Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
15. THANKS "Willy T" ! Explains just what I was talking about with CAP! Here:
Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:30 AM
Mar 2014

This is exactly what started to bother me about CAP years back. It seemed their blog was geared to Progressive Democrats in their writings (I used to get their blog notice in my e-mail to read) and yet there would be actions where it seemed Obama was doing nothing like what they had said to readers on what his position was or what he really thought or how he would would eventually act on an issue they were touting.

They are nothing but a PR Campaign for Obama and his donors....which does not help our Democracy and verifies how "Citizens United" is ruining what's left of our Democracy. John Podesta back in the White House doesn't matter much. The Corporations already seem to own the place. Podesta is just there to make it all seem to come together a little better for the spin for the 2014 Mid-Term elections.

From the article you linked:

But then phone calls from the White House started pouring in, berating my bosses for being critical of Obama on this policy. Obama’s advisor Ben Rhodes — speaking of a staffer who follows policy set by others for his career path — even made a post on the White House blog more or less attacking my chart by fudging the numbers and including both the Iraq and Afghan troop levels in a single chart to make it seem as if the surge never happened (the marvels of things you can do in Excel!).

Soon afterwards all of us ThinkProgress national security bloggers were called into a meeting with CAP senior staff and basically berated for opposing the Afghan war and creating daylight between us and Obama. It confused me a lot because on the one hand, CAP was advertising to donors that it opposed the Afghan war — in our “Progressive Party,” the annual fundraising party we do with both Big Name Progressive Donors and corporate lobbyists (in the same room!) we even advertised that we wanted to end the war in Afghanistan.

But what that meeting with CAP senior staff showed me was that they viewed being closer to Obama and aligning with his policy as more important than demonstrating progressive principle, if that meant breaking with Obama.
Once the Party discovered that it can generate votes via marketing, rather than platform, Maedhros Mar 2014 #1
Bingo. Scuba Mar 2014 #12
Exactly correct BrotherIvan Mar 2014 #17
K&R Cleita Mar 2014 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Mar 2014 #3
And they all scream out, PowerToThePeople Mar 2014 #4
When you look at who they list as distinguished senior fellows... Oilwellian Mar 2014 #5
I heard a lot of companies play both sides. Kablooie Mar 2014 #6
"The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan educational institute" Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #7
That is what they all say when the first start out. zeemike Mar 2014 #10
Exactly. No such thing as a corporate-bought non-partisan entity. Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #11
I love it when people wake up to corporate plutocracy in the morning. lonestarnot Mar 2014 #8
Hey KoKo... Did You Catch This: WillyT Mar 2014 #9
THANKS "Willy T" ! Explains just what I was talking about with CAP! Here: KoKo Mar 2014 #15
Under corporatism they get their tentacles into pretty much everything. Crunchy Frog Mar 2014 #13
Always the victims treestar Mar 2014 #14
So, you're in favor of corporate think-tanks setting policies Maedhros Mar 2014 #19
The one return every Wall St investor can depend on. The best government their money can help buy. raouldukelives Mar 2014 #16
Useful information. Thank you, my dear KoKo. nt Zorra Mar 2014 #18
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No WONDER We "LEFT (...»Reply #15