UNITY 08.....Take back this country

for democracy....become a delegate! I saw them on C-SPAN. One Ford, one Carter media consultants that recognize that 2008 will either be the beginning or the end of this democracy. Can we REALLY elect a candidate that could have a chance in the general election ?

quote.......
We’re a movement to take our country back from polarizing politics. In 2008, we’ll select and elect a Unity Ticket to the White House— one Democrat, one Republican, in whatever order, or independents committed to a Unity team.

end quote......

quote........
What We Believe

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.

Our Goals

We have set three specific goals, and are exploring how best to achieve them.

Goal One is the election of a Unity Ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States in 2008 – headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties.
Goal Two is for the people themselves to pick that Unity Ticket in the first half of 2008 – via a virtual and secure online convention in which all American voters will be qualified to vote.
Goal Three, our minimum goal, is to effect major change and reform in the 2008 national elections by influencing the major parties to adopt the core features of our national agenda. With a group of voters who comprise at least 20% of the national electorate, we feel confident that our voters will decide the 2008 election.
The new ground broken in meeting our goals will include new choices for voters, new opportunities for candidates, and new uses of modern technology as well. In pursuing our goals, we will both follow the law in every instance and seek the opinion of the Federal Elections Commission to interpret the law where we are breaking new ground. (In fact we are currently seeking an FEC advisory opinion to guide our early decisions.)

We are not looking to build a new and permanent party. That might happen, but our objective is to fix the old parties. A Unity Ticket in office for one term or even taking part in just one election can bring new ideas, new integrity and new leaders to the fore.

We will not waste time assessing blame. Both parties and all of us who have been active in them share responsibility for the current political morass. We hope instead to return the focus of our politics and policy to the common good – those ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people.

end quote........

http://www.unity08.com/believe

But then, what can one expect from people who do not see the reality around them?

These people are deluded or worse.

Unity ended with this administration.

Bi-partisanism is no longer feasable or in our best interest.

TC

..engaging in partisanship in Washington. :eyes:

Yes, the Republican Party is guilty of this but you can't honestly tell me that the Democratic Party is a beacon of bi-partisanship hope themselves. I'll gladly support this venture if it gets the talk off of stupid gay marriage and impeachment quibbles and back on to tasks that are meaningful to the American people... you know, like health care, education (how far behind are we?), and jobs.

Representatives and Senators who ROUTINELY roll over and play dead for the Democrats. Who actually come to our side to help us get our Bills to the floor, and our agenda enacted. Who have crossed Party lines to prevent a totally conservative take-over of the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, and the CIA. Who go on the Sunday morning Talkers and abandon their Party's talking points in favor of real, reasoned debate, and when faced with the Democratic message roll over and let the Democrat get their message out.

Name me those couple dozen, and we'll talk about Bi-Partisanship and Partisanship among the Democrats.

TC

Is there a single one? I cant think of any.

and especially on the reasoned debate bit.

A friend of mine has taken an interest in Unity08 but I'm seeing it as well-intentioned but quixotic.

I'm all for options, think there definitely needs to be some changes, and absolutely want to see the permenant campaign traded for some actual governance....
...but, given the spinelessness and general lack of balls we've been treated to the past six years (admittedly on both sides of the aisle), this is the wrong time for this kind of ticket. Had there been a Republican who had stepped up and stood up to this administration, I might've felt differently. Think they'll probably get some unknown quantity GOP prospect to come out of the woodwork to sign on? If at all... Better a strong, viable, true third party (Independent) candidate than this.

Besides, these days bipartisanship really means we give ground to the Republicans under the guise of being more "moderate." When the hell do they ever give an inch to us? Compromise, my foot. I'm sick of it.

Yeah, I'm excited about our Democratic prospects for 08. We do need to get our shit together, though, and show that we truly are an alternative.

How can they get their bills to the floor without help from the right side of the aisle?

Please explain--a single example will be sufficient, but it will probably keep you busy all day long.

Partisabnship was born of Newt Gingrich and nurtured by the friends of the tax-exempt Heritage Foundation.

Even with so many of our Democrats willing to cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans, there has still been little or no quid pro quo.

Bi-Partisanship has gotten us exactly NOWHERE. The definition of insanity is doing something over and over, looking for a different outcome. We ned to step away fromt he insanity of bi-partisanhip and do what we need to do to win back the House and the Senate this year, and the WH in '08.

TC

has an embarrassment of riches for candidates for 08.

I like our folks real well and don't see much incentive at all for brand-switchin'.

Even discounting those few for whom I don't much care, I'm pretty impressed with our likely field of candidates.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life and don't plan to start now.

I don't know who I'll support in the primes yet, but I can't think of anyone who might get the nom that I wouldn't vote for in November.

Thinking about it starts my day off right! Thanks for mentioning it.

are up to. There will be enough "reasonable" dems who will vote this ticket, just because it "makes so much sense". The repubs KNOW they're in trouble, and this is the only way to split the dem vote.

And, I can guarantee you, that after the 2006 election, we will be hearing a lot from these folks. The media will happily report on them, and their solution for "healing" the country.

zalinda

What if they come up with a ticket that bleeds off more votes from the Republicans than from us? Maybe a McCain, or Hagel, or Giuliani or someone right of center. That could do us a LOT more good than harm.

Or not. I am not of the opinion that Perot's candidacy hurt Bush41 or Dole significan't more than it did Clinton, altho I do think it was a factor in the election. What I do think happened was that the perception, promulgated by the GOP, that Clinton only won because of Perot hurt his legitimacy and made impeachment easier for the public to swallow.

Still, I would much rather have had Clinton in the White House with a feeling of illegtimacy on the part of swing voters than to have had Bush or Dole. Not saying that Bush or Dole would have won with Perot not in the race -- I'm pretty sure they would not have -- but who knows what the dynamics will be in 2008?

I'll tell you one thing. If this Unity08 does take off, they will NOT be running a Ralph Nader, and probably not anyone to the left of the Democratic nominee... depending who our nominee is, of course. If he or she is just a little to the right of our guy, yeah, a bunch of stupid Democrats will vote that ticket. But a lot of stupid Republicans will too, and it could work to our advantage.

Getting our message on the news is very hard...in fact they keep saying we don't have one.

I am suspicious this is getting so much free time on the air.

I think in many cases, the organizations start out with the purest of motives (although the slickness of the unity08 site has me suspicious).

Then the RW think tank interns discover it and the operatives set the media blitz in motion.

Sorry, OP, even with my tinfoil hat on, I smell a rat here...

Kind of an add-on to my post #13 above.

Personally, I'm skeptical that this Unity08 thing will really go anywhere. But what if it does? And what if a lot of us at DU (and other groups on the left) registered to be delegates when that becomes an option? Could we possibly influence the Unity ticket to make it one that would hurt Repubs more than the eventual Democratic nominee?

What would we have lost? We'd still be able to vote and campaign for the Democrat--they can't stop that. Is there a downside I'm missing?

Here's another idea. What if the freepers figure out the same thing I did? What if they register in droves and make the Unity ticket a left of center one that hurts the Democratic nominee? Hadn't we better make sure we participate as much as they might?

It may be too late already to stench this.

Downside 2: It's gotten too much media time already (read above). We need to marginalize this movement, not support it in any way shape or form.

There is no reason any Democrat should want to join this movement. We have an incredible field of talent to choose from in 2008.

What do you mean by "infiltration of political operatives"? Do you mean us infiltrating them (which is what I am suggesting... and what's the downside of that?), or do you mean Unity08 infiltrating us? And if the latter... well, some of them are already part of "us," which is what I guess you mean by "it may be too late already." Correct me if I'm wrong. But I still don't see how that's a downside to what I suggest. If anything, it's all the more reason we need to fight fire with fire, isn't it?

Downside 2. Ok, I can agree they're getting more media attention than they deserve, and if they can say "a million people have signed up at our website" when some large portion of that million is us, then we've lent them credibility they don't served.

So maybe it's too soon to sign up. Maybe we should wait to see if their concept has any legs. But IF it gains momentum, and IF at some point it looks like they may have enough support to field a credible ticket, then I think it behooves us to do whatever we must to make sure that ticket hurts the Republicans more.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that that, "We have an incredible field of talent to choose from in 2008." I'm talking about a strategy to help us get that talent into the White House.

Just when it looks like the Democratic Party has a good chance of taking back the house?

Why? Maybe to be sure they don't. Keep the attention elsewhere. I saw Trippi had an article praising this, doesn't inspire confidence right now. He appears at sensitive times, like the time he endorsed Simon Rosenberg for chair on the day Dean announced for it. Little bitty things like that. Need to find the article he wrote....

So many questions, no answers. Why do we want to run a Dem and a Repub together when we could get it to be Democratic.

If you're not suspicious, you should be.