by one of two full time employees at the start of DLC, Al From being the other), New Democrat Network, Third Way, Center for American Progress, No Labels. I am sure that is not an exhaustive list. Due to the relative new convention of referring to every Democrat as "liberal" and every Republican as "conservative," looking up a list of liberal think tanks is not at helpful.

BTW, knowing the DLC resurrected the term "progressive" is one of many reasons I stay away from it. I am not a liberal, as wikipedia defines the term, either. We need a new word, one that does mean either the Teddy Roosevelt wing of the Republican Party or a laissez faire capitalist. This is especially so with the world wide web. If you tell some Europeans that you are a liberal, they may just treat you as though you had just self-identified as a devotee of David Koch. Well, okay, not that extreme.

[delrem]

46. They will appropriate *every* word in the language,

to their purposes.

Cyclops.

Please see my post #44.
Understand that I'm still trying to sort this out...

[merrily]

47. So far, nothing but "traditional Democrat" seems to describe me.

Although, someone who believes in social programs and works within both the Democratic Party and the system of capitalism comes dang close.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844

[delrem]

48. Can you explain this to me (a Canadian)

"What is the difference between a socialist and a Democratic Socialist? First, socialists believe in government or other collective ownership, whereas US Democratic Socialists believe not only in working within capitalism, but also in working within the Democratic Party."

That reads to me as saying that a Democratic Socialist is not a socialist, and in fact as disavowing socialism.

OK.
I think the country, Canada, should be the owner of Canada's natural resources, and rights to those resources should only be leased out under strict regulation, where the Canadian environment is protected and Canada gets a fair return.
Someone else might say that it is a socialist, not a capitalist, notion, that a Country should retain ownership of its natural resources.

I can't think of how any political party could be viable, in Canada, if it ran on a platform to dismantle Canada's universal health care system, which is socialist to its very core. Now I'm talking about a large number of jobs. I'm talking about a huge network of community resources, all of which are essential. Socialist through and through.

[merrily]

50. The best I can do is ask you to read that entire thread.

One of the co-founders of the Democratic Socialism movement posted to tell me my Op was correct. Some socialists posted on the thread to share their views. (I don't know if they were responding to the request I had posted in the Social Progressive Group for input on my thread in the Bernie Group.)

That reads to me as saying that a Democratic Socialist is not a socialist, and in fact as disavowing socialism.

That may be so.

I think the country, Canada, should be the owner of Canada's natural resources, and rights to those resources should only be leased out under strict regulation, where the Canadian environment is protected and Canada gets a fair return.

That's what traditional Democrat and capitalist Harry Truman said about oil.

Take the problem of offshore oil, for example. The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government--that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere between $40 billion and $100 billion.

If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves.

Talk about corruption. Talk about stealing from the people. That would be robbery in broad daylight--on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change.

I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a friend of mine, and he was weeping over what the schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore. And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I said what about the schoolchildren in Missouri and Colorado, and North Dakota and Minnesota, and Tennessee and Kentucky and Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there, if I can help it.

I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore oil for their States. But I certainly can't understand how Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give away the interest the people of their own States have in this tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how any interior Senator or Congressman could vote to give that asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As far as I am concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the people's interests in this matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12775715


However, government's owning some things is not, in and of itself, socialism. Our government claims to own airwaves and other things.

[delrem]

51. "However, government's owning some things is not, in and of itself, socialism."

Yes.
That's why I included an anecdote about Canada's health care system.

Socialism is a reality.

[pkdu]

52. Please name 3 current prominent Democrats who fit your description...

That does not mean that anyone in history who ever did anything that the Third Way would tend to favor is a Third Wayer - this is a silly sophomoric argument used by people who don't want to acknowledge what they, or their favored political candidates, favor awful policies.

[merrily]

57. What is your point? That no Democrat is a Third Wayer? If so, thats bs.

For one thing, Third Way is a philosophical successor to the DLC/New Democrat movement and there are plenty of those in today's Democratic Party, including most of the leadership.

Claiming that, for instance, supporting a higher minimum wage means you are all about populist economics and not Third Way, that's bs as well.

BTW, this seems like more of a GD debate than a debate that is appropriate for this group, of which Manny and I are both hosts. Maybe you should take the discussion there.

[pnwmom]

94. The term is virtually meaningless to anyone who doesn't spend a lot of time on DU.

Meaning, the vast majority of voting Democrats.

And even then . . . .

[merrily]

110. Yes, we all know there are low info voters and your post had nothing to do with

PKDU's comment or with mine.

BTW, this is the Populist Group and a lot of this thread is about failure by certain posters to respect that. Thanks.

[Enthusiast]

62. Well done, Manny.

[ananda]

80. So what will they be called now?

Blue Dogs? Oh wait.

Right Way Dems?

[L0oniX]

100. Serf Kings.

[silvershadow]

84. They think we can't see them. nt

[Populist_Prole]

86. K&R It needs it.

Too many side arguments. The OP is dead-on.

[pnwmom]

93. I bet 90% of registered Democrats have no idea what "Third-Way Democrat" means.

Concern about that label is just one of those DU things. Few ordinary voting Democrats have the time to be that politically involved.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. How many have heard of ALEC? Of PNAC? nt

[pnwmom]

97. Exactly. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

109. Exactly what? Sneaking wicked shit is easy to slip by too many Americans?

[pnwmom]

112. Yeah, about half of Americans

The ones who purposely voted for the Shrub, for instance. And many of those who didn't vote at all.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

106. I'd back your bet

The only people I've ever seen using the term are those who feel that Democrats who disagree with them are worse thsn Republicans.

[kenfrequed]

95. Have you seen their website?

Looking at the thing was painful. Their policy positions are awful. Under green energy they can't stop talking about about corn and biofuel. Solar and wind are exploding and with the Tesla batteries becoming big they don't even give a whisper to actual renewables.

[George II]

99. "(PRDP group post - stick to facts and no personal attacks.)"

As you open with a hidden "personal attack"! Sorry, not for me.

[paulkienitz]

102. The TPP is such a clear-cut issue that once you see someone support it, you need no further data.

Any politician who supports the TPP is out to make you poorer for their own benefit. It really is that simple, and "third way" is the least of the labels they deserve. If they're liberal on social or lifestyle issues they qualify for the "third way" category; if not, they're plain right-wingers or just as bad.

[Populist_Prole]

113. Agree. It's a good litmus test that cuts through all the crap

I'd like to embellish on one of your comments:

"Any politician who supports the TPP is out to make you poorer for their own benefit" True.

But I'd add, that I feel the hallmark of some 3rd-wayers is to make you ( us ) poorer for someone else's benefit. The "else" being the proletariat in other countries, which sounds good on the surface, but is really just a way the 3rd-wayers put it. It's putting a smiley face on labor arbitrage by US-based multinational corporations. Any marginal improvement to conditions abroad will be paid for by the continuing destruction of the US working class; which 3rd-way types are more than willing to enlist as martyrs in their do-gooder schemes.

[paulkienitz]

114. I'm sticking with "their own benefit"

which is usually political rather than financial. I don't believe for a minute that uplifting Malaysian factory workers is their primary central motivation for sending jobs overseas.

[Populist_Prole]

115. I don't think they really "believe" it either

They just think it just sounds better than saying "Screw you, Joe Lunchbox types. You spoiled, greedy, profligate rubes".

[Algernon Moncrieff]

104. Just as some professional leftists didn't like being called the professional left

...by somone in an administration the felt they helped to elect.

Perhaps labels are bullshit?

[WoodyM90]

107. A letter that I recently wrote.

To all of those who email asking for contributions for political causes.

I am a Democrat. I grew up in the Great Depression. For many of my younger years there was a president who was a Democrat, a true Democrat. His name was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Then after him, there was Harry S. Truman, and then there was Lyndon B. Johnson. All of these were true Democrats.

As many others in the south, I earned a degree in Textile Engineering and went to work in the Textile Industry. Not long after starting to work, I set a goal that for at least five to ten years before I retired I would be a plant manager. I was well on my way, as I had reached the position of Overseer of Weaving, a major position in a textile operation. At most, two steps away from my goal.

Then Bill Clinton, a so-called democrat, sided with the republicans and began passing “free trade” legislation and the textile industry began to migrate overseas. As a result, I lost three positions in the textile industry due to closing of the plant. With each new position I managed to acquire was a down step. The last one did not last long enough for me to reach an age old enough to draw Social Security.

Social Security, the very bedrock of Democrat policy, has been placed on the bargaining table by a so-called democrat president, Barrack Obama. Minority Leader of the house Nancy Pelosi, a so-called democrat, is willing to accept a chained CPI for future cost of living for Social Security.

How do you think I must feel when I get a request for a donation to help cover the President’s back when he is willing to put my SS income on the table? Moreover, when the House Minority leader will accept a lowering of cost of living increases by a CPI rate?

I am a Democrat and will vote for Democrats, as I fear this nation is headed for an Oligarchy. Moreover, I cannot, in any way be helpful to those who want this to become reality.

I see very few Democrats in the party now. However, there is one in Elizabeth Warren and we need many more like her. In addition, there is one who is not a democrat, but caucuses with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders is more of a true democrat than many who claim that designation.

If you have read this far, I express my thanks and appreciation to you.

Old Artillery Man

[MannyGoldstein]

108. That is a fantastic letter.

Spot on.

Would you consider posting that as an original post? Please? Everyone on this site should read it, and take it to heart.