Two days ago, I saw my first signs of the expectation of failure of the Barack Obama candidacy.  It was a series of signs placed on public property along a parkway in Traverse City.  A white sign with a giraffe shaped red white and blue logo adorning it and the words "Stop Fighting - Start Fixing" and the nolabels.org website address.  The giraffe BTW, was one of the logos stolen from the party animals in 2010 when the no labels folks appeared on the scene.  A wholesale theft of intellectual property often associated with anti rule-of-law folks like the Democrat party's most lefty types.

doh!

The hammering of the political establishment shook them out in 2010.  When the tea party types activated, and crushed the Democrat control of congress, by placing Republicans in an overwhelming majority not seen in decades.  The so called 'centrist' powers-that-be, who have willfully allowed the country to slip into the leftward spiral down the drain were encouraged by the left which just seen a drubbing like no other to pull together a can't-we-all-just-get-along message.

All they have that MIGHT be passed along as an across the aisle message is a no-budget, no-pay plank.  Otherwise, most of their platforms are actually exercises in 'bipartisan' get-along gobbledygook that has gotten this country's political process to the point it is now.  The last bullet point?

"No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents - Incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against sitting members of the opposing party."

The method is kumbaya. Its touted as bipartisan, yet pffft to those silly labels.  Bi-Partisan merely implies that both labels are coming together for a common goal.  This one is more of a "we've thrown off the yoke of political identification so we can accomplish God-Knows-What" group.

The founders of this affair have no solid Republican or remotely conservative cred of course.

The inclusion of Republicans and Democrats together, the mushy result is designed to make folks think its possible that we just need to have GOOD leadership.  Obviously the FOUNDERS of no-labels are solid leaders that have no entrenched philosophy, right?  Certainly the labels associated with the founding players of this group have been EXTREMELY moderate in their previous affiliations and affairs in a way that lends the needed credibility to a group that advocates such a blurred ideological image.

Such a stalwart Mark McKinnon, a former Democrat turned Republican, (in label only) abandoned the McCain campaign in 2008 because he did not want to campaign against Obama, because Obama's election "would send a great message to the country and the world."

Yeah, some 'great' message.

Add to this the fact McKinnon did not like Sarah Palin, and the crushing blow to the Chamberlainesque 'moderates' by tea party activity in 2010 probably hurt his feelings.  A lot.  Also, in a bit of an Irony, McKinnon supported the poorly crafted SOPA, a bill allegedly designed to stop online piracy (see above reference to intellectual theft by the no-labels organization) yet would have had other adverse affects on information dissemination.

The list goes on.

David Walker, an east coast 'independent' was also an appointee of Clinton, a DNC supporter, and was involved (CEO) of the globalist Peter G Peterson Foundation.  Considered fiscally conservative, he is probably the most 'centered' of the principles involved in no-labels.  It also appears by his associations, he would tend to side with hiking taxes to balance the books versus a growth of economy model.  It should be noted too, that he has strong connections to Council on Foreign Relations, for those who pay attention to that organization.

Last but not least, Nancy Jacobson.

Nancy was a fundraiser.  Fundraising and finance chair for the Democrat National Committee. a curious role for one who would be so adamantly opposed to partisan identification.  No doubt being labeled one of the 50 most powerful people in DC makes her one of the best spokespersons for an organization that wants to un-mark politicos so people have to guess which interests they represent.

Make no mistake, there is one party that pays her bills.  Her loyalty to the Democrats is clear and profound, and has been highly rewarding.  Her participation in the McKinnon home meeting late in 2010 that spawned the 'no-labels' mission was one of interest to the Democrats only.  After the beat down Dems took in November 2010, the mission to relinquish power held by an awakened tea party electorate was paramount.  It was unacceptable to have people easily identify the leanings of their politicians, and an obfuscation mission was in order.

Control the information, and control the electorate.

A Political party all too easily identifies the political leanings of candidates.  Though a few political types do not fully embrace the platforms of their party, the majority in those parties do.  There ARE folks who commit to certain principles, and associate with others who profess to do the same.  And in order to confuse the electorate and give the best chance to the donkey party, voters needed to have the basic overview of a candidate's policy leanings obscured from view.   All under the guise of reaching out to centrist malcontent.

No freaking way.

Many of us here have issues with a number of Republicans that have less than stellar voting records.  We call out the bad actors as we can, and expect some adherence to the platforms crafted to guide the party faithful.  But some expectation of moral authority by assuming a non associated party label would be a pretty stupid move for anyone looking to assume office.  And it is NOT about independents who for far different reasons vote across party lines from cycle to cycle.