• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

“No Labels” Are Bureaucrats Without A Bureau, Trying to Remain Important

There are always some  folks in Washington, bureaucrats of some stripe or  another, servants of politicos of the past, who become lonely when their bosses are no longer in office……..Let me now write this sentence in the language of “No Labels”:    

“There are always some …… in ………, ……… of some …….. or another, ……… of ………… of the ……., who become lonely when their……. are no longer in ……. .  

Makes alot of sense, doesn’t it!

That should give one a good idea of whose these “No Label People”  people are….Bureaucrats without a Bureau…….but that is my opinion.  Below is an article  by Ron Radosh at Pajamas Media:  

“Writing on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, William Galston and David Frum announced the formation of what they hope will be a new bipartisan movement which they dub “No Labels.”  Their goal, commented Commentary editor John Podhoretz, is “to embrace the concept that American politics should move beyond ideological camps.”  I differ slightly with Podhoretz in his evaluation of their would-be goal.

As Galston and Frum write, they believe that “the center has collapsed, and ideological overlap between the parties has vanished.” The Republicans in their eyes are too far to the right, and the Democrats too far to the left. As they explain, “Although 30 percent of grass-roots Republicans consider themselves moderate or liberal, and 60 percent of Democrats consider themselves moderate or conservative, their voices are muted in the nation’s capital. As increasingly polarized media feed centrifugal forces, potential primary challengers stand ready to punish deviation from party orthodoxies. Only 22 percent of the Pew respondents thought that cooperation was likely to happen under these circumstances.”

What they clearly want, but shy away from saying, is a new centrist party to emerge from the heart of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. I should note that this was once my hope as well. In a book I wrote in 1996 about the left-wing takeover of the Democratic Party,  I concluded with these words:

“The Democratic Party as a whole has shifted to the Left, precisely at the moment when the Republican Party has shifted toward the Right. That means that the old political Center has eroded once and for all — a fact that has led many Americans to hope for the creation of a new political party of the Center, the kind that might be led by the likes of Bill Bradley, Colin Powell or Sam Nunn.”

At the time, I considered myself a center-right Democrat, much like Bill Galston is today. Therefore I hoped for the creation of a new “political realignment” that would create a force for “fiscal and personal responsibility, cultural conservatism, and a more limited and constrained social safety net.”

Now, I consider myself a moderate conservative, and, as I argued in a previous blog post, many of the moderate Democrats are in fact asserting the viability and correctness of conservative programs, which is why I argued that perhaps Democrats like Galston and Ed Koch might consider becoming Republicans. Then they might have more of a chance to gain support for the solutions they favor to today’s problems. Their arguments are really conservative solutions and far from those favored by most Democrats. By joining the Republican Party, they could help make it more of a big-tent party, not a party shifting too far to the right.

The problem with the Galston-Frum argument is that rather than try and move to what I think they really want — a  moderate conservative party — they have come up with something that is little more than a gimmick, creating a movement which they argue is based on attaining a single goal: “to expand the space within which citizens and elected officials can conduct that conversation without fear of social or political retribution.” A movement, in other words, that will avoid “partisanship.”

Let’s stop on the latter point. What is wrong with partisanship? Aren’t political parties and candidates supposed to stand for something, so that the electorate knows what they are voting for or against? At one point, FDR even said that he hoped America would create one national conservative party and one national liberal party, so that the choice between the two would be starkly presented and then Americans could choose which direction they wanted the country to move towards. In a way, we are about at that point now. If the silent majority of the public — the group Galston and Frum cite as their basis for a new movement — do not like the present set-up, then a new party would emerge from the remnant of one of the two existing major parties.

Clearly, the No Label movement does not address this issue. Instead, it concentrates on what the authors see as “rhetoric” that “exacerbates” existing problems. Thus they seek to set up and “establish lines that no one should cross.” The problem is, who decides what those lines are? Galston and Frum? Joe Scarborough and Mayor Bloomberg? Stanley Kurtz and myself? Moderate Democrats and Republicans that Galston and Frum like? Or someone else who gives the job to other people?

Yes, there is unnecessary divisiveness, and some at the extremes of both parties — MoveOn.org on the left and some of the Tea Party on the Right — make charges that anger their opponents and are often far-fetched. How many Democrats called George W. Bush a “fascist” and used that term a lot when Ronald Reagan was president? How many conservatives called Barack Obama a Communist and a Marxist, and argued that he was not a U.S. citizen and had no legal birth certificate? We all can easily see how extreme these kind of charges are.

But it is something else when a strong case is made. Stanley Kurtz has explained why he thinks Barack Obama is at heart a socialist. This is the opposite of meaningless name-calling, such as the examples I gave above. Kurtz, as I read his book, was not trying to destroy Obama by smearing him, but rather to shed needed light on the world that made our president what he is — and that is the world of tough Chicago politics combined with left-wing sectarianism that emerged from the socialist movement of the 80s and 90s. “In the name of broadening the political discussion,” Podhoretz observes, “a group called No Labels will come into being with the purpose of … labeling. If you ‘recklessly demonize’ your ‘opponents,’ you will ‘no longer’ be able to ‘do so with impunity.’ They will ‘establish bright lines no one should cross.’ In other words, cross the line and we will label you a ‘reckless demonizer.’ Dare to call Barack Obama a socialist and stand accused of exacerbating problems rather than solving them.”

One is certainly free to disagree with and to challenge Stanley Kurtz’s analysis as David Frum has done here. But in answering Kurtz’s own challenge to Frum, he has moved beyond that to arguing that Kurtz was labeling Obama unfairly in an effort to “delegitmate” him. I have already made my assessment of Kurtz’s book, which you can find here, and I do not wish to again summarize the reasons I find his account credible. What I do find unfair to Kurtz is Frum’s assertion that if one concludes Obama is a socialist, as Kurtz does, such a person is “not looking for an analysis,” but instead is “reaching for an epithet.” I would agree that others have used that as an epithet to attack Obama, but Stanley Kurtz is not guilty of that particular sin.

And speaking of demonization and epithets, what can one make of President Obama’s press conference yesterday, in which he called Republicans “hostage takers;” i.e., kidnappers? And what can one make of other Democrats calling the Republicans “terrorists” whom one should not negotiate with? Is this not demonization? Writing today at Contentions, J.E. Dyer writes perceptively that Obama came off not as presidential, “but as a leftist community organizer.” She notes: “In demonizing his political opponents, lecturing his base, and vowing to fight on in a long struggle, Obama appeared to be channeling his political roots in radical activism. He evoked an activist street fighter on the steps of city hall more than a president of the United States.” Precisely — and this is exactly what Stanley Kurtz gives us in his masterful book: the background to comprehend how and why Obama comes off this way in the present.

We clearly do not need any kind of speech police to try and pinpoint when any politician — including the president — crosses the line and tries to demonize his opponents with smears. When that is done — as is the case with Obama’s performance yesterday — we do not need a new No Labels movement to identify the culprit.

What we do need is serious political dialogue, and I fear that despite their good intentions, Bill Galston and David Frum’s new effort will only serve to prevent that, rather than to stop unfair political smears.”

Comment:  By the way, Mr. Obama is more than a Marxist than what is in his heart.   It is in his mind and training as well.  That he has been forced to compromise with Republicans  on the current tax issues, means nothing.   Marxists by their religious devotions by having no Deity to cause restraints, have no driving and endless goal……to gain power.   Men as empty thinking as David Frum have by  the tens of thousands been eaten up by Marxists on their historic marches toward power.    Obama is on his stealthfull march, devoted and uncompromising, except when compromising is beneficial to the cause.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: