Billy Hollis at Q&O today:

McQ hit these pompous fools when they first popped their heads up. I was too busy to chime in then, but the more I’ve watched this whole “No Labels” thing, the funnier it gets.

George Will does a pretty good job today of shredding some of their sillier assertions:

Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves. If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. They might cover the country with sanctimony as they “overthrow the tyranny of hyper-partisanship.”

But Bloomberg, addressing the No Labels confabulation, spoke truth to powerlessness: “It’s not clear that the average person feels themselves disenfranchised or wants a lot of the things we are advocating.” Just so. Whatever their defects, America’s political parties are marvelously sensitive market mechanisms, measuring every tremor of the electorate’s moods.

Look, let’s be honest enough here to recognize one single fact that nobody has had the stones to address; the only time that you will ever see democrats talking about not demonizing the minority, is when they are the minority.  The only time you will ever see democrats talking about bipartisanship, is when they don’t have the reins.  One such attempt , abortive as it was, was the supposed “coffee party”.

It’s already been pointed out in these spaces that the “no labels” crowd is universally democrat.  It is these, who upon finding themselves out of power, is now making noises about winning the supposedly magical political center.  Certainly, that mythical places magical to them, because it allows them to achieve if not full progressivism, at least a minimum of fallback from positions they entrenched themselves… and us… in, while in power.  The most recent and most obvious attempt at that, was the widespread support among leftists for the presidential run of John McCain.  I think we can figure how that worked out.

In looking at the history of the thing, one gets the idea that the reason democrats don’t want labels, is because they want their activities to slip in under the radar , under the guise of bipartisanship.  One of the labels that they want to avoid, is “socialism”.  That’s a point that Martin McPhillips makes in the comments there.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,