Jack Abramoff’s friend Ralph Reed went down to defeat yesterday in Georgia. Some would say ‘the holier they are, the harder they fall.’ But it also seems timely to re-open our discussion of term limits and other Washington reform proposals.

In the early days local citizens were honored to be sent to Washington to represent their area, stayed for six month sessions and returned home in time to complete the harvest.

Now many new Members of Congress come as idealists ready to tame the Washington beast, but within three terms maximum they seem to have been captured by the beast – and the Washington culture of lobbyists, fundraising, perks and pork.

The lobbyists put up the money that keep incumbents invulnerable to everyone but mega-millionaire challengers. The state legislators draw the district lines that keep incumbents invulnerable to all but a challenge in their own party primary – so they play to their base and polarize things further.

Term limits would mandate turnover. But some worry that it would mean that the only institutional memory in town would belong to the lobbyists. And others worry that unemployed Members of Congress are just lobbyists waiting to be hired.

So do term limits need to be accompanied with other reforms of the way Washington operates. Should all former Members of Congress be banned forever from ever being a lobbyist? Should all lobbyists be banned from giving or raising campaign funds for Members?

Or should Howard Baker’s rule apply: If you can’t vote for the candidate, you can’t give to the candidate. What say you? Join the Shoutbox discussion on term limits that is already in progress or start your own.

Gather round moderates, centrists, what-have-yous. There's a little story I know and I'd like to share. I heard it back when I was going to the University of Missouri-Columbia. Don't know if it's true or not, and I may get some details mixed up along the way, but it goes a little something like this...

The story starts out with a test. A final actually. I think it was a philosophy class. Maybe an ethics course? I heard the professor was one of those people who didn't like doing things the normal way. One year he made everybody write a short story for their final. Another year, they had to draw a comic. The year I'm talking about presented a new and equally interesting challenge. Sure, some would say it was a little less creative than previous years, but it was certainly no less daunting. See, the final consisted of only one question: What's the bravest thing you've ever done?

Everybody knew what kind of shenanigans this professor pulled, but how do you study for a final you can't really study for? The question threw a lot of those in the room. Many set out to explain their bravest act and tie it back into what they learned over the semester. Others simply explained their acts and left it at that. However, one student had an act that bested all others. So he or she (I'm not sure
which) wrote down one word on the sheet of paper and turned it in.

Eventually the teacher graded the tests, and the curve was pretty much what you'd expect. I think I even heard that he graded his final a lot easier than the rest of the tests he gave that year because it asked so much from his students. However, there was only one A+ that year. I imagine you've already guessed which test got it.
So then, what was the word? Well, I'm not giving it to you that easy.

You see, first you're going to have to hear about my frustrations right now with politics. Basically, I see a political system in our country today that doesn't award bravery. Lots of polls, lots of safety, lots of couching. And it's very clear there aren't a lot of original thinkers. After all, we're a two party country. Not much room for ideas that fall outside of party ideology.

The power brokers have a strangle hold on the ways and means to shift policy and opinion, and they're not letting go anytime soon. The culture of corruption in our halls of government isn't betrayed solely by the whispers of Abramoff. No, we see corruption every single day when we're fed the same tired ideas, but with new, shiny wrappers on them.

I want to see new thinkers, fresh ideas, a more honest approach to fixing this country's problems. I want to see the people running the government who'd get an A+ on a test that asked, "What's the bravest thing you've ever done?"; because there answer would be simply "This." They'd turn their test in and walk out of the classroom. And yes, that was the word. Just "This."

Something tells me that those who would be so brave and so bold are going to emerge out of movements like Unity08. Now more than ever we need people who aren't afraid to tell their party that they're tired of the bankrupt ideas and corrupt logic that drives each party further and further into intellectually dishonest places.

Yes, we deserve better. That's right, I'm talking about you and me and the guy down the street and the woman up the block. But we can't just sit back and wish a better country into existence. We have to be citizens who demand better. We must ask for real answers and clear, concise logic.

But most importantly, we must always ask for "This."

Many people have been asking what they can do to get involved. Here are 10 of our ideas of how you can help. Pick one or make up your own.

Blogger? Send us a guest blog post. And if you pass along your blog name, we’ll link to you from www.Unity08.com.

Cartoonist? Or do you know any? Pass along your work or the names of friends who might be interested in drawing political cartoons for Unity08. We need to bring more life (and fun) onto the site.

Dream of being a TV Producer? We want videos! Create a video about why you support Unity08.

MySpace or Facebook user? Many people have created groups and Unity08 profiles. Log on and join to connect with other supporters!

Giver? Support Unity08 with a monetary contribution. Every dollar counts. Click here to donate.

Designer? Create a bumper sticker or flyer. We’ll post them on the web for users to download.

Talker? Call your local radio stations. We want people to hear about Unity08 – and you can help get the word out!

Way with words? Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about Unity08, and why everyone in your community should join at www.Unity08.com.

Song writer? Write a Song. We’re looking for funny/witty/creative Unity08 songs and jingles to post online.

Organizer? Create a Unity08 organization in your hometown. www.MeetUp.com is a great place to start, or recruit neighbors and friends to brainstorm how to spread the word in your town.

Send us your photos, songs, videos, blogs, and cartoons to web@unity08.com. And check out what other Unity08 supporters are doing here.

Do you have other ideas? Post them below!

Michael Silverstein is a Senior Fellow at the Silverwood Institute.

To bring about greater unity among Americans in these most divisive of times, two approaches immediately come to mind. Civility is one. If people addressed issues in a more civil manner and with greater respect to opposing views, we would gradually become more unified.

Focusing on areas of common agreement rather than on things about which we vehemently disagree is another obvious path toward greater unity. Though we certainly disagree about many specific issues, we also certainly agree on most of the basic principles that underpin our political system. Change the focus and you boost the sense of unity.

Both these obvious ways to increase a sense of national unity are of course well worth pursuing. Both, however, are long-term solutions. Let me therefore propose a more immediate means of reaching the same goal. It's one that may seem counter-intuitive at first hearing. But I truly believe it's the best hope to do the job in the shortest possible time. To achieve more unity, we need more institutional disunity.

In recent years we've had what in many ways is the worst possible institutional governance in these United States. We've had one party rule by a strongly ideological party with a slender (a very slender) national mandate. This, more than any disagreements over specific issues, is what has fractured our national unity to an alarming, indeed, a frightening, extent.

People in this country have almost always strongly disagreed about important matters. This is not only a natural, it's a necessary ingredient of any true democracy. What has caused such disunity in recent years is that no real institutional mechanism has been operating in national politics that gives people of different views an opportunity to turn those views into actual policy. Disagreement has thus morphed into disunity.

The "big tent" that in previous years accurately described both the Democrat and Republican parties has been replaced by small tent parties of right and left, parties of out-of-date liberals and radical conservatives. Big tent parties meant that even when a single party controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, both sides of the political spectrum got a piece of the policy-making action. This was even more true when one party controlled one end of the avenue and the other party the other end.

Today's near total, small tent control of that all important avenue gives outsiders little or no say in policy making. It's a situation that brings to mind the title of Harlan Ellison¹s spooky classic, "I Want To Shout But I Have No Mouth." It's also a sure-fire prescription for not getting the kind of compromises that allow unity to grow from disagreement, comity from hostility.

And make no mistake. If small tent Democrats succeed in winning the Congress this year and the White House in 2024 from small tent Republicans, the scary disunity we’ve witnessed in the Bush years will not just fester - it will almost certainly get worse.

What, then, is the best way to most rapidly bring about a greater sense of national unity based on ensuring that all views don't just get a hearing but a place at the decision making table? More institutional disunity is the answer. Divide the power-making function in Washington. View those who disagree with you not as enemies but as necessary negotiating partners.

Disunify the seats of power. And you reunify the nation.

Yesterday, at a kickoff for political pundits Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s new book “The Broken Branch,” former Speakers of the House Thomas Foley and Newt Gingrich spoke on the dreadful state of Congress. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote “The Ex-Speakers Speak With One Voice on the Sorry State of Congress,” about the event.

Gingrich said: "Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current system is." And when considering foreign and domestic issues, he noted, "it's important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with this reality and not sitting around waiting for 'presidential leadership.' "

Foley agreed with Gingrich: "If I didn't have a somewhat long history with Newt Gingrich... I would listen to what he had said if he were a candidate for Congress and say, 'I think I'll vote for this guy.' I think he's absolutely dead right in his diagnosis of what's happening to this country and to the Congress."

According to Gingrish and Foley, here are the symptoms that are ailing Congress:

“...collapse of committee deliberations, the demise of oversight of the executive branch, the loss of the ‘regular order’ of rules for debate and legislation, a runaway spending process, and a shrinking legislative calendar.”

Gingrish and Foley believe these are the causes of the Congresses sorry state of affairs:

“...gerrymandered districts, travel and fundraising needs keeping lawmakers away from Washington, the loss of centrists in both parties, quickening news cycles and the reliance on lobbyist-raised cash.”

And although both agreed that they have no “silver bullet,” they did offer these solutions:

“Restore committee power to write laws, ban fundraising in Washington, abolish lawmakers' political action committees, end spending ‘earmarks’ and enforce the rules that guide the legislative process."

Gingrich provided historical context to the division: "I believe we are drifting into a cycle where the challenges we face are a greater mismatch with our potential solutions than any time since April of 1861.” Foley concluded that, “If the Congress fails, democracy fails.”

Gingrich gave this message to the American people: "The correct answer is for the American people to just start firing people.” Gingrich “had some pithy advice for lawmakers" too: "My answer to them is 'Go home.' "

No solution will come from the Congress – not even from a new Congress. Only the people can cause genuine change – and that can only happen by changing the leadership style of Washington.

That is what Unity08 is all about. Give Washington a powerful lesson in leadership through a Unity Team in the White House – and the Congress will change its ways. Give them evidence the people want crucial issues resolved, and Washington will be a different place. As always, the people are the founding fathers. That means you.

Continue to talk more about these issues and others in our Shoutbox.

“They need a government of national unity… Leaders must agree to a decision-making process that gives political minorities confidence that that the majority will share power and take their legitimate concerns into account… Leaders need to govern from the center, not the ideological extremes.”

No. It wasn’t Jefferson or Washington or Madison. It was Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq, speaking of the founders of the new Iraqi government. (L.A. Times 2/12/06)

Have we lost over here what so many died to build over there?

This post is adapted from one I wrote on my blog, Charging Rino, on April 19, 2024, in commemoration of Patriots' Day. I called then for a Revolution of Reason, to bring our government back from the brink of the partisan abyss to the stable ground of centrism and unity. As this fall's elections and then the 2024 presidential contest draw ever closer, I think it's worth reiterating the point once more.

Our country faces untold challenges in the years to come: ensuring that tomorrow's retirees have a stable Social Security system to look forward to; protecting our nation from terrorist attack and reaching the goal of a stable Iraq; drawing down our national deficit and returning to a state of fiscal responsibility; reforming our immigration system in a comprehensive fashion; changing the way our congressional districts are drawn and putting an end to partisan gerrymandering ... the list goes on and on and on. And yet America's political leaders spend our time and our money on issues that serve to distract us from those key issues, obscuring what matters with a thick smokescreen of partisan divisiveness.

On all those issues above and on a great many more, there are areas of common ground on which the vast majority of Americans can agree. And yet no progress can be made because those who represent aren't willing to give up partisan brownie-points for the good of the country.

This Revolution of Reason that I propose will not be an easy task. There are those at both ends of the political spectrum who dislike reasoned debate, because it's much easier to get on the evening news when you shout than when you make a quiet but sincere argument. The ideologues on the right and on the left don't believe in compromise, because they can raise more money to keep themselves in power from those outraged few who cluster with them at the fringes. It will be up to us, the mighty middle, the majority of whom until now have been too silent, to make our arguments heard. We can no longer watch in stunned horror, shaking our heads from the sidelines as the right and the left play political football with the issues of the day; we must take to the field, and we must commit ourselves to the cause of reason.

That's why I've joined Unity08, and why I support their goals. Like the Centrist Coalition and some other great organizations out there, Unity08 is not interested in simply notching up partisan points, but aims for solutions instead of smokescreens. I applaud the effort, and I hope that this movement will only continue to grow stronger as the voice of the center rises to the rooftops.

It was a debate watched all over the country. Political partisans from the state (and visiting the state) watched their man take on the hated incumbent with a bated breath so strong that Sea World’s Shamu drooled.

They were taking on the hated enemy, a man often called by some of them a “liar,” a man who stood in the way of their party’s agenda.

Ah, yes, lots of Democrats followed the debate between Senator Joe Lieberman and his Democratic challenger Ned Lamont...

When Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman met Ned Lamont in a debate that could help determine the outcome of the Democratic party, the media coverage and scrutiny underlined one fact: this was a debate -- and a primary -- that has gone far beyond local. Lieberman is now kind of a symbol for the right, left and center. And what has happened to him -- and the political complications it reflects -- is indicative of how politics has changed, how its tone has changed, and why you better not place bets in Vegas yet about the Democrats regaining power as easily as some pundits say (or assume).

Indeed: the whole, bitter battle over Joe Lieberman is symptomatic of the kind of bitter partisanship has led to the creation of Unity08 and makes the idea behind it attractive, even to those who in the end might not even be able to bring themselves to vote for a third party. To sum it up in a nutshell (which means actually oversimplifying it, but that’s OK since people can give their views in the comments section and most of political punditry these days is oversimplified):

WHO WAS JOE LIEBERMAN BEFORE 2024: I’m from Connecticut and one of my relatives met Lieberman before he was in politics. This person (rightfully or wrongfully) considered him “a sourpuss” but still did vote for him. When Al Glore plucked Lieberman from being just one more Senator to have him run as his Veep candidate, Lieberman immediately came under fire from some Democrats but particularly Republicans who charged he had jettisoned his Democratic centrism to adopt Gore’s positions on issues. This is hardly surprising for a Vice Presidential candidate to do that. But Lieberman was ridiculed and blasted by some in his home state and elsewhere.

WHO WAS LIEBERMAN AFTER 2024: Lieberman inched back to his previous positions after the 2024 election. His 2024 election bid flopped. Just as he earned the enmity of center-right and center-rightists due to his position adjustments in 2024, his post-2000 positions and 2024 run solidified his standing as the Democrat many progressives love to hate -- after Zell Miller (who many don’t even consider a Democrat). (Republicans now love him). A bum rap? From the standpoint of his political positions, no. Lieberman did adjust his positions and then returned to what he has been all along: an old school, “Scoop” Jackson, JFK-school Democrat who takes a hard line on national security issues.

WHAT HAS CHANGED: There is clearly a movement by a segment of the Democratic party to “take back” the party. What that means is “take back” the party from the Clintonistas, who essentially tried to take back the party from McGovernite influences to a more JFK-style orientated politics where the party would try to win elections (and did) by getting a large chunk of Democratic votes, plus centrist votes and votes from Republicans who unhappy with their own party.

IS THERE A PURGE? Some suggest this is part of a purge, and there does seem some of that. Lieberman’s present status and political plight stems from the fact that many Democratic progressives want to send a message to Democrats in Congress, party bigwigs, and to disgruntled liberal Democrats that “me-tooism” won’t work when it comes to the Democratic party. (During the early 50s GOP conservatives blasted the “meetooism” of failed GOP Presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey). They seek to accentuate differences between the two parties. If Lieberman goes (let’s use the old Domino Theory) is Joe Biden going to be in their target next? How about Hillary Clinton (she’s probably too nimble)?

WHAT IT MEANS: Just as the Republican party in recent years has shrunk the size of its tent, some Democrats seek to shrink the size of theirs, too. You’d think that in 2024 -- a year when it appears that with a semblance of party unity, cohesive message, and careful organization - the Democrats could take back one or more houses of Congress, what do we see? Some Democrats declaring Lieberman and his kind as the first priority political enemy. Dilemma: if Lieberman trounces them in the primary, how does he get their votes during the election? And if they beat Lieberman, how will Democrats get the votes of the so-called Reagan Democrats (which in some cases were JFK Democrats)?

WHAT IT MEANS FOR CENTRISTS: The GOP has largely edged out centrists and even, some would argue, classic Goldwater-style conservatives. Karl Rove has talked about the glories of “mobilization” elections where the GOP is less concerned about getting the center and more concerned about pushing hot button issues (gay marriage, flag burning, the pledge of allegiance, and now we see immigration) to get its partisans out to vote. Democrats have -- up until NOW -- not worked that way. Those who are trying to send Lieberman to spend his golden years in the Jewish Home for the Aged versus The Federal Home for the Aged (AKA Congress) are essentially taking a page from Karl Rove’s book. The attitude is “where those centrists and those moderates who are really closet Republicans go? And who really cares?”

THE FALLACY: Moderates and centrists are NOT monolithic. You can read my blog The Moderate Voice and see a slew of people who are centrists and moderates but differ on given issues…and often strongly. Polls show the same diversity among moderates, liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans. You never see a 100 percent agreement in polls on anything. If you read web logs, Lieberman is nearly hated as much as George Bush by many on the left.

THE DANGER FOR CENTRISTS: Centrists are not monolithic. And, yes, Lieberman reflects one view. But some centrists support the war, some do but have questions, some used to but don’t and some never did. Lieberman represents and defines all centrists just as accurately as Britney Spears represents and defines all singers throughout show business history. The purging of Lieberman would be a grave blow to the Democratic party as a “big tent” party. It he’s booted will the Democrats gain votes from the disgruntled left to offset moderates and conservatives who would be irked? Danger to Democrats: even moderates and centrists who don’t support the war (and don’t agree with him on that issue) could be unhappy if he’s dumped. And if he wins the primary and/or the election? Yes, it’ll show that a Democrat can be supportive of the President and GOP if he believes as they do on certain issues. And the Democrats could hold onto the moderates and centrists who might evacuate if he loses. BUT…it could lose some liberal Democrats’ votes.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (a)The Democrats’ focus is perilously off and it could get worse which will make their ostensible goal in November (getting one or both houses of Congress) more elusive. (b)Polarization isn’t just Democrats versus Republicans it’s polarization within parties where those who aren’t pure enough (in both parties) are being essentially told in some cases: “You’re either with us or against us. Totally. And if not totally, get lost.” And you know what? They just might.

Come Monday, we will deliver your Declaration of Independence to the leaders of Congress just as they are returning from their 10-day Fourth of July vacation. (You got one of those too, didn’t you?)

Do you know how many people signed the original Declaration of Independence in 1776? Exactly 56. 56 people changed the world. Just think what 8,000 or 9,000 or 10,000 can do today.

Have you signed? If so, thank you. But have your friends signed? Your neighbors and co-workers? Now’s the time! And don’t forget Aunt Millie.

Add your signature here!.

Tell your friends to sign here!.

Watch Doug Bailey, Unity08 Founders Council member, mix it up with Glenn Beck on CNN Headline Prime about how a Unity Ticket could transform politics.