"Group pushes 'unity ticket' on Internet" (Unity 08 third-party folly)

(CNN) -- A group that includes veterans of the Ford and Carter administrations is counting on public dissatisfaction with Washington partisanship to fuel an Internet campaign for a bipartisan "unity ticket" in the 2008 presidential election.

The group, Unity08, launched an effort this week to take the White House with either independents or with presidential and vice presidential candidates from different parties.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/01/unity.ticket

Personally I think this idea must be stopped.

If I was a Republican, I'd join up with this thing just to get my agenda through while the tainted Republican brand-name is allowed to heal.

This would also turn the election into "which side has the least number of gullible people on it", as one of the major parties would still likely win - the side that had the least number of people siphoned off by this thing. Sadly, I fear that the left would be the more gullible side; Republicans seem to be much more disciplined politically. And sadly, I'm pretty certain we'll see some examples of that here in this thread.

:eyes:

whereas at least Nader had something to say that broke from convention, these folks incarnate the words, "Republican light".

They opened with a leading poll.
They know where they are going but will wait until 08 to tell you. Imagine running as annomous and getting ballot access.
I see the outcome just could be a race between

Jeb Bush (R)
Democrat (D)
Democrat split vote (U)
the candidate which will be announce sometime in the spring/summer of 08...

Could be the other way around but this is DANGEROUS

I disagree with you that this will impact the left more than the right, at this time. If things weren't this bad, then I'd agree... but they are.

The only way I see this having more impact on the left is if people nominate DLC types. If that happens, then I will definitely be nervous.

If the purpose is to split D vote, it will be done.

If the purpose is to *attempt* to split the D vote, the attempt will be made, yes.

Ummmm, isn't that sentiment just a tad undemocratic?

At it's root, this is about a group of voters coming together on the internet to endorse a candidate. Why in the world is that a bad thing? Why are you scared of the result?

I mean arent we living in America, home of Enron and the chimp?

...what exactly are you talking about? This is not a political party.

ultimately will be to place "a" candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. From my understanding that candidate will be anonymous until AFTER the ballot access is completed. Now I don't know about you, but as I watch the website lead its readers by the nose to where=ever they are leading I am reminded that in this world, if you are waiting for an anonymous white knight to ride to the rescue and make things better than more often than not you will wind up waking up in some alley wondering what happened to your shirt and your shoes :)

...but they will only succeed if they attract enough people. You can't get on the ballot in 50 states without a very large number of people supporting you. So the question is, if there is a candidate with such a broad appeal, shouldn't Americans have the opportunity to vote for him/her?

But for that to happen the candidate would have to step forward first and the people would then acknowledge their support. If this thing catches fire they will be giving ballot access to a player to be named later and I am SO skeptical over who is pulling the strings and why.

That's not how it works. The "player" cannot possibly be named later. In order to compete in the general election, there must be a candidate, not just a party.

I remember Perot made a big scene over getting ballot access for the "reform party" in 2000 by getting 5% in 96.
As you recall Buchanon then stole the slot and the money in some fiasco but the point is the name appeared on the ballot anyways.

The 5% hurdle is the number a political party is required to acheive in order to get federal matching funds. You have to have a candidate to get on the ballot. Think about it, have you ever seen a ballot with only the party name and no candidate on it?

The Republican Party has to be destroyed as an example of the triumph of democracy over those who would abuse it.

Carl Rove isnt sitting behing some terminal typing in the results. This thing has NO oversite

Unity08 will be subject to the exact same rules as organizations like Move On.

They are trolling in fish right now. How do I satisfy myself that something shady isnt taking place right now?

You seem to be worried about this group siphoning off Democratic voters. Fair enough, but what you should really be asking yourself is WHY. What is it about the Democratic Party that turns these people off? If the Democratic party actually appealed to a majority of Americans, this group would have no following and quickly become a non-issue. The only reason you are scared is because at some level you know that the only reason this organization exists because a large number of people are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party.

I doubt anonomous more. I stand a better chance, as slight as that may be, to have my voice heard from democrats than from anonomous IMO

I mean as much a we like DU would you give them the keys to your house? And they at least have some history to base judgement on. Who is unity08?
A couple of guys who used to be in politics once upon a time have some role, but what role, and who is executing "the plan"?
Blind faith kills

This is how it works in theory. These guys create a website. They get a bunch of people to sign up. Those people debate about what issues they think are important and what person they believe would best represent them. Then they try and get that person on the ballot in all 50 states.

Now let's assume your conspiracy theory is correct and these guys aren't actually trying to let some experiment in grassroots democracy take place, but rather they have a "plan". If their "plan" doesn't garner much interest among the voters, they will get nowhere. The whole idea that these guys could assemble a large group of supporters, then reveal a "plan" that those supporters don't like, and still keep those supporters is just ridiculous.

Either this group will garner enough support to get someone on the ballot or they won't. If they do get enough support, them they deserve to be on the ballot--that's called democracy. If they can't generate enough support, it's a non-issue.

Im going to trust you on this, but if my conspiracy theory plays out, then me and my dog will be over to raid your refrigerator and he's a big hungry critter.

Personally I'd like some party to come and split the Republican vote.

It's the people who pretend it doesn't exist when they know well that their actions have the result of getting Republicans elected that I'm against.

what have the conservative and centrist Dems been selling? they've been telling us that most Americans are right down the middle ... they've been "anti-left" ... the political strategy has been to carve out the political middle and marginalize those "at the margins" ...

well, it seems to me that's exactly what moderates Carter and Ford are proposing ... they're just taking it a step further by not just cutting out the left but also cutting out the right ...

this is the "gang of 14" revisited ...

if you want to remain a Democrat and you don't want to go along with the new centrist party, you will be put in the exact same position the Democrats' progressive wing has been in ... you'll be told to "go along with the center" or be marginalized as the "far left extreme" ...

welcome to my world ...

triangulation, whether it occurs within the Democratic Party, or outside it with a new centrist third party, has a nasty tendency to push for the status quo and do a poor job exploring new ideas be they progressive from the left or repressive (i think that's the right word) from the right ...

i'm not sure how i feel about the Carter and Ford proposal ... already feeling marginalized by the current power structure in the Democratic Party, maybe shaking things up a bit and forcing new alignments is not such a bad thing ...

the rigid are the most disciplined.

It would definitely hurt the Dems more.

the dems, siphons off enough votes to ensure a Republican victory. I expected no less.

...unless Dems are already divided. The bottom line is this: if the Democratic party puts forth a candidate that a majority of Americans like, they will win. If they can't, they lose.

I'm sure people will "like" this candidate they put forth. However, there is a certain segment of voters for whom whoever they "like" has little to do with what will get them what they want. Their ego, possibly stroked in relation to thinking that by voting for this third party or whatever that they are above the two major parties, might take precedence over finding out what action of theirs will cause more of what they want to have happen happen. Unfortunately, the Republicans are better at doing what will get them what they want.

Why not put all those that support the war and voted for Alito in the same party? They are essentially working for common goals despite of the D and Rs that follow their name.

The OP story is a bit different from my interpretation, but the result is the same, and this is why: The American ruling class is split. While they all love what Bush has done for them, and the investor class that tags along with them, they are horrified at the prospect that the Democrats will nominate a reformer in 2008. This is why we hear the NY Times belittle Democrats like Gore, while praising the likes of Hillary and Biden. The Unity08 is plan B in case Democrats that won't challenge the ruling class lose the 2008 primaries, in which case they will con the public into thinking that a national unity government is a good idea.

I am surprised that Bush hasn't tried this yet. Ask Cheney to step down and put Joe Lieberman as VP in a national unity government committed to fighting terrorism until it is defeated. I am sure that millions of Americans will buy off on that con, just as they did on warrantless searches and torture.

it's a little suspicious