Maile Lesica, a Founders Council member and part of the Unity08 college team, talks about how Unity08 is an opportunity to get involved - and help shape the Unity08 movement - without compromising your beliefs.

It sounds like Joe Lieberman's independent campaign for re-election to his Senate seat is heading into rocky political waters: top Democrats are beginning to become concerned about his message, according to The Hill:

A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.

If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.

In recent days, Lieberman has rankled Democrats in the upper chamber by suggesting that those who support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by a certain date would bolster terrorists’ planning attacks against the U.S. and its allies. He also sparked resentment by saying last week on NBC’s Today show that the Democratic Party was out of the political mainstream.

Democrats are worried that Lieberman may be giving Republicans a golden opportunity to undermine their message.

“I think there’s a lot of concern,” said a senior Democratic aide who has discussed the subject with colleagues. “I think the first step is if the Lieberman thing turns into a side show and hurts our message and ability to take back the Senate, and the White House and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] manipulate him, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people in our caucus.”

Michael Lewan, Lieberman’s former chief of staff, has worked to quell Democratic discontent with Lieberman and to steer them away from campaigning against his former boss, said Democratic aides familiar with Lewan’s activities.

And aside from the message, there's another bigger reason why Democrats are beginning to raise their eyebrows over Lieberman's theme about the Democratic party, the war, terrorism and the Bush administration these days:

The issue of Lieberman’s seniority would arise most dramatically if Lieberman wins re-election and Democrats recapture control of the chamber. That would slot Lieberman to take over as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the panel primarily responsible for investigating the executive branch.

The whole point of the Democrat's argument to its voters and independent voters (and some disgruntled Republican voters) will be that with one party effectively controlling all branches of government there is no oversight. The GOP has used the specter of Democrats taking control and running wild doing investigations and perhaps opting for impeachment (something top Congressional leaders downplay or pooh-pooh) to raise funds.

Democrats think their chances of taking back the Senate are growing more and more likely. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week said he was more confident that Democrats would pick up at least five Senate seats.

Allowing Lieberman to retain his seniority could put the senator now running as an independent in charge of the Senate’s chief investigative committee. If Democrats took control of either chamber they would likely launch investigations of the White House’s handling of the war in Iraq and homeland security.

The Hill quotes a "Democratic senior aide" as saying it wouldn't sense to keep Lieberman in a position where he might take over the Governmental Affairs Committee.

One of Lieberman's biggest obstacles is the fact that the country's top GOP party officials and the White House press spokesman have made it clear the people with the national power levers in the GOP aren't going to the GOP candidate in Connecticut -- and are all but openly rooting for Lieberman's election. You can't turn on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity without them praising him.

This means his candidacy, in the way it is being presented now, has shifted in perception in the media from being a centrist running against an anti-war Democrat to being a Democrat who is sharply criticizing his own party and being openly supported by Republican political and media bigwigs who generally demonize Democrats.

If the administration or GOP as a party had cultivated, nurtured (and even used to its own political advantage, as Bush adeptly did when he was Governor of Texas) TRUE bipartisanship, Lieberman would not have become such an unlikely symbol. But some of those Democrats who held out an olive branch had it broken over the heads. And Lieberman’s recent statements solidified his standing among many Democrats as someone who urges bipartisanship with those who are mega-partisan.

The net result is that it likely means even fewer Democrats will vote for Lieberman than before. And that is even more likely to happen if some top Democrats campaign against Lieberman or answer attacks he may make on the Democratic party itself.

Another big problem for Lieberman: if voters want to cast a protest vote against the Bush administration, who will they vote for?

You'll have one Republican (not supported by the Republican national elite), one independent Democrat (supported by the Republican national elite) and one Democrat who has sharply criticized the administration on the war and other issues.

Lasley Gober, Unity08 Founders Council member, speaks about how we need to think critically about who we are as Americans and the issues that are crucial to our future instead of taking the easy way out.

I believe the more Unity08 succeeds, the more it will ultimately fail. Can a dual headed political Presidency accomplish anything with a partisan congress? Will politicians with good established reputations be willing to cast aside their party affiliations to embark on a new, untested journey with an unproven entity such as Unity08? While voters can be trusted to choose an uncharted direction by supporting Unity08, their support would be continually needed for the Unity08 candidates to have any clout with congress. Only strong approval numbers of the Unity08 Presidency will save it from being cast aside by the jilted members of congress. Don’t believe for one second the lunatic fringe leaders like Kennedy, Pelosi, Lott, King, and Harkin are going to welcome Unity08 with open arms. Lifetime politicians don’t like it when someone else puts their hand in the cookie jar; especially Ted Kennedy [sorry, Ted is my Achilles’ heel and I couldn’t resist at least one jab].

So, as we stand ready to venture forth with Unity08, I believe the leaders of this movement have come to a crossroads. My hope is that they resist the temptations that will align them with the castoffs of the Democratic and Republican parties. I am guessing a large portion of the early Unity08 supporters are frustrated Democrats tired of Republican control and Republicans disenchanted with the results from their hold on power. To remain a viable solution to the current climate of gridlock in Washington, Unity08 needs to remain true to the center. We will all maintain our strict beliefs that define where we stand politically, but by supporting Unity08 we are declaring we want to meet in the middle to attempt to find a common solution free from the pollution of political action committees.

I have my doubts that Unity08 will achieve anything greater than a few thousand proclamations of support by passing web surfers, but I have my hope. And my hope is that we send a message to Washington that while we agree to disagree, we need constructive dialogue that will move this great country forward.

Jeremie Jordan is a blogger from In a Word who usually covers conservative politics with sarcasm and satire.

In “Party No. 3,” NY Times columnist David Brooks says that there are “two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party.” In the wake of Lieberman’s primary loss and America’s growing dissatisfaction with politics, Brooks considers an emerging third choice. Read the article here (subscription needed).

Brooks explains why he believes there is a growing number of Americans dissatisfied with the two major political parties:

“The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.”

And describes why partisan politicking during elections generates and sustains perpetual partisanship.

“The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.”

But what does Brooks’ McCain-Lieberman Party stand for?:

On foreign policy: “...agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.”

On fiscal policy: “...sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.”

On globalization: “... believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.”

Collectively, Brooks says, “the McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.”

And to the idea that a third-party would simply be engulfed by the two major parties, Brooks claims this:

“...amid the hurly-burly of the next few years -- the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi, a possible economic slowdown -- the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism. At that point things really get interesting.”

What do you think about Brooks’ McCain-Lieberman Party? Come Election Day, will both major parties adopt stances that are more moderate? Or will this third party continue to grow?

Senator Joseph Lieberman’s defeat by newcomer, multimillionaire Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary is a political earthquake. The tremblers may well continue right into the 2024 presidential election -- and may go beyond the critical issue of the war in Iraq.

Lieberman now faces a choice. If he runs and is re-elected to the Senate as an independent, should he continue to caucus with Democrats in the Senate? Or should he run as a true independent, beholden to no party?

Lieberman’s current plan -- running as an independent at home while pledging to remain a Democrat in Washington -- will be, at best, awkward. Running, in effect, as one of two Democrats in November, Lieberman could well exacerbate divisions in his party and its interest group constituents.

Alternatively, Lieberman could run as a true independent. Aiming for the plurality of Connecticut voters not affiliated with the two legacy parties (more than 40% of registered voters), as well as disenchanted Democrats and Republicans, he could return to the Senate freed of the partisan and interest group constraints that polarize and paralyze today’s politics.

With the Senate likely to remain closely divided, an independent Senator Lieberman could challenge the Democrats and Republicans to bid for his participation in their respective party caucuses. He might even make them bid again every two years with the opening of a new Congress; or he might link his participation to the parties’ positions on one or more issues of importance to him. It’s easy to see how Connecticut could benefit mightily from such a competition. And the nation might well benefit from a new kind of Senator: Joe Lieberman “unplugged.”

Taking this path, Lieberman would set a powerful example for the nation: a serious alternative to the Democrats and Republicans, duly elected and able to govern more effectively as a result.

Will Lieberman seize this historic opportunity? If he has a besetting vulnerability, it may be his innate caution. Yet caution wrongly applied can be self-destructive, as arguably was the case with his decision to hedge his bets, collecting signatures to run as an independent while seeking his party’s nomination this summer.

He may be understandably if unduly affected by his love of the historic Connecticut Democratic Party. But, if this election shows anything, it’s that the old party young Joe Lieberman joined no longer exists. Many descendants of the ethnic voters of the Democratic party led by the legendary John Bailey are now Republicans. And many descendants of the WASP Republicans of the vintage of President Bush’ grandfather, onetime Connecticut Senator Prescott Bush, have found congenial company in Democrat Ned Lamont’s liberal ranks.

Lieberman stands uniquely able to represent the Nutmeg State’s new reality: increasingly independent of party orthodoxy. He might well become a real-life version of Jimmy Stewart’s great character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, an outsider uniquely able to speak truth to power, not beholden to any party or interest group.

Running a truly independent campaign might seem a lonely as well as daunting task -- and the legacy parties will do all they can to render it unsuccessful. But if Lieberman can pull it off, he may set an example that will reverberate across the nation, every bit as much or more than his defeat on Tuesday will affect political positioning on the war in Iraq.

Above all, if Lieberman prevails as a true independent, beholden to neither legacy party, his “new politics of unity and purpose” could presage the opportunity that Unity 08 will afford the American people in the next presidential election.

In this audio blog, Unity08 Founder, Doug Bailey, provides background information about himself and the reasons why he thinks Unity08 is needed in a time when the parties focus more on mobilizing their base than governing well.

Like the audio? Let us know. Even better, record your own audio and let us know about it. We might include it here.

Tuesday is truly “D-Day” for Joe Lieberman and the Democratic party.

For Lieberman, will it be the day Democrats defeat his re-nomination bid and send him (and others) a message that he is outside what many anti-war and anti-Bush Democrats believe is the Democratic party’s new, majority-supported mainstream? Will it be the day he must define himself as an independent who will run against his party’s nominee, perhaps causing a Republican victory or a victory where a big chunk of his November re-election votes come from Republicans rather than from Democrats?

Will it be a day when Connecticut Democrats nudged on by national political and Internet forces define their party as one that has set a boundary on the degree of bipartisanship (which some believe is “enabling”) shown to the GOP and President George Bush? And will that direct the party to new electoral victories…or long-range defeat if moderates feel locked out?

A key debate surrounding Lieberman is whether “true moderates” can support him given the Bush administration’s suggestion that those who questioning and criticizing the Iraq war are in effect tolerating terrorism or don’t care about the troops in the field. Another key question if Lieberman loses will be whether American politics’ political gravity points have shifted that old definitions of where “the center” and “moderates” need to be adjusted.

What’s clear is this: news stories and talking heads begin latching onto a conventional wisdom before elections and it is now clear that Lieberman is expected to lose. Perhaps big time. And if that happens the framework for much of the analyses done before may be “inoperative” because some of the conventional wisdoms will fall by the wayside.

Just look at a few key developments and what they say about the conclusions politicos and political thinkers are now drawing:

--Hillary Clinton’s confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld this week is seen by some as what the New York Times calls “dodging a political bullet,” as she has moved to reposition herself on the war and not become Joe Lieberman The Sequel. She cannot be accused of not providing spirited oversight.

--Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is making all of the noises and doing all of the travels of someone who wants to run for president, has called for the United States to start pulling out of Iraq immediately.

--Bill Curry, a former counselor to President Bill Clinton, warns in a Hartford Courant piece that the Democrats could be making the mistake they made in 1968 and veering so sharply anti-war that they will lose major parts of the electorate. He writes:

“Many Republicans are fleeing their party. They want a foreign policy based on mutual respect, a domestic policy based on mutual tolerance, and fiscal and environmental sanity. With nudging they might even agree to a new health care system. It's time Democrats finished sorting out their own identity and began getting bipartisan with them. Gene McCarthy's New Hampshire challenge might have led to a Robert Kennedy presidency, or to peace. It didn't. It led instead into a wilderness. Ironically, another small New England primary of unexpected import may help lead us back.”

--On Fox News Newt Gingrich said: “a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?” Is he urging that if Lieberman wins the GOP frame this debate in a way to suggest that Democrats don’t think terrorists are very dangerous? What would that mean to Democrats and how will they counter that?

Surprises do happen in politics, and Lieberman could theoretically win. But given polls like the latest showing challenger Ned Lamont ahead of Lieberman among Democratic voters 54 to 41 percent , if you believe that you also expect a nice, furry rabbit to hide eggs in your house next Easter. The Los Angeles Times notes that Lamont went from zero to favorite in seven months. What has happened since then? What’s clear: there is a TREND -- and it is not in Joe Lieberman’s favor.

If Lieberman does lose as expected, you can look at it and draw all kinds of lessons and conclusions (and some may be contradictory). A few:

Bipartisanship Has Limits: If Karl Rove’s strategy has been to paint the United States’ security in danger if Democrats win control, and accuse Democrats who raise questions about the war as wanting to “cut and run” (event it is conceivable that someone supported the war but has very serious questions about its conduct), then it doomed Lieberman’s brand of bipartisanship. Rather than cultivate cooperation, Bush’s “your either with us or against us” has been applied to domestic politics and it sabotaged Lieberman’s cooperation with Bush would be perceived by many in his party.

The Netroots Won’t Be Counted Out: Howard Dean was widely seen as a product of Internet activists, but he tanked at the ballot box. The “netroots” hasn’t had much luck in winning elections. If Lieberman wins, it’ll be considered a force more blustery than effective. If he loses, it’ll be considered an VITAL 21st Century political force. (Conservatives have recently countered by starting the “Rightroots” to help conservative candidates)

Who Will The Independents Sympathize With After Tuesday? Watch the polls after Tuesday. The conventional wisdom by Lieberman’s defenders is that this primary can be subtitled Revenge of the McGovernites and that centrists and moderates will move towards the GOP in a general election. But is dissatisfaction -- and concern -- over an administration that has even alarmed even many traditional conservatives going to trump anything else? Lieberman’s defenders argue this is part of a historic fight; his critics say we’re in a different era with a government that is showing authoritarian tendencies. Several recent columnists who previously supported the war now basically call it a lost cause. It could be that the political ground is substantially shifting now.

A Lieberman Loss Will Change The 2024 Calculations: Criticism of the war will become stronger. Al Gore has been getting “netroots” praise. Will he seize the moment? And will this also send a message to GOPers that they must nominate a 2024 Presidential candidate who can pick up independent and moderate support (such as John McCain or Rudy Giuilani)?

If Lieberman Had Better Political Skills This Might Not Have Happened: Pundits will attribute a Lieberman political loss to the “netroots,” to Democratic activists wanting to purge their party of people who support the war, to the far left trying to dismember the influence of the moderate DLC. But another factor may be that Joe Lieberman has proven to be a lousy politician. He made some classic errors. He didn’t cultivate his base support back home. (I have a relative who met Lieberman and to this day insists he is a “sourpuss” even though she voted for him in the past).

When Joe Lieberman took Democrats to task for blasting Bush and noted that the commander in chief deserves support while the war is on, he sealed his fate. Bush squandered a once-in-a-lifetime chance to cultivate the bipartisanship that briefly blossomed after 911 and has headed one of the most divisive, polarizing, political attack-mode administrations in American history. Republicans praising Lieberman as a good Democrat cost him votes since they have been going after Democrats as, in effect, a danger to American security…which means protecting American lives.

If Lieberman loses, perhaps this clip from Ed Schultz Show last week where Schultz interviews Lieberman will provide some evidence why. When pressed by Schultz (about whether he would now demand Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, Lieberman says yes he would but it’s the President’s call to do that.

It’s a fatal mindset due to the way Bush & Co. have encouraged bitter partisanship. It is not only Democrats who want -- and demand -- vigorous Congressional oversight of an administration that has unilaterally expanded the exercise of executive power in a ways seemingly once unimaginable. Quietly deferring to a highly-partisan President is no longer an option for many Americans -- which is why Joe Lieberman’s political career may move into a different phase come Tuesday. As so, if polls are correct, will Ned Lamont’s.

Peter Ackerman and Tom Collier are Co-chairs of the Unity08 Rules Committee

Our full committee was announced today (see release here and bios here).

We can’t do our job without your help. And we have a good example to start on right now.

First, let us describe a process we intend to follow. We have some experts and pretty smart people on the Committee, but most of our best ideas will come from right here, on the website. We won’t be shy in asking for your help or in using your good ideas to shape our recommendations.

Before the end of this year we will be recommending a set of rules to the Steering Committee, which will then post what they adopt as the operating rules here on the website. For a period of a couple months, we will welcome any and all new ideas as to how to improve upon them – and then they will be set in concrete so that the delegates, those thinking of running as candidates for the Unity08 nomination, and the media will all understand the process. It all must be open, transparent, fair, logical, clear, and as simple as we can make them.

Now, here is the first way you can help us a lot: Who can be a candidate for the Unity08 nomination for President?

Obviously one answer is that the person must be constitutionally qualified to serve if elected – 35 years old, natural-born citizen, etc.

But here’s the reason we probably should be more specific. Every four years there are hundreds of candidates who file their candidacy with the Federal Elections Commission – people you have never heard from or about and never will. They may believe they can win; they probably have a specific issue they care deeply about; or what they care deeply about is their own publicity.

No one should be denied their chance to run, but is there some additional and fair test that can be applied to Unity08 candidates that qualifies them for use of the website and a slot on the first convention ballot? Remember, the Unity08.com website, as we lead up to the convention, will be used by the candidates to earn delegate support – through, for example, video-on-demand answers to crucial issue questions which you will determine, their own web-logs to engage in a dialogue with the delegates in a personal and meaningful way, and providing Unity08 email messages they want sent to all delegates.

Those website services will be invaluable to the candidates, but can be rendered meaningless (or at best confusing) by hundreds of candidates using them for frivolous campaigns.

So is there a meaningful threshold we should ask every Unity08 candidate to meet to be able to use the website services and to be on the first convention ballot?

This is certainly not an unheard of approach. Nearly every state requires something of a candidate for any office – be it a financial payment of some sort (which seems inappropriate to us) or the collection of a given number of petition signatures by registered voters. While it is probably irrelevant here, one example of a threshold-of-support requirement is when the FEC requires presidential candidates to document $5000 in contributions of $250 or less in twenty separate states before they can receive federal matching funds in their campaigns for the party nominations.

We don’t mean to show personal bias of any kind, but we probably should show a seriousness of purpose by discouraging the kind of candidacy that porn-star Mary Carey provided in the recent California gubernatorial recall election. It is clear that the Unity08 convention will draw a host of candidates, and some early test of their seriousness and/or public support seems wise.

Any ideas? Please keep them simple, easy-to-understand and fair. Thanks.

Rules Committee Links:

• Post your ideas in the Rules Committee Shoutbox forum.
• Rules Committee member bios.
• Rules Committee press release

You asked for anonymous commenters to be given the boot, and we have obliged. Starting today, if you wish to post comments to blogs or the Shoutbox you will need to either register or log in. While we realize this might have a temporary dampening effect on the number of comments, we hope that overall it will improve the level of discourse on the website.

As facilitating an intelligent exchange of ideas is one of our website goals, we're working on other improvements including better comment presentation, comment threading (allows you to respond to a specific comment), comment-level ratings, and comment-level polls. Some of these changes will be rolled out sooner than others, but please know that we've heard all of your requests and we're hard at work to improve our comment system.

If you have any questions about our decision to require registration to post comments, please contact us at web@unity08.com.