"no labels"

1. 65

   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

   Is the "NO Labels" movement likely to catch on? Is it an idea whose time has come? Or is is designed to promote the candidacy of N.Y. mayor Bloomberg?
   
   Dems, Republicans, independents join campaign to counter extremes
   
   By BETH FOUHY
   Associated Press
   
   NEW YORK -- More than 1,000 Democrats, Republicans and independents gathered Monday in New York City to create No Labels, an organization that says it's devoted to reducing "excessive polarization and hyper-partisanship" in U.S. politics.
   
   The inaugural meeting of the movement, founded by a group of political strategists, drew lawmakers from across the country, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent; Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
   
   In an auspicious sign for the fledgling movement, the gathering at Columbia University also attracted several GOP-aligned officials who were defeated in last month's midterm elections: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican who lost an independent bid for the Senate; Delaware Rep. Mike Castle, whose Senate bid was derailed in the Republican primary by tea party candidate Christine O'Donnell, and South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who was trounced in the Republican primary by a more conservative challenger.
   
   
   Read more: Dems, Republicans, independents join campaign to counter extremes | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20101214/N … z185pz70HX
   
   http://www.freep.com/article/20101214/NEWS07/12140347
   
   
   http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ … ly-chosen/

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I've been following this group on facebook for a few months.  I hope it has legs, but I doubt it will be successful in the long term.  The middle constitutes the majority of Americans, but also the least politically active segment.
      
      Playing on the fears of the extreme left and right has a proven history of success for the two parties; I don't see that changing anytime soon.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Coffee Party movement? Are they the same then? Huh. Got further than I thought they would. Now they have congressmen talking about it.
         
         I guess that's the end of the road for them then.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Nick Maliziaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hey, man. You're bringing me down. :-P
         
         I think the moderates are the majority too, so why shouldn't we give it a shot? Instead of worrying about the big picture (this generally leads to Psychosis and bad results) we should try to encourage those in our immediate microcosm to become more politically active.
         
         No matter what our previous party affiliations were, don't we owe it to ourselves as Americans to press onward to a better form of government?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely.  However the middle has never been as active as the fringes; I'd certainly like to see that change.  Pandering to the most extreme elements is a primary reason we are in this mess.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

   Bad, stupid idea.
   I'm disappointed that anyone would fall for this trap.
   If this concept is perpetuated, there will be no black and white areas in politics nor in moral society;  there will only be gray areas, fence-straddling, no accountability for anything.
   
   People are apparently either too wicked or too afraid to choose a side on anything anymore.  It's hogwash.  Might as well call it the B.S. Party.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I know that gray areas are very frightening to you, but they are where most logic-based, non dogmatic reasoning will lead you.  The vast majority of Americans are in the middle politically, neither right-wing Fox fascists, nor government solves all problems socialists.
      
      P. S. How were the ribs?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Gray areas aren't frightening for me.  They're boring and lack personality, if they're not just plain selfish-intended like Arlen Specter.  He and Colin Powell and others just ride the line waiting to see which Party will suit their ambitions, and the Parties stupidly accept them with open arms!    Sorry, but fence-straddling is offensive, just as offensive (well, almost) as far left leaning.   Those who refuse to take a stand are only enabling the Left, just like the extremists are.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are confused.  Looking for logical as opposed to dogmatic solutions to serious problems DOES constitute taking a stand.
            
            Try it sometime; you may be surprised.
            
            How did your ribs turn out?
            
            Were you a slave to your preconceived notions that only the approved ingredients would produce the desired results, or did you take an open minded approach that other solutions may work as well or even better?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The ribs were very good!
               
               Hey, I think I was quite progressive-thinking and brave to try something new, while also exercising due caution so that my oven didn't catch fire.   I give myself a pat on the back even if you don't! haha.
               
               
               But don't even think that experimenting with cooking is parallel to experimenting with society's morals, 'cause it ain't the same.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No, I do in fact applaud your open mindedness when it comes to cooking.  I wish you would apply it to the more important issues.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Not a chance.
                     Once I know the truth, I let nothing sway me from it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Especially facts.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           JOE BARNETTposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           ha ha ha !

                           replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Nick Maliziaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           XD
                           
                           Who knows the truth? Even in Science, they use the word "theory," because as the saying goes "anything is possible" or in technical terms "an anomaly."
                           
                           If someone generously gives you "the truth," approach it with measured caution.

                           replyreport
                     2. 87

                        livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, except for stuff like divorce, right?
                        
                        With issues like that and other things that Jesus was pretty insistent about (mercy for the poor, loving your neighbor, taking the beam out your own eye, etc.), selective interpretation and convenient prioritization certainly add  "cafeteria" to a "Christian" identity.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           You assume too much when you assume that your opinion of me is important to God.  God only requires that I tell you how much Jesus Loves you and died for you, livelonger, so that you can, if you so choose, be freed of your personal problems and get forgiveness for your sins and change your life.   Beyond that, God says that I should rejoice when I'm persecuted for His name's sake.   And indeed you do persecute me because I tell you the Truth.  Praise God!  Lord Your word is so powerful!
                           Either way, I'm freed and no longer accountable for your state of heart.  You, however, are still in denial and rebellion,  and I hope you listen to that voice of God when/if He challenges you again to turn toward Him.
                           
                           And to my Lord I pray---Thank You Jesus for dying for the sins of mankind.  I ask that You continue to call all men including Jason to repent of their sins.   Your Word says You will not always strive with man.  I do beg You to not give up on Jason yet, Lord, because I Love his soul as You do, and hope to see him respond to Your offer of salvation.  Amen and Hallelujah Lord for all Your blessings as well as Your ability to turn persecution into JOY!

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              How sweet of you, Brenda.
                              
                              Now if you can only apply that love and sweetness, consistently, to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, teh gays, and all the others you typically lambaste regularly here.

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           Pandoras Boxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Now THAT is a generalization!

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Generalization of what?

                              replyreport
   2. 60

      Nick Maliziaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Trap?"
      
      I'm sorry, human beings are not black and white, one or the other. We are complex.
      
      I think in the beginning, as always, there will be difficult times because officials will have there work cut out for them in securing enough votes. But why shouldn't parties fragment into sub-groups?
      
      Wouldn't it mean that policy would be decided by the people, not a scenario of choosing the lesser of two evils?

      replyreport
3. 75

   Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

   There really is only two different labels applicable to the U.S., one is the National Security State, the other is the People.
   
   Dividing National populations to the point of complete outrage is a skill that the National Security state has been practicing globally since the 50's when it was created.
   
   The People are unified, most just do not realize it.  Most people I know all want the same things from life regardless of whether they vote (R) or (D).
   
   
   Any movement that brings the People together works for me.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Nick Maliziaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent point! One worth repeating.
      
      The stratagem "Divide and Conquer": timeless yet undiscovered underneath our very noses.
      
      I'm from a Democrat background but identify myself as Independent or Moderate and I think you're right RB, on petty matters party members disagree but in my chats among Dems, Rep, and otherwise we share a vast common ground on the real issues.
      
      We just need to take the emphasis off of the petty details.

      replyreport
4. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 13 years ago

   that's quite true for people who still hold on to decades old ideologies of either party.
   
   the country is no longer 13 colonies..

   replyreport
5. 0

   SirDentposted 13 years ago

   Personally, I like the idea.  Their declaration is very good in my opinion.  The biggest problem is when some start moving away from the original intent and do things for their own gain and not for the good of the nation.  This is where the majority of this nation's politicians are at this time.  The leaders need to get back to the basics and start from scratch.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Nick Maliziaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      True.
      
      In any case there's a natural logic to this, I think. The Moderate field is diverse like a tree of denominations. If a politician resorts to greed instead of obeying their constituents, there will be another schism but eventually to our (the people) favor.
      
      The worst thing is to have a dual system of R v. D, Black and White, One or the Other idea. Political beliefs, we all realize, are not so simple. This branching out of the two party system is the most natural course- difficult in the beginning but better for our society.

      replyreport
6. 88

   Stacie Lposted 13 years ago

   posted this yesterday
   http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/61983#post1369574
   
   i suggested to hub staff a way to stop double posting of same topics months ago and still no change...
   i guess Ralph is more popular..LOl
   wink

   replyreport
7. 60

   logic,commonsenseposted 13 years ago

   Personally I think the Logic,Commonsense Party is the most logical, commonsense answer!
   We'll just party like it's 1999!

   replyreport