Unity '08 - A credible 3rd party alternative at last?

[FormerLurker]

No matter how conservative or liberal some of us may view our fellow posters, I think one thing we can agree on is that the current political system and duopoly is broken and getting worse - hence the need for a credible 3rd party.

A group of political consultants from both sides of the political aisle is taking steps to draft a third-party ticket for president in 2008, guided by a belief that neither the Republican or Democratic parties are adequately addressing the problems of average Americans.

"We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well-intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system -- and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st century nor effective in addressing them," reads a four-page summary document for "Unity '08."
From their website, which reportedly has not yet been fully launched:
Unity08 is a group of citizens deeply concerned that the wheels have come off our political system, that the American Dream is slipping away, and that time is short to get things back on track.

We are of all ages, backgrounds, colors and beliefs and from both parties:

* Some of us have been involved in political campaigns at the state and national levels and served in high government positions.
* Others of our leadership group have never been active in political life but have been highly successful in the private sector, active in the non-profit world and in other walks of American life.
* Still others of our leadership group are students, who are concerned that the agenda of special interests is coming before the national interest.

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups – with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system – and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.

Therefore Unity08 will act to assure that an alternative ticket is presented to the American voters in 2008.
more here: http://www.unity08.com/believe

Personally I've been hoping for years to see something like this appear. I've got some more reading of their website to do before I come to a final conclusion, but everything I've seen so far looks spot-on to me.

I'd like to credit The Kentuckiana Independent
http://www.kentuckianaindependent.blogspot.com
for being the first to bring this to my attention.

[shetline]

Without voting reforms like instant run-off voting, I don't think other parties are ever likely to really take off in the US. They'll just end up playing spoiler, the way Nader did in the last two elections.

Since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have an interest in that kind of voting reform, it's hard to see that happening any time soon either.

I admit it's remotely possible for a third party candidate to be elected President if people become very, very disenchanted with both parties at the same time an incredibly charismatic third party candidate comes along, but it's a long shot, and I think the spoiler effect will often be worse than not having another choice.

For a third party to get a foothold, I don't think it should start with the presidency as a goal. It should start at the state and local level, and make the kind of voting reform needed to break the grip of the two-party system a major part of its platform.

I appreciate that sense of priorities reflected on that Unity web site -- but it's not much of a solid platform yet, and there's not much there about what they'd exactly do about their stated "critical" issues or how they'd accomplish whatever it is exactly that they want to do.

[Placebo]

If this was well-advertized, a good number of swing voters would consider, as well as moderates from both.

[Fellowship]

I am for the idea of more choice when it comes to political leadership.

Fellowship

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Fellowship
I am for the idea of more choice when it comes to political leadership.

Fellowship So am I. The problem is that considering how loyal (read fanatical) the conservative base is, a third party will only serve to prolong their stronghold on power by taking votes away from the Dems.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Gilsch
So am I. The problem is that considering how loyal (read fanatical) the conservative base is, a third party will only serve to prolong their stronghold on power by taking votes away from the Dems.

Guh.

Clearly there's no fanatical left base either, right?

While certainly time has shown that 3rd parties generally syphon more votes from Dems than Republicans, the good thing is that it syphons votes from BOTH.

That's what a good 3rd party needs to do: keep taking votes from both guys until they both realize there's a new kid on the block that needs to be taken seriously. This isn't going to happen in one election. It's going to take years, and probably decades. We shouldn't fear allowing one party to run away with things while simultaneously allowing two parties to run away with things. It's ignorant and exactly what they're hoping you'll do.

[BRussell]

IMO, a new party has to be ideological in nature. To start from the premise that "we need a third party," and then go for the ideas later, just seems empty to me.

[spindler]

They look like a liberal group. From their web site

" the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.
By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda."


Health care for all and helping people who have fallen out of the American dream (poor people), sound like liberal issues. One thing I can safely say is that no one cares about helping the poor at this point. We tried that in the 60s and 70s and it didn't have any effect. And there are many problems to deal with now so the average American just is not in the mood to hear about getting poor people to advance.

[shetline]

Originally posted by rageous
...the good thing is that it syphons votes from BOTH.
What's "good" about that, other than it might satisfy your desire to thumb your nose at the big parties? In the end, what it would likely mean is that instead of a majority of voters deciding things, a mere plurality -- the largest minority -- would get to decide who wins. This is better?

Is this sort of outcome is supposed to "teach somebody a lesson"? What lesson is going to be learned? By whom? The lesson learned might very well be "divide and conquer" rather than whatever imagined lesson you're hoping a big independent siphoning of votes might produce.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by rageous
Guh. Clearly there's no fanatical left base either, right? Guh, clearly you're overreacting there and falsely assuming I'm a lefty. Too much "with us or against" us there chum. Although, maybe I am a lefty compared to you?

While certainly time has shown that 3rd parties generally syphon more votes from Dems than Republicans lol... Thank you. Too easy.
That's what a good 3rd party needs to do: keep taking votes from both guys until they both realize there's a new kid on the block that needs to be taken seriously. This isn't going to happen in one election. It's going to take years, and probably decades. Great. Considering we already have one party that controls everything. We shouldn't fear allowing one party to run away with things while simultaneously allowing two parties to run away with things. :???: Let's see.
White House: Republican
Senate: Republican
Congress: Republican
Supreme Court: Republican
Federal appeals courts: most of them Republican...by far(10 out of 13).
Yeah. I guess we shouldn't fear one party running away with things. :lol:

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by BRussell
IMO, a new party has to be ideological in nature. To start from the premise that "we need a third party," and then go for the ideas later, just seems empty to me. Seems to me the idea is to discuss, rather than polarize.

From their blog:
One concern raised by some needs to be addressed head on: Some experienced bloggers expect/want Unity08 to arrive with a specific platform position on every issue.

We repeat what we said in our statement of purpose: We will have an agenda, not a platform. Our agenda is the list of issues that the public feels are crucial that Washington is not addressing – energy independence, quality education, affordable health care, rising national debt and many more.

But we don’t come to this with a platform. We invite you to debate and offer solutions – and ultimately we invite candidates to run for President on the Unity08 banner with their own platform on the crucial issues.

We would stifle the debate if the web site has pre-determined answers. And most American voters know that the crucial issues are very complex, don’t have simple answers, and progress will require debate, discussion and maybe even consensus or compromise.

What’s sad and interesting is that in Washington none of those things are happening on any of the crucial issues. No debate, no discussion, no consensus and no compromise. Washington is polarized and paralyzed.

So to all who expect Unity08 to have all the answers and to be certain of everything, we may disappoint you. To those who relish debate, serious discussion, and finding candidates for leadership ready to discuss crucial issues seriously, we hope to excite you.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Guh, clearly you're overreacting there and falsely assuming I'm a lefty. Too much "with us or against" us there chum. Although, maybe I am a lefty compared to you?

I didn't assume you were one or the other. I pointed out that you chose only to single out one parties fanatical base and not the other's. I was hardly erroneous in doing so, but if you could show me where I suggested in any way you're a lefty I'd love to see it.

lol... Thank you. Too easy.... blah blah... I guess we shouldn't fear one party running away with things. :lol:

It's cyclical. The Republicans have hardly run away with it. There's no huge majority in the Senate, and obviously the Presidency is a 50/50 shot.

You laugh off every important point I make because you got your back up assuming I called you a lefty, which OBVIOUSLY makes me a staunch conservative. Truth is, the back asswards theory that we need to vote Democrat instead of 3rd party because voting 3rd party makes the Republicans potentially stronger is one of the goofiest reasons for voting Democrat there is. It perpetuates both parties being totally self serving and polarizing.

But go ahead and give me a reactionary laugh off. You're really not coming across as the type of level headed person that one would like to see help affect change in the political system anyways. It's all about unseatin' them Republicrats!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by BRussell
IMO, a new party has to be ideological in nature. To start from the premise that "we need a third party," and then go for the ideas later, just seems empty to me.

Exactly!

Besides I think we need to stay focused ( not that I think there will much trouble with this ) in getting rid of any of Bush's regime. No people riding in on the coatails of the incumbent. After we're sure this kind of ideology is out of the whitehouse then we can start thinking about 3rd party alternatives.

[dmz]

Peggy Noonan has a WSJ piece on this today:

Partisanship is fine when it's an expression of the high animal spirits produced by real political contention based on true political belief. But the current partisanship seems sour, not joyous. The partisanship has gotten deeper as less separates the governing parties in Washington. It is like what has been said of academic infighting: that it's so vicious because the stakes are so low.


The rest is here. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008453&ojrss=wsj)

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by rageous ]I didn't assume you were one or the other. I pointed out that you chose only to single out one parties fanatical base and not the other's. I was hardly erroneous in doing so, but if you could show me where I suggested in any way you're a lefty I'd love to see it. Yes you did assume I was a "lefty". You only need to read what you posted originally.And I did single out one fanatical base because that base is much more solid than the Dems'. All you need is a controversial issue like gay marriage and they're fired up to go out and vote and that's a fact. It's cyclical. The Republicans have hardly run away with it. There's no huge majority in the Senate, and obviously the Presidency is a 50/50 shot. So if it's cyclical why are you worried about....err...a party "running away with it"? And if the current situation isn't a party running away with it...I don't know what is. Maybe you could enlighten us? You laugh off every important point I make because you got your back up assuming I called you a lefty, which OBVIOUSLY makes me a staunch conservative. I don't know what it makes you quite honestly...besides a masochist.

And I didn't laugh off your "important points" because I assumed you were calling me a lefty but because you ended up agreeing with me.
Truth is, the back asswards theory that we need to vote Democrat instead of 3rd party because voting 3rd party makes the Republicans potentially stronger is one of the goofiest reasons for voting Democrat there is. It perpetuates both parties being totally self serving and polarizing. You already said a third party syphons more Democratic (not Democrat) votes than Republican votes so unless you like the current administration and at this point in time, one extremist party controlling everything...I guess helping them out by weakening the only viable opposition party at the moment makes sense. But go ahead and give me a reactionary laugh off. You're really not coming across as the type of level headed person that one would like to see help affect change in the political system anyways. It's all about unseatin' them Republicrats! It's not a "reactionary" laugh off. It's more like an incredulous laugh if you're not a far righty or a fundie.
Besides, it's not about unseating "them Republicans". It's more like unseating the current Republicans. Haven't you been paying attention? ;)

[Placebo]

I'm predicting that by Page 3, this will be a standard liberal versus conservative flamefest.

[Flounder]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm predicting that by Page 3, this will be a standard liberal versus conservative flamefest.

You're giving this forum WAY to much credit. Flamefest by the end of page one, most likely.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm predicting that by Page 3, this will be a standard liberal versus conservative flamefest.
Oh, stop acting like Hitler! ;)

[vinea]

Originally posted by shetline
Oh, stop acting like Hitler! ;)

Doesn't work if you deliberately invoke Hitler to kill a thread...

Vinea

[rageous]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Yes you did assume I was a "lefty". You only need to read what you posted originally.

read it again. if you honestly conclude I was assigning a label to you, then there's little point in trying to discuss anything further with you.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by rageous
read it again. if you honestly conclude I was assigning a label to you, then there's little point in trying to discuss anything further with you. :D
Yeah. Ok.

[Relic]

On a tour of Alaska, the Pope took a couple of days off to visit the mountains for some sight seeing.
He was cruising along the campground in the Pope-mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods. A helpless Liberal, wearing sandals, shorts, a "Save the Whales" T-shirt and a Tree Hugger Hat, was struggling frantically, thrashing around trying to free himself from the jaws of a 10 foot grizzly.
As the Pope watched horrified, a group of Conservative loggers came racing up. One quickly fired a .44 magnum into the bear's chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding semiconscious Democrat from the bear. Then using long clubs, the three loggers beat the bear to death and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Liberal in the back seat.
As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. "I give you my blessing for your brave actions!" he told them. "I heard there was a bitter hatred between loggers and environmental activists, but now I've seen with my own eyes that is not true."
As the Pope drove off, one of the loggers asked his buddies "Who was that guy ?"
"It was the Pope," another replied, "he's in direct contact with God and has access to all God's wisdom."
"Well," the logger said, "he may have access to all God's wisdom, but he sure doesn't know anything about bear hunting . . . . .
By the way, is the bait holding up okay or do we need to go back to town and grab another one?".


Let the Conservative vs. Liberal match begin!

[Relic]

A first grade teacher in the Midwestis explaining to her class that she is a Republican and how nice it is that a new Republican president has taken office. She asks her students to raise their hands if they, too, are Republicans and support George Bush. Everyone in class raises their hands except one little girl. "Mary," says the teacher with surprise, "why didn't you raise your hand?" Because I'm not a Republican," says Mary. "Well, what are you?" asks the teacher. "I'm a Democrat and proud of it," replies the little girl. The teacher cannot believe her ears. "My goodness, Mary, why are you a Democrat?" she asks. “Well, my momma and papa are Democrats, so I'm a Democrat, too." "Well," says the teacher in an annoyed tone, "that's no reason for you to be a Democrat. You don't always have to be like your parents. What if your momma was a criminal and your papa was a criminal, too, what would you be then?" "Then," Mary smiled, "then we'd be Republicans."

[Placebo]

Cute political anecdotes are like Nazi propaganda, which was approved by Hitler.

[Relic]

I love propaganda!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/SheMayLookCleanBut.jpg/448px-SheMayLookCleanBut.jpg

[Placebo]

Yeah, that one's a classic.

[shetline]

I think the way this thread is spinning out of control indicates just how seriously most of us take a third-party run for president -- at least seriously as anything other than a spoiler to help keep Republicans in charge.

[ThinkingDifferent]

Here are 3 things you won't see anytime soon:

[list=1]
Woman President
Black President
A President from a 3rd party.
[/list=1]

[vinea]

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
Here are 3 things you won't see anytime soon:

[list=1]
Woman President
Black President
A President from a 3rd party.
[/list=1]

Oddly, for a woman or black president i think you would see them first from the Republican party than the Dems.

Well...Vice President anyway.

You don't think Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell would be a powerful VP from the perspective of votes? Perhaps less so today but in 2000 or 2004?

Assume Dole for the moment. Cheney could still be the power behind the throne but IMHO neither of those two races would have been close with Bush/Dole vs Bush/Cheney.

[ThinkingDifferent]

Originally posted by vinea
You don't think Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell would be a powerful VP from the perspective of votes? Perhaps less so today but in 2000 or 2004?


If Powell ran for president, he would have my vote.

[Corey]

Unity '08 will bomb completely. It either doesn't stand for anything of value or it does and is doing it's best to hide its true intentions.

For any third party to get a foothold it will need a strong fair-minded, well known first president.

So really this discussion (and Unity '08's) should be who can we get to run as an independent who has a rats chance in hell of winning? Without that, the rest is moot.

Personally I think Bloomberg could pull it off. Sadly, I also doubt he will try.

[Aquatic]

Fuck that, we need a representative democracy.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
If Powell ran for president, he would have my vote.
Seems like an alright guy, if just for leaving the Administration behind.

[Placebo]

For presidential elections maybe. The electoral system still has some strengths in keeping the small states from getting screwed.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by vinea
Oddly, for a woman or black president i think you would see them first from the Republican party than the Dems.

Well...Vice President anyway.

You don't think Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell would be a powerful VP from the perspective of votes? Perhaps less so today but in 2000 or 2004?

Assume Dole for the moment. Cheney could still be the power behind the throne but IMHO neither of those two races would have been close with Bush/Dole vs Bush/Cheney.

I think you have it backwards. I don't know a single Republican who'd vote for a woman or a black for president. Not one. And they admit it'll never happen.

Elizabeth Dole? Are you kidding me. She can't even keep her fundraising up for the NRCC and she had way too much trouble recruiting candidates. She's been a disaster.

Colin Powell? Come on. Maybe 10 years ago. Bush has destroyed his reputation with that UN fiasco. He's damaged goods. Plus he doesn't stand up to authority at a team when his country needed him too. Meh.

[Aquatic]

Fuck everything, Al Gore 2008. There's something I just like about his modest style.

[Northgate]

I'd love to see an Al Gore presidency.

I loath to see another election campaign.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Northgate
I'd love to see an Al Gore presidency.

I loath to see another election campaign.

Maybe he should just be appointed...skip the election altogether.

;)

[Northgate]

What I meant was another GOP slime campaign against Al Gore the candidate. That's what I loath to go through again.

"Al Gore the lier."

"Al Gore's mentally imbalanced."

"Invented the Internet(s)."

"Love boat."

"Only pushed a desk while in Vietnam."

"Grew up at the Watergate hotel yuppie."

"Earth tone suits."

"The absoute best, most masterfully skilled debater in the entire history of the world!"

[progmac]

maybe i'll start an ultra-socially-conservative third party in order to take the fundy vote away from the republicans. we'd make the republicans looks like total sissies.

[Relic]

Originally posted by progmac
maybe i'll start an ultra-socially-conservative third party in order to take the fundy vote away from the republicans. we'd make the republicans looks like total sissies.

COOL! Can I join I already have an idea on the patches for our sleeves (you know for parades and the like);

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/processed_new_images/nazi_flag_150.gif

I'm not sure were I've seen this before but I think the colors are divine and will defiantly turn heads, what do you think?

[Placebo]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Fuck everything, Al Gore 2008. There's something I just like about his modest style.
Didn't he used to be the next President of the United States?

[Relic]

Originally posted by Placebo
Didn't he used to be the next President of the United States?
Yeah, I think he's a used car salesman now in Jersey not sure, I'll Google him and let you know later if I find anymore info.

5 minutes later ....

Ok it now appears he's peddling some slide show of his vaction at some glacier.

[tonton]

Originally posted by Placebo
Seems like an alright guy, if just for leaving the Administration behind.

The only way I'll support him is if he speaks out honestly once Bush is gone.