If you have "no place to go," come here!

A roach motel of epic proportions

[I hope lambert doesn't mind, but I'm sticky-ing this because of the need to shine light on this organization, which has reorganized to try to be as secret as possible. So post anything you can find about them here - BDBlue]

I sure hope the Moustache of Understanding doesn't have any undisclosed interest in the venture he's shilling for, because, from the Potemkin-ish site, they're looking for funding. More later, I hope.

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on


Unsurprising, it's linked to the awful Unity08 project (somehow I suspected when I read Friedman's piece this was all about Bloomburg and I think I may be right).

The prime mover appears to be Peter Ackerman. Not familiar with the irregular times, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but they appear to have done a lot of research on both Ackerman and Americans Elect - see search results here -

Also see this NYMag article - (on it being a front for Bloomie).

Submitted by hipparchia on

isn't that a catfood brand? oh, wait...

not a poor imitation at all, in fact a better job than i would probably have done. :)

Submitted by jawbone on

BTW, I happened to watch part of Tweety's show (forgot his name for a moment, Chris Matthews) this morning. He asked the four MCMers (members of the Mainstream Corporate Media) on his panel whether Obama should "Double Down on Progressivism" or "Move to the Center," and they, along with other regular panelists, all 12, were unanimous is saying "Move to the Center."

Matthews remarked that might mean the status quo and that means no jobs programs.

First, when one possibility was whether Obama should move to the center, I thought it meant Obama should move from right of Bachmann (or Boehner) leftward to some kind of center. But then I couldn't figure out what was the progressivism Obama could double down on. His campaign speeches and promises?

Second, I realized I live in a different world than Matthews and his MCMers.

But they're convinced Obama bringing some troops home from the wars will win him loads of votes.

The economy? Barely mentioned. Matthews had brought, with no responses from the MCMers. (Does not fit with the Austerianism they're so taken with?)

As I said, a different world.

John Heileman of The New Yorker, during the discussion of what voters can give Obama winning majority, said he thought Obama could increase the percentage of Hispanic votes from '08 by "talking about" immigration and bcz McCain, from a state w/ a high number of Hispanic voters, wasn't in the race. Really, John? When Obama has done squat for Hispanics and immigrants?

Someone also thought Obama might get more seniors to vote for him because of...get this!...SocSec. OMG, MCMers, you really think that?

Joe Klein said Obama "wants" to get off the Republican playing field, where he's been trapped. By whom, Joe??

Talk about a limited range of possible views....

katiebird's picture
Submitted by katiebird on

That only the serious need apply (Lady GaGa reference) and that there will be a gauntlet of serious questions to prove the underlying seriousness of prospective candidates.

I wonder what would happen to a candidate who frames all answers in the context of the 12 word platform?

Is that serious enough for them?

illusionofjoy's picture
Submitted by illusionofjoy on

I was thinking about this when I clicked the "about" link and found it severely lacking. Whoever these people are, they are using a lot of words but saying very little. Reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

We nominate Lambert and a VP of his choosing, using the 12 word platform.

Then we recruit FOL (Friends of Lambert) to join the party and actually get him on the ballot. That would be very cool.

Submitted by lambert on

The interactive parts aren't done yet, what a coincidence. Well, except for the Send Them Money part.

Joe's picture
Submitted by Joe on

As big of an asshole as Thomas Friedman is, it doesn't mean that every word out of his mouth should be ignored.

I couldn't agree more with his view that this country needs a 3rd party. He seems to think it needs a centrist party. I think it needs a leftist one. But who cares? We need one. Centrist or left... it doesn't matter. Either one would be better than status quo. The more choices, the more competition, the better.

Imagine, if you would, a situation whereby 100,000 voters of the left registered on the website. We'd control the outcome. It doesn't have to be Tom Friedman's vision. They've potentially set up an infrastructure we can use for our own purposes.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

A probably well-publicized new party that bronzes the idea that the Democrats must move further to the so-called center, boy wouldn't that be a welcome development!

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Bloomberg is a determined enemy of civil liberties, notorious privatizer, union busting parasite. no good will ever come of anything connected with him.

Joe's picture
Submitted by Joe on

I decided to sign up at the website. The first thing they try to do is get you to donate. I skipped that. They've got a online test where you answer a bunch of questions about your political views. After you answer each question, you're told the breakdown in percentages by other people who answered the question. Interestingly, a large majority of the questions had majority percentages on "lefty" answers.

You're saying that this is an attempt to create a "new party that bronzes the idea that the Democrats must move further to the so-called center", yet the way the website seems to work is that it's completely open to anybody who wants to join it.

I wouldn't just dismiss it right away because it's connected to Friedman. Friedman may be awful in a lot of ways but it doesn't mean that this won't have an overall positive effect. I'd say that almost anything that threatens the duopoly power of the D's and R's is a good thing.

Joe's picture
Submitted by Joe on

I understand what you are saying. Each question asked to pick the statement that is closest to your view. Not your view. Just closest to it. And just personally, I found that the multiple choices usually covered the full spectrum from left to right. For example, a question would ask something like, "what is the ideal healthcare system"

a) government is the sole provider of insurance
b) government is the main provider of insurance
c) private companies are the sole providers of insurance
d) private companies are the main providers of insurance

For a question like that, I'd pick A, even though I believe that private companies should have a role in providing supplementary insurance on top of a single payer system. But A is the closest to my view, so that's the one I would pick.

The website explains that it's goal is to match people up with candidates, based on the questionnaire you fill out. I think that's a noble concept. Maybe it will suck when it's fully implemented. But the concept is good. It's bottom up.

You should fill out the questionnaire just to check it out.

Joe's picture
Submitted by Joe on

Desperation. As soon as a lefty org pops up and says "join us, we're going to confront the two party system with a 3rd party run, and here's how", I'll ditch Friedman's thing, and come right over.

cwaltz's picture
Submitted by cwaltz on

by the debate starting in the center. No. The last thing we need in this country is another boobs from the right side of the aisle telling us where center is.

I'll pass.

I guess the whole Tea Party thing ain't working out real good as a second right wing party option so they're going to double down.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It creates the illusion of being a new party, garners press way beyond its size, and it pushes/enables the GOP to move further right.

For those who like that sort of thing, it's "working out real good."