The Third Way's Dishonesty

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:14:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Bennet of the dishonest Right Wing Third Way:

"I don't think Russ Feingold lost because he wasn't liberal enough," said Matthew Bennett, a vice president at Third Way, a group that urges Democrats to focus on such issues as deficit reduction.

If Russ Feingold had been more conservative, he still would have lost. And Blanche Lincoln, Gene Taylor, Travis Childers, Jim Marshall, Walt Minnick and all the rest of the Blue Dogs who lost did not lose because they were too conservative. They all lost because the economy sucks.

A good, honest, constructive discussion of policy and politics would be healthy for the Democratic Party. But The Third Way is not interested in that. They are interested in dishonestly pushing their Right Wing agenda.

Speaking for me only

< Fighting For Good Policy Is Good Politics | Pelosi: No Tax Cuts For The Rich >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Third Way's Dishonesty | 17 comments (17 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Deficit! (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by cal1942 on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:05:29 PM EST

We're in a nation sized insane asylum.

Blow trillions on stupid a$$ unnecessary wars of choice, slash taxes on the very wealthy allowing the money to flee the country into foreign investments, spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military, blow billions on over 700 overseas military installations, etc., etc., etc.

Levy taxes where the money is, at the top.

We've carried a large national debt since Reagan changed the game with his first tax cuts. We haven't gotten back to sensible rates on high income since that time, even Clinton's tax increases were inadequate.

But our real deficit problem is the balance of payments deficit and no measly currency exchange rate manipulation will change that.

Weak tea all the way around.

We're so nuts that people don't see (none / 0) (#15)
by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:32:57 PM EST

Obama as a warmonger, when he is clearly an uber-hawk, except compared to the Nazis on the other side of the aisle.


: Huh? (none / 0) (#17)
by christinep on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:38:42 PM EST

More 3rd Way Dishonesty (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:15:27 PM EST

But centrist Democrats say the draft recommendations from the fiscal commission co-chairmen are reasonable. They note the money saved from the proposed reforms would be used to strengthen Social Security and not go toward the general treasury deficit.
"The recommendations on Social Security fall well within the mainstream of what most progressive organizations that care about Social Security solvency think should be done to save it," said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. "Everyone believes there should be increases in the retirement age, some adjustment to the cost-of-living-adjustments and some increase in revenues." link

Sorry Jim, I seriously doubt that most progressive organizations believe what you say they do. I definitely don't believe that everyone believes there should be increases in the retirement age and some adjustment to the cost of living adjustments.

In fact, the majority of U.S. citizens want only a modest increase to the income cap. Otherwise, they want people like you to keep their f@cking hands off the Social Security program.

I guess we know where the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anne on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:08:12 PM EST

audacity is, don't we? It's residing in places like Third Way, where people like Kessler think the magic of saying "everyone believes" turns whatever follows those words from bald-faced lies into the God's honest truth.

I said it once today: these people are plucking on my last nerve. And I have to think that I am not alone in that feeling. I just read Matt Taibbi's article on the hour he spent in a Florida foreclosure court -which, considering how close I am to screaming, I probably shouldn't have.

News flash, Jimbo: we're not all as stupid as you think we are. We understand that the longer this unemployment situation drags on, the more people keep dropping out of the job market, the fewer people there are to even contribute to SS - so how about getting to work on getting people back to work instead of pontificating about a program you stopped paying into once your - I'm sure - overblown salary hit $106,800, and which you may only ever need for tips and mad money.

We understand that the bet is that if you keep making it harder for people to stay afloat, the sooner we will sink, but the only question I have is, who will you all feed on when we're gone? Each other? Might want to think about that one, Jimmy - you're coming for us today, but when will they come for you?


link didn't work . . . (none / 0) (#10)
by nycstray on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:40:32 PM EST

is that from the AP article?

i has some choice words after reading that . . .


Don't know why that didn't work (none / 0) (#12)
by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:01:05 PM EST

Here is one from the hill that looks like it will work. It is a better article any way since it quotes both Democrats and Republicans on the issue.


: Yes (none / 0) (#14)
by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:08:22 PM EST

Make Boehner, Ryan and Hensarling the faces of country club Republicans who want Paris Hilton tax cuts while they want to raise retirement age for working folks.

Of course (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:36:44 AM EST

They all lost because the economy sucks.

Of course the policies they voted for such as Obamacare, increased regulation, increased cost of doing business, and increased taxes had nothing at all to do with prolonging the bad economy. Ha!

The inadequate stimulus (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:38:40 AM EST

they can be blamed for, so yes, in some respects, being too conservative cost them all.


The porkulus (none / 0) (#5)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:08:21 PM EST

was if anything counterproductive rather than inadequate.


That's completely untrue. (none / 0) (#7)
by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 01:15:58 PM EST

Indeed, the stimulus made up for spending cuts in local/state governments, which is why the economy hasn't completely cratered. It simply was not of adequate size and too much was spent on ineffective tax cuts to actually repair the economy.


I'd like to see some analysis (none / 0) (#9)
by CST on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:25:24 PM EST

that says the stimulus bill hurt the economy.

That spending money on teachers and roads and unemployment benefits was bad for the overall economy, and that it was better to not have spent that money, and let people take thier lumps.

That we should have let GM and the entire auto industry go under. That that would have been better for the economy than bailing them out. That letting banks go under would be better for the economy.

I certainly haven't seen any data or facts to support that point of view. Personally I find it counter-intuative that letting major industries and a significant number of state/infrastructure related employees go belly-up - is somehow good for the overall economy.


: Not necessarily... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 02:46:42 PM EST

if the major industries business models are not sustainable or profitable long-term, and they will require a bailout bandaid every couple years, wouldn't it make more sense just to take the lumps now?
If their business models can suceed long-term, and they were just victims of the dire economic circumstances, a helping hand makes sense...thinking the auto companies here. As for the banks and finance industry, I see their models as fundamentally flawed and actually harmful to the economy...I saw and see no point in bailing them out...they're the damn anchor around our neck.

I'm confused. (none / 0) (#6)
by Elporton on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 12:23:59 PM EST

Are you suggesting that these people lost for being too conservative or not?


: As BTD's official translator, (none / 0) (#16)
by NYShooter on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 03:53:01 PM EST

and unofficial hatchet-man, I'll answer that.
These people lost because the economy sucks. The stimulus, and "conservative, too much or too little," are two separate issues, meaning: they have nothing to do with each other.
BTD feels that the stimulus was big enough to keep the patient (the economy) from going flat-lined (dead) but not big enough to approach anything resembling a healthy economy. In other words, the economy sucks big time.
Now,
please see the man with the big neck wearing sunglasses in the back of the room for your receipt.

Saw Jonathan Cowan on Washington Journal (none / 0) (#2)
by Joan in VA on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:38:11 AM EST

the other day. Just awful. Dishonest is about the nicest word you could use to describe what he was spewing.