To achieve a government of "the vital center" that "makes the necessary choices" and "common sense solutions" to put America "on a viable, sound path going forward," with "free and open markets, tempered by sensible regulation," a government that "empowers people" with "world-class education" and "affordable health care - provided that it does so in a fiscally prudent way," and with "fact-based discussions."

I've examined this mission statement from every angle I can think of, and I still have no fucking idea what it actually means. It's like Trendy Political Idealism Mad Libs.

Iowahawk tweet

Okay, you hyperpartisan troglodytes don't get this at all. I'm a common-sensical, reasonable, apolitical, NPR-listening, in-house gourmet coffee-grinding, organic food co-op buying, all-around well-intentioned nice person who doesn't need a label. How do I know you're a hyperpartisan troll? You don't agree with me.

And your mama shops at Wal-Mart, too!

You forgot "sustainable"

Oh, of course, how silly of me!

Sustainable, carbon-neutral, rain forest-worshipping...

Yes, I'll stop now.

This did inspire me to think about something: We've all heard about "good government" types that apparently existed in the past. I think each state and locality has their own legends about governors, mayors, and administrators who sought nothing other than to make sure that the government that they had functioned efficiently and did the things that the bulk of the represented population expected it to do. I just read something about a turn-of-the-20th-century South Carolina governor who was known as the "good roads governor"; apparently building roads was the showpiece of his administration, and he was widely revered in the state for decades afterward. Nothing I read gave his party affiliation, although I assume he must have been a Democrat at that time.

So, even allowing for the fact that tall tales get taller with every retelling, what happened to the good-government types? Where are they today? I think this is the answer: they thrived in an earlier time precisely because government's authority was limited. Government was more likely to attract that sort of civil-servant type precisely because they would have little power to implement sweeping policy changes, at least not all at once. And the sort of people who crave power did not go into government precisely because there was little power to be had there.

But now that we have a government (particularly the federal government) of nearly unlimited authority, government has become incredibly attractive to the power-hungry. The good-government types have been crowded out, stampeded, run over. Admittedly, some of this is a function of our times, in which there are important decisions to be made and partisanship is needed in order to present and debate the issues. Nonetheless, we all have our stories about the DMV now -- and the reason for that is the people in power either don't care about good government, or find that bad government actually works in their favor.

You can't call them "socialists" or "communists" or "progressives" or "RINOs" or "tax eaters" or "authoritarian" or "power hungry." Did they trademark the truth, or are they making this up, too?

You can also call a turd a meadow muffin. It stinks the same.

I want to know their position on the regulation of toilets before I opine on them.

Let's see -- some of the founding members of No Labels as I understand it:

No Labels is led by Democratic fund-raiser Nancy Jacobson and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who were introduced to each other by Kevin Sheekey, Mr. Bloomberg’s political adviser. attribution to michellemalkin.com/2010/11/24/centrist/

Democratic fund-raiser Nancy Jacobson. Let's see, the American public is leaning to the right -- let's go to the center.

The very principled Republican strategist Mark McKinnon:

In 2006, McKinnon started working on John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. In January 2007 he said he would quit if the general election pitted McCain against Barack Obama. "I will, however, still support and vote for John McCain," he told the Austin American-Statesman. "I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy. I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be a great choice for the country." -- attribution: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_McKinnon

Let's see Kevin Sheekey:

From 1992 to 1997, Sheekey worked for New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, serving as press secretary, campaign manager for Moynihan’s 1994 re-election campaign and eventually rising to Chief of Staff. -- attribution -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Sheekey

New York's mayor Bloomberg. The same guy who has tried totally banning smoking, fat, and political incorrectness in NYC. Wants to implement gun control all over (www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org). He essentially wants a nany state.

I've hear Columnist David Brooks is asociated. He's so left leaning that the Tower of Pisa stands straight and tall.

That's just the initial take.

Liberals always need to lie about their true agenda because most Americans would never support them if they knew the truth.

That's why they wanted to force ObamaCare through so quickly - once the people saw what was behind the curtain they didn't want it.