I think there's a real opportunity in 2024 to elect a candidate who has strong leadership qualities and a genuine desire to heal the divide in our country. I believe we in middle America can fundamentally reorient politics in the direction of positive steps we can take together, rather than wedge issues used to divide us (and to raise turnout among the extremes, rather than the middle).
What candidates have those qualities? Here are a few possibilities. Please post your own suggestions, along with your impressions of the candidate.
Among those considering a run, we have:
Mark Warner
Wesley Clark
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
We also have an independent, in Angus King, who was a very successful and popular governor of Maine. My understanding is that he's involved in the Unity08 effort, which makes me wonder if he's willing to consider a run.
There's also been some discussion of a possible run by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, which seems both intriguing and plausible to me. It was suggested in this article by Dick Meyer on CBS news, and in this New York Times article.
Among those not considering a run, but who would be fabulous, we have:
Colin Powell
Olympia Snowe
Janet Napolitano
And probably a few others. Who are your favorites?
...and names is what they are. What do these people truly believe and do those beleifs match ours? Shouldnt we be in the business of first defining who we are before we start bandying about a list of NAMES of people who will likely be more than happy to take the task of defining us upon themselves?
This is something that I'm finding curious because that name keeps coming up again and again.
Yes, he's a vet and was a POW. That's in his favor.
He's perceived as "moderate" but when you're being compared to the current administration ... "moderate" is faint praise.
But he's in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage and, yes, I know it didn't make it to the floor, but that doesn't change his support of this notion.
And he was given an 83% rating by the Christian Coalition in 2024. Yes, I know that's old, but has he changed his tune?
I'm willing to be convinced, but my current perception of the man is a long way from positive.
Wesley Clark, Colin Powell - you bet, we need some people in office who know what war is about if we're going to get out of this mess in Iraq.
Mark Warner, Olympia Snowe ... they seem likely as well.
Is there anyone in the withering middle class who is not positively numb from the pathetic dog and pony show conducted in the so-called Beltway? Your governing class has lost the ability to govern. These people cannot confront problems and issues because they cannot solve problems, have lost the sense/purpose of compromise. I'm watching for the GOP or DEM bolter(s), those who will say "no" to the above, walk away, and take votes away from abusers of executive/legislative authority. What do you think?
Not contemplating a run this time out, as far as I know, and probably a diehard Republican. But he goes his own way, with integrity, and does not hesitate to speak out on issues like torture that make his own party squirm. I would vote for him regardless of what ticket he was running on. I've blogged on him here and here,
Lindsey Graham pretty well put the death knell in his political coffin when he called opponents of the just defeated Immigration Bill, "bigots", and told them to "shut up".
It is doubtful at this time that he will even be reelected to the Senate from South Carolina. For real.
Just came over the wire that Jim Jeffords is retiring from the senate. Think he's up for one more gig? lol
Graham is a really interesting fellow. There seems to be a little coterie of McCain partisans in the Senate, and Graham and DeWine are both part of that club. They have that extra maverick streak, along with an underlying intelligence and civic mindedness that set them apart from the rest.
I'm not sure that these guys really cut loose -- there's just so much pressure to bring them into line. DeWine is our Senator here in Ohio, and he recently got on board with the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, for the first time in his long Senate career, and in the middle of a tough reelection campaign.
I wonder, however, if these failings aren't really *ours* instead of *theirs*. If guys like Graham or DeWine had an organized base of moderate voters to fall back on, could they resist the religious right forces that seem to dominate their party? Maybe.
Perhaps what we're doing here, with groups like Unity08 who want to explicitly represent the middle, is a large part of the solution to the seemingly smart and civic minded leaders who also seem to respond to the wrong pressures, at times.
There needs to be a middle base, in addition to the increasingly well-organized left and right bases.
Bill makes a good point here in regards the need for a centrist base so that moderate politicians can resist the extremist pulls in their own parties. Guiliani and McCain were both once considered rationale moderate republicans (heck, Giuliani was on the Liberal party slate when he first ran for mayor!), but now have had to go suck up the far right base of the party to try to get the nomination and are now too tainted to be on a Unity ticket. If there was a centrist base, we would probably see a lot more moderate politicians.
In addition to knocking out McCain and Giuliani per below, I don't think Clark is a good choice, at least for the top of the ticket. Nothing against him personally, I like him well enough and think he is pretty smart, but given our recent military escapades I doubt most Americans want to see a general (other than maybe Powell) running the country, and I am quite certain it does not send a good signal to the rest of the world. Frankly, I was disappointed in how well he presented last time around. He could maybe be the VP.
N.B. - Notice none of my comments re these 3 are personal issues with the candidates or their positions, just comments on their viability to carry a winning ticket.
If we are going to unite the country, should we not have someone not involved with politics. We should elect a CITIZEN, who knows what real people like. Sadly, everyone in Washington, Democrat, Republican, are tainted with Corruption.
It might be too early for names, but then, certain individuals have qualities Americans are looking for that eventual candidates can be measured against.
For example, the politician who speaks out on behalf of the people, rather than his or her party on crucial issues, is a standout in my view. Other qualifications are obviously important, but we don't need more rubber stamps, or people who test the wind before speaking up.
Graham, Hagel, Snowe, Murtha are a few who come to mind. As much as I admire Powell, he sold out at the U.N. and admits as much.
Perhaps qualities should be established first, then the process of finding people with those qualities can follow.
The problem is the corruption reaches far below the presidential candidate. A "citizen" president would need a very dedicated secret service.
Thought it might be a great social/political experiment. To see if we are truely a government of the people.
I believe this country needs to get a common person in the white house. The people we have today cant relate to regular people in this country.I think the people that have been running this country thus far are always the same people (the rich).I want someone different.Thats why I support Dan Lamb for president a man that is of the people and for the people.
Google Dan Lamb to see posts about some of Dan's labor efforts. Or go to members.aol.com/BobKutchko/UnionPride/page13.html. Labor is near and dear to his heart and he puts it all on the line to make a difference.
Seems the best collaborative, non-partisan work done in recent years was that of the 9/11 Commission. I suggest that Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton be considered.
I supported him once and Republicans criticized non-republicans for interfering in their party business.
Earlier this year my mother received a mailing under John McCain's name that purported to be a survey but was really a solicitation for the RNC.
I listen to Senator McCain speak and watch how he votes and it looks like the maverick now has a "W" brand.
Since we have been asked to be positive in our comments I will say Olympia Snowe makes a very good senator.
What makes it difficult for me to choose a name to support is not knowing what issue will matter in 2024 and beyond. There are great champions for causes I am conserned with, but how well will they decide on unrelated issues?
It's likely we will still need someone who understands warfare and security and still not prone to creating an empire.
We need someone who also understands that paying for things on plastic (on a seemingly unlimitted credit card) still needs management.
We need someone who respects civil liberties without tilting toward reverse discrimination.
I, for one, need a leader who sees protected land and wildlife as a valuable resource in itself and not just a pet project for us tree huggers.
With any luck, many of the dividing issues can be solved before the election. I'd hate to think we would elect someone on the grounds that they were well informed on how to solve internet censorship problems.
I haven't seen many Jack of all trades. Maybe a practical (able, but not blood thirsty) military leader with a knack for finances and another leader with a history of protecting minorities and the environment without being a radical on either issue (unwaivering in their belief, but not one to incite riots or expect Americans to give up transportation and running water).
..is an interesting idea - self made billionaire entrepreneur, RINO, maverick, has no chance of getting the nomination from either party so won't bother trying, good dose of technocrat, results oriented, pragmatic, smart, could sneak NY from Hillary and really put us in play, hmm. though I wonder if he isn't a little left to play a moderate outside the big cities.
A citizen candidate or an independent is preferable to a 'bipartisan ticket' for the following reasons:
It is hard to imagine we could recruit a winning bipartisan ticket under these conditions.
A citizen candidate on the other hand is likely to be a media darling. And there is no shortage of ordinary citizens with the insight, intelligence, and charisma to match most recent presidents.
Finally, it would not take much effort to explain to voters that success in politics actually indicates unsuitability for the kind of leadership we need right now.
This is a topic that I am really struggling with. All the names on first list are great. However all of the people are first and foremost party loyalists. It would be political suicide for any one of these people to even consider floating a trail balloon about Unity 08. The press would find out, “they” where interested in the new thing called the “Unity 08” and feed them to the wolves. The press is dependant on a two party system.
What is the answer? I think we all have to look at candidates that are not in the political spot light or are-up-and-comers. I think politicians that are like 2nd and 3rd string among the two parties would be a good choose. These folks have nothing to loose and are still apart of old two party apparatus.
All of us here at Unity 08 are smart enough, rational enough and large enough in numbers to dig up any information we need on any possible candidate. We don’t need the press: news print, magazines, radio or television. We just need to network and post what we learn about each candidate here at Unity 08.
I think it would help if someone can set up a list that can handle, say one- or two hundred names along with the ability to post info for each.
Frankly, I wouldn't vote for any of the partisan hacks on the list unless they were to admit that their party is broken and speak out harshly against it. Of course that will never happen, so instead we need to look for INDEPENDENT candidates.
How can Unity08 decide who it wants to run if it doesn't have any idea what it stands for, other than being 'moderate' - or does being moderate mean not knowing what you stand for? If so then I guess anyone will do.
Most independents (and some primary hopefuls)
are boutique candidates who want to make a point,
but even they lack faith they can win, so why should
I vote for them?
Unity’08’s primary goal must be to have completed
our convention before the Iowa Caucuses. If our
candidate is not already polling competitively against
the field of primary candidates, it will already be too late
to build faith that we can win.
As much as Unity08 needs to pull voters from Republican
and Democratic camps, we need to pull candidates from
those parties.
The question for all of us:
“What can we do to build faith in the minds of the candidates?”
To take an obvious example:
John McCain already has faith he can win the general election.
What could we do to convince him to have more faith in
Unity ’08 then Republican party (and Jerry Falwell).
In allot of ways, his candidacy mirrors what Unity ’08 is
trying to fix. He has built his reputation as a
“straight-talking independent maverick.” But his faith in
winning the Republican primaries lies with prostrating
himself before evangelical groups. This makes him a
weaker candidate, a weaker President, a weaker country.
What can we do?
The way you get elected is the fundamental problem.
Answer 1: “Raise allot of money”
The way you do this is going to corporations and
special interest groups. Can the Unity08 community generate
enough money without them?
Answer 2: “Convince people to show up.”
The issues the parties run on are the ones that get people
to show up and vote. People care about “critical” issues, but vote for
“important ones.” It is the perception that these are the things that
will effect their lives most directly
Give it up john pactrick .. NO one .. no one want John Mccain even remotely associated with this reform effort.
As long as we are talking about 9/11 commissioners, what about Bob Kerrey? He was a Democratic Governor and two-term Senator for (my home state of) Nebraska - a red state if there ever was one.
None of the names listed as possible candidates for the Unity 08 ticket have yet to appeal to this voter. Who should we be looking for?
(1) Someone who will stand up and refuse contributions from corporations and all other forms of organizations. Only receive support from the people, directly. Corporations, unions and other forms of organizations possess far too much influence over political decision-making.
(2) A candidate who will limit individual contributions to $50 per person. If someone wants to donate more, then the candidate should encourage them to support their favorite charity instead. (Not all needs of the people are best met by government ... and we need to support charitable and community projects more.)
(3) Someone who will speak the truth. Unity08 has the right idea here. But it will require courage from the right leader. Someone who will not take tax increases, or benefit cuts, or federal program cuts, "off the table" just to win votes. Someone who realizes that the USA is in a downward fiscal spiral, and hence that drastic reforms and prompt action are necessary. Someone who will tell voters that sacrifice, of a personal nature, will be required in order for our children's and grandchildren's economic future to be as good as, or better than, our own.
(4) Someone who realizes that, win or lose, Unity08 can shape the national agenda for several years - if and only if the candidate has the tenacity to always speak the truth.
(5) Someone who will be civil throughout the many debates. Speak with passion - yes - but do not fall prey to partisan attacks. Someone who will respect, but not fear, their opponents.
The issues this country faces are far to grave for the "status quo." Our candidate, whoever he or she may be, must be first and foremost a statesman, not a politician. Someone who cares more about his or her principles than getting elected. Someone who realizes that a good part of the electorate will respond, if and only if the message is the unvarnished truth, delivered from the heart.
In our search for a candidate, let's look for successful people with principles and the ability to communicate such principles to a vast audience. He or she need not be on the national scene currently. The message is powerful, and the message is in need of a powerful and principled messenger.
Right now we have no candidates to consider. We need to focus on attracting candidates, not arguing the merits of fantasy ones.
I chose John McCain as an example of a candidate we want to attract for 2 reasons:
1) Abandoning his party for a run with Unity08 would let loose a thunderbolt of reform. Let him run more as himself, and bypass the existing primary system.
2) More importantly, I think he can win.
Something has happened to John McCain, I am not sure what it is, but he has lost his credibility with me. Too bad, he at one time had that credibility with me.
There are a lot of big names in the list here - what about someone farther down the list like a state senator, mayor or something?
Take for instance a guy named Loren Knauss who just won the primary for re-election as a County Supervisor in Iowa. I've been watching him for a while since he's chairman of the county board in one of the largest counties in Iowa (right next to Omaha, NE). I saw him at an event with Rudy Giuliani in 04. He looks clean-cut, politically hard-charging and a bit of a maverick with cross-party voter support. He's refused PAC money when he runs, and runs a good clean campaign that has a fairly nice web site www.lorenknauss.com. He ran and lost in 2024 for a state senate position against a long-time incumbant (and senate minority leader) Mike Gronstal. That's the only loss I've found for him, but Knauss ran on under $10K and Gronstal spent over $200K to beat him it looks like, and still they were within 7% or so. Not bad.
When we're talking about candidates it would be nice to consider not only the ideology, but the the total package. Do they have the vision, the talk, the look? Can they campaign on a limited budget, and can they win?
Are there any smaller candidates that anyone knows of that would be possibilities?
I'm sorry, but McCain needs to change his name to John "Dubya" McCain. I've never seen such a 180 so fast. I once supported him as an independent voter, but he's now pushing Bush's agenda and won't stray from the mainstream Republican point of view.
I don't understand how Log Cabin Republicans, or Fiscally Consevative Republicans, or Moderate Democrats can support their parties anymore.
Let's see some more moderate candidates who haven't shoved their feet in their mouths. Obama and Roberts are great ones from the Democratic side, and Lindsey Graham or Arlen Specter are great ones from the Republican ticket.
BUT let's look to Texas and see what Kinky Freidman can do. Jesse "The Body" is free as well. Al Gore, Wesley Clark, and Richard Clark have done a wonder in the spotlight lately.
Forget McCain, he's dug his political grave already.
Two words: Lou Dobbs
Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. He ran as a conservative but governs as a moderate.
Romney is the driving force behind a state universal health care law which takes effect in 2024. One of Unity08's crucial issues is "the health care of all." Well, here's someone who has actually passed such a law.
It really is too early to pick out the actual candidate and its still to early to throw some names around. Its crucial that we can identify crucial areas where we all agree as credentials. I know many of us have different opinions and beliefs on many issues, however there must be something we all can agree on as a basic requirement for consideration.
Here are my basic considerations and I would consider any candidate who at least has these few qualifications
1. The Candidate has to have some character. We dont need any more corrupt politicians in Washington or around the country in elected positions.
2. Corruption free...Its hard to me to vote for any person who has some connection to Pay-to-Play politics, especially since I am an Ohio Republican.
3. A History of going against his party. It doesnt matter if he is a democrat or republican or green or whatever party. The candidate needs to be the maverick some times.
4. Fiscally Responsible...No one likes defecits!!
5. Compromiser, someone who looks beyond the small picture and works to achieve a bigger better agenda.
6. Someone who actually who accept out nomination. We can throw out names but people actually have to be intrested for consideration. I know how much fun it is to fantazize but it probably wont happen.
7. For me at least the candidate has to be open to chosing a memeber of a different party as his running mate. No democrats and Greens or Republicans and Libertarians. But a Green and a Republican or a Republican and a Democrat
8. A thing called compassion which a lot of elected officals in Washington talk about having but dont really give two cents about certain people
9. BE ABLE TO FUNDRAISE!!! The candidate has to have the name and ability to raise some A LOT of money!
Those are my 8 criterion for the candidate and there are a few names that I feel that fit that category.
1. Colin Powel(Republican)
2. Bob Graham (D-FL)
3. Sen Mike DeWine(R-OH)
4. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
5. Sen Joe Liberman (D-CT)
6. Jesse Ventura (Independent)
Current pols are too invested in the system that needs fixing. We need people whose loyalty lies not with their party, but with our nation and our Constitution. Here are three people who are intimately acquainted with politics at home and abroad, yet are independent of any party: Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, and Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnists. All three have been unafraid to speak truth to power, even to their own management. Friedman was one of the first to identify the link between energy independence, reduced need for military action, and greater environmental protection. He has lived in the Middle East for extended periods of time. Krugman is an outstanding economist who has repeatedly urged sanity in our economic policies and has articulated specific ideas that have later been recognized as wise. Kristof is not only a writer, but an active promoter of civil rights around the globe. Almost singlehandedly he has focused the world's attention on the Darfur genocide, human trafficking, and the repression of women in the Middle East. All three men have demonstrated an understanding that our problems are complex and should be approached with as many facts as possible.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I84U105.html
Lieberman considering running as independent.
I agree completely with nomadi1 that we should be concerned about defining who we are before we try to pick a candidate. I and several others have espoused this since the first of the month but I have seen no acknowledgement that this is taking place.
I am reluctant to share Unity08 with my friends until I hear something more that nominating a third candidate. Unless we dispel any suggestion that we consist of a cabal of main party operatives trying to split the election in favor of their party we can not proceed.
Is Hillary Clinton a possibile Unity08 candidate? I'm sure most people don't consider her a centrist, but take a look at this link.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2070809
Apparently, she was booed by a crowd of liberals for saying that it would be foolish to set an exact date for withdrawal from Iraq. This may be an indication that as her party moves further to the left, she might remain closer to the center. What say you guys?
The Clintons are phony centrists, which is to say liberals.
Hillary would be a good VP or Sec of State perhaps. She is smarter and meaner than the average dictator. She may be the most qualified to solve the Middle East quagmire.
But she's too liberal at heart, we would get world peace at the cost of socializing our own country, if she were President. So keep her down a notch or two.
Brad Henry is an outstanding candidate, middle of the road and fiscally responsible.
Check him out at: http://www.governor.state.ok.us/gov_henry.html
Conradlk - "I and several others have espoused this since the first of the month but I have seen no acknowledgement that this is taking place."
so what does that tell you????
this topic is one of the most highly rated and active on the entire Shoutbox. Apparently, most everyone else doesn't agree with you.
Sooner (preferrably) or later we need to find a candidate that we can rally a lot of support around. It won't matter how we "define ourselves" if we don't align ourselves with electable candidates. It would be helpful if we got out in front of the early horseraces in the main parties so that we get someone to align with us as their first choice, rather than looking like we only got the losers that couldn't get the nod from their preferred party.
And let's think about which media play would get us the most exposure and momentum:
1.) "those crackpots over at Unity08 are debating bombing switzerland and abolishing the Dept. of Education."
2.) "the folks at Unity08 have the hots for Colin Powell, and rumor has it that he is considering it!"
I basically agree that choosing a candidate should not be the first issue to be addressed by Unity08. There should be a prioritization of issues and an agreed upon approach to negotiate differences of opinion with regard to the most important issues. That there are differences of opinion is a given and what these differences are is generally known. How to resolve differences in a constructive manner is the challenge.
Having stated the above, I think that Oprah would be a terrific presidential candidate.
Richard Armitage, centrist, who was Powell's Number 2 at State, is the best informed and most experienced man alive. If he did not win, everything he said would be a great big PLUS for voters and interested people to hear.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Reece writes: "This may be an indication that as her party moves further to the left, she might remain closer to the center."
This is another chicken or egg agrument. Clinton has never stood for anything in particular. Neither have most if not all politicians. Thats why when you look them up they all invaribaly are shown to be "centrist". This is the image that was crafted for them by their handlers, along with their hairstyles and wardrobe. Politicians are a product of PR firms designed to fit the needs of the public.
When you say that the Democratic "party" moves further left you mistake for movement the obvious gap between the positions of the party leaders and its membership. Neither have moved one iota from their starting points, there is now just a spotlight shining on the obvious lack of representation Democratic leaders are giving to the party memebership.
When I hear "Modern Slavery" instead of "Free Trade"...... "Free Market Expansionism" instead of "War on Terror"..... and finally, I need to hear these "so called" leaders of the people to admit the oil crisis is a hoax to prop up "Kings and dictators" in the middle east... Buy products made in the USA, stop listenning to propoganda about a war on terror, and for goodness sakes understand that we have huge oil reservers in the southwest, untapped and ignored years ago to keep those in power in are good graces with military support to secure sovernty from their own people in the middle east... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Seems like the list presented is an excellent one - but on a practical side, other than Angus King has any of those expressed an interest to be considered. One of the down sides of any "third" political party is getting a candidate to make the run and to be considered viable. I would urge the key founders of the movement to test the waters and gather info that would indicate those on the "list" would at least consider being nominated by Unity 8!
rickvac
You have a good point. I just remembered that one person told me recently that she knows a lot of Democrats who dislike Hillary on the grounds that she doesn't stand for anything. And I think I'm starting to agree.
I was watching the O'Reilly Factor last night, and Mr. O'Reilly was talking about some flag burning controversy that involved Hillary. I don't remember all the details, but apparently, she was doing some flip-flopping on the issue.
Oh, and just so everyone knows, I'm a Republican. I was just bringing Hillary to the table to see what everyone's thoughts were.
I agree with those that want to establish our priorities first; such as a balanced budget and a plan to save social security and medicare. I would suggest no current officeholder from either party should be our candidate.They would carry too much political baggage and be more responsive to their current moneymen. Ross Perot was a viable one-issue candidate. The perfect candidate is Rudi Guiliani, but he may not be interested.. How about someone like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, or a retired general or admiral. The candidate must have bigtime managerial experience and understand
the world financial system. Let's have some suggestions-we don't need a third party to mention the likes of Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
I think we should steer clear of candidates who are first and foremost career politicians. Otherwise, we will just elect a bunch of the same types we've had squabbling on capitol hill for generations.
I really liked Bill's words here:
"I wonder, however, if these failings aren't really *ours* instead of *theirs*. If guys like Graham or DeWine had an organized base of moderate voters to fall back on, could they resist the religious right forces that seem to dominate their party? Maybe."
I think, as politicians, there has to be an element of that - that's both the problem and perhaps a reminder to us that all is not always as it seems (or the press presents to us).
Chicago Al (I hope I got that right) mentioned, among other candiates, Bill Gates. Well, as we all know, today he announced he'll be stepping down from day-to-day responsibilities at Microsoft to focus on his foundation, which I think most would agree has been a powerful force for good in the world.
Whatever one may think of Mr. Gates, nobody could argue that he's in anyone's pocket (although the same could be said possibly about Steve Forbes - and he's no moderate).
Getting back to the conversation at hand - I don't see any problem with talking about potential candidates now - as it brings up many good points from everyone; not the least of which is the very real concern that powerful party affiliations may doom any hope that an established candidate would come near Unity08.
I think it also serves to help define who we might consider a "moderate" or "centrist" from the existing field of potential candidates - and thus it further defines our own priorities based on the political histories of those candidates. We may in time find that we should toss all of them out of consideration, but the discussion is good, in my opinion.
Certainly, I think a few of the concerns for those of us who consider ourselves moderate are 1) Can we have a civil and respectful debate about what issues are important for our country now and in the future, 2) Is the country ready to make some hard decisions, which may include some pain for all of us, in order to set our nation back in the right direction, and 3), Are we comfortable allowing the current primary system decide who the ultimate candidates should be? God bless 'em in Iowa and New Hampshire - they're great folks there. I'm just not certain their thoughts are always the same as mine.
Just my $.02 :)
Michael D. and Billy G. for president. Ventura?
Someone mentioned Lou Dobbs and, while I admit Lisa Sylvester and Kitty Pilgrim win easily over Rice and Hughes, I think he should stick to his CNN show.
Chicago Al mentioned a retired general and I think Colin Powell and David Grange might be nice on a ticket or in a cabinet.