When are we going to start building our actual platform? Given the tone of the posts I've seen on this site, there are a lot of issues that we need to hash out and come to an agreement on. And the way the race is moving now, we need to start building our platform now, so that we can get a candidate moving as soon as possible. When are you guys going to get on that?
Right on. The platform drives everything. It certainly bears directly on picking the right candidate.
That's the mistake the parties in power make -- they build a platform based on delegates' pet issues, which the candidates proceed to ignore.
Let's choose a nominee who shares our core beliefs, and that will determine our platform.
The platform is what defines our beliefs. How can we know if the candidate shares our beliefs if we dont have a platform that tells them what our beliefs are?
Platforms in other parties only serve to show which candidate is in control of the convention...and the probable winner. The idea that the platform comes first is flawed.
Bill"for what we are together"
Again, how can we pick a candidate that agrees with our beliefs, if we have yet to come to any kind of concensus about what that even means? We are trying to build a new party from scratch; how we do that without a common purpose is beyond me.
Quote - "The idea that the platform comes first is flawed."
Can you tell me what Unity08 will stand for in July 2024?
When I ask this, I am asking for specific positions on specific issues....
Without a detailed mission statement (platform, or whatever you want to call it), there is no way to tell what Unity08 represents - beyond the very general language written in the "What We Stand For" page.
This is exactly why the delegate count is lagging. We will not see huge leaps in membership until people feel comfortable supporting us - and that will only happen when Unity08 takes a stand on the issues.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Politics in America has morphed! Both party agendas are playing catchup as internet based positions are being developed by the people far ahead and beyond their rediculous two party policies regarding issues... For example of how platforms are being defined with specifics as opposed to conventional party blah blah blah visit the site below.... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Unity 08 will stand for a Presidential ticket committed to progress on issues that the overwhelming majority of Americans need.
Bill"for what we are together"
Need or want? And how do we decide what is a need and what is a want? And how does that translate into an actual position on any issue? We need something more concrete.
The candidates for each ticket can tell us the actual position on issues and how they will pursue them. I'll weigh that against their electablity and vote for the one I think can beat the R and D tickets.
That is not vague for me because I'm looking for people that can lead in a new direction and that requires managable party baggage to still move in the direction that inspired the party. The Rs and Ds have totally lost that capacity as parties.
Bill"for what we are together"
That doesn't do it for me. I know what I believe and where I stand on the issues, and I will not vote for someone just because he's "electable". If you don't care about the issues, fine. But I think most people do, or at least want to know what they are compromising on before they cast their vote.
All Parties say that. Then the other Parties tell you how they feel on Abortion, Gun Rights, National Security,....
We don't - we say that the delegates will decide - eventually.
Unity08 considers Iraq to be a critical issue - but nobody can say what position Unity08 will take on Iraq. Will we withdraw troops? Will we increase the commitment to that country, or walk away?
Will we close our borders? Will we start mass deportations of Illegal immigrants? Will we give amnesty?
Will we mandate Universal Health Care? How will we pay for it?
Bill, don't get me wrong - there's a reason why I have joined the organization. I like the mission statement. But at some point we will have to declare our specific intentions on the critical issues.
My argument is that we will not grow until we tell America what we stand for. Currently Unity08 has about 50,000 delegates - what do we need to do to get that number up past two million by February 2024?
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Any group U08 wants to put together to make positions is fine with me and I won't fall off the map regardless of the result. But I want us to go to the poles led by the candidate supported by a party. It is the very perception of a candidate led by a party that has poisoned the Rs and Ds as parties. Unity 08 should facilitate a candidates that offer specific position within the framework of issues we provide. Our nomination process can take it from there. We only have 13 months....only half of the time that we have been into this. Just getting candidates in that time frame will be a monumental task.
The rhetorical side of the operation needs to be short and sweet and legwork side long and hard.
Bill"for what we are together"
You nailed it Bill!!
Okay, relax JM....
I'm kidding. I will even put those little sprinkles on them....
Bill,
If you are open to anything, you are liable to get exactly what you want.
Quote -"Any group U08 wants to put together to make positions is fine with me and I won't fall off the map regardless of the result."
Bill, I respect your opinion, but if we end up with a policy mandating a war with Iran, mass deportations and internment camps for illegal immigrants, and a "global warming is false" mentality, then I will hit the road.
Are you prepared to support David Duke and Michael Moore as the Unity08 presidential ticket? How about Pat Buchanan and Dennis Kucinich? Both of these possibilities are extremely unlikely, but until we stand for something tangible, there is no way to know what the end result will be; I can only hope that we attract enough moderates.
I hope we end up with the government that we deserve, and I also fear the same thing....
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
We can work to get the best U08 ticket in June 08 and the best ticket in November 08, I can try to make them the same and I will trust this effort to make that possible. I will still have other choices if Unity 08 doesn't realize their founding goals in their selected ticket.
Bill"for what we are together"
Keep me on the cookie list there Jeff! IO think it is a balancing egg act on the issues. We need to develope a moderate rational framework/range options on the various core issues without locking in specifics to early. If we get too specific to early we risk alienating people coming in, but if we are not specific enough we risk not attracting the delegate base that might make the majority view more moderate and rational. It's the old chicken and the egg thing - which comes first.
I am all for getting the options out there and cobbling a general platform and voting on that in Feb 2024 and educating our delegates to ask the potential candidates on their views visavi our general majority platform. then there is the back and forth where we decide on a set of candidates that will bring their views to the table and hopefully we can reach a consensus then in June 2024 on a decent set of candidates with a decent set of represntative issues/platform (not the meaningless palp the 2 parties will churn out) that will meaningfully win the election and a governing mandate. So it's a combo balancing act that we need to be aware of as we go forth. We need to educate others, ourselves and the canidates all the way around. That's my read on this especially after the April 16 meeting in DC which I think went very well.
It is unavoidable, the Unity08 platform will reflect the supermajority viewpoint.
Unless Unity08 wants to be irrelevant.
Again, that doesn't really mean anything. How does that translate into any actual positions, and how do we determine "supermajority". A majority of who? the delegates? the nation? the world? And by who's polling? Will we conduct our own poll? Do we go by the feild poll or Royters?
Sorry ScorpionMT, I wasn't clear enough. By Supermajority positions I mean those views reflected as having greated that two thirds support in multiple national polls over time. I wrote on this elsewhere in the shoutbox, but I didn't clarify that here.
I see supermajority positioned platform as the natural result of Unity08 and Unity08 needs to have that platform before it can draw supporters.
It would be difficult to assign super-majority status to a group of some 30,000 persons (or 50,000 if the existence of the initial members dataset is included) for a number of statistical reasons:
1. This group represents a small segment of the population at present. That segment that is at least tangentially aware of problems in the existing system and have enough chutzpah to sign up here. By definition, this is a group unrepresentative of the whole.
2. Any "voting" block can claim only a majority or plurality of those that vote, and not those that could vote. Until actual voting gets closer to actual eligible voters, no super-majority can be claimed.
3. Unity08 is irrelevant at present. It is growing at a pace that will not meet its lofty goals and at present stands for nothing more than "bipartisanship". A topic that gets trounced by the cult-of-personality that surrounds Obama, Hillary and even "I-shot-myself-in-the-foot-again" John McCain. To become relevant, it will have to stand up for something and it will have to start to be discriminating when it comes to the support it requests and the persons from whom it requests that support.
Without taking a recognizable, defensible and saleable stand on the issues that face the US, Unity08 is like the man with no plan and no goal; in which case any direction at any speed would be sufficient for his purpose.
So, here's a plan to get off the dime on issues
So, in terms of a platform, I suggest that Unity08 start by polling its delegates in a ranked preference poll on a set of say 20 issues. The top 5 issues are developed into issues presentations and discussed among the delegates. A second poll can be run to determine the preferred course of action by the delegates. A 3rd poll can then be run to re-orient the 20 original issues to determine whether, once defined, one or more of the top 5 are really still all that important. This process can be iterated all the way through the campaign season to build up a base of issue definitions and responses and continually get feedback from the delegates.
All of this data will be available to any potential candidate as input to their own approach to the delegate base or the electorate as a whole.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
www.kaczmarowski.com
Quote - "So, here's a plan to get off the dime on issues.
So, in terms of a platform, I suggest that Unity08 start by polling its delegates in a ranked preference poll on a set of say 20 issues. The top 5 issues are developed into issues presentations and discussed among the delegates. A second poll can be run to determine the preferred course of action by the delegates. A 3rd poll can then be run to re-orient the 20 original issues to determine whether, once defined, one or more of the top 5 are really still all that important. This process can be iterated all the way through the campaign season to build up a base of issue definitions and responses and continually get feedback from the delegates."
My information may be wrong, but I thought Doug Bailey shot down any and all suggestions about attempting to build a platform.
Here's the math as I see it:
There are currently 50,000 delegates (and how many of these can be counted on?), and Unity08 now states that they want two million delegates by February, 2024.
So how can Unity08 recruit two hundred thousand delegates per month between now, and next February?
Unless there is a platform (call it a "mission statement", call it a "policy statement", call it anything - but stand for something!), and a big increase in visibility, Unity08 is every bit as dead as the Know Nothing party.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Kacz, Popo, Jack and the Unity folks at the 4/16 meeting can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Doug is thinking that growing the base first vetting the issues and then voting on a general platform sometime early next year to present to the possible candidates is the best approach. We went back and forth on the whole chicken and the egg thing. Both sides have some validity but I tend to getting a core set of platform issues frameworks out there. At least that's my read on how it went or maybe I was too much into my Roast Beef sandwich.
I don't know how much they have gotten into the mechanics of how all vetting and voting this will work. Still lots' to thresh out and are taking ideas in. I think they are about to unload with a host of delegate increasing marketing measures that should be hitting the deck plus they are thinking about some high profilethings coming up - Waterston speech, etc that will raise the unity08 profile and hopefully garner debate. Kacz had some great ideas on Search Engine Optimization stuff and marketing that hit some hot buttons with the Unity Web people. I've suggested National Public Radio (Diane Rehms, Kojo Nambi, etc) to Doug as maybe a good moderate rational venue to expound on and explain the Unity approach and all to the rational middle. Unity/Doug were very receptive to most all ideas it seemed.
Anyway, somehow we need to show SOON to the larger voting public out there why constant, consistent pressure from the political center CAN work and show why and how spasmodic policies from the political extremes often fail. Stay tuned!! Should be real interesting so fasten your seat belts and tell your friends, family and neighbors!!
After hearing from you and others, I'm starting to think that he is actually too busy "Mushrooming" himself.
He wants to grow the base first....
If that was going to work, it would have worked already. The "World is Flat & Oprah is really an Alien" organization probably has more than fifty-thousand members.
Sam Waterston appearing on "Hardball" should have provided enough exposure to gain the organization that many members in one week. C'mon - this is the information age. What does it say when Sanjaya burps on camera, and half a million fifteen-year-old girls get the vapors ten minutes later?
He (Doug Bailey)wants to do the same thing - over and over again, and he expects different results; you know the old saying about that approach....
Here is an old recipe for success:
We should Stand For Something - and then see if we end up with a valid constituency. We should find the most public outlet and plead our case. We should share our ideas with anyone who will listen.
If we intend to do that, it would be helpful to know what we stand for besides "stay tuned - we will figure it out next year."
This is a Political Organization. I sometimes wonder if anyone at Unity08 understands what that means....
Usually in politics when you can't define yourself properly, your opponent steps up and does it for you. It's a really bad sign that nobody even worries enough about Unity08 to smear us - at least if that happened, we would know that Unity08 was a factor.
After a day like today, when I'm in a bit of a Pissy mood anyway, it is easy to wonder if anyone at Unity08 has any active DNA between the ears.
Sorry for the rant, John M. None of this is directed against you.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Q: When's the last time a 3rd Party Movement was successful?
A: The 1850's, when the Republican Party got started.
Q: How did they do it?
A: They sat down in town halls and thrashed out their issues.
(They were very progressive in their time, advocating federally
financed railroads, a central bank, the abolishion of slavery).
Then they elected members of congress and then elected Abraham Lincoln.
This is not a "chicken and egg" question. It's "cart and horse." The platform is the horse that pulls the cart. History clearly demonstrates that.
If a web site is designed properly, it can be a virtual Town Hall. Last Novemer, we were told that Unity'08 would be a "best in breed" web site in "Early 2024" - which was to include a way to form the "American Agenda."
The Founders seem willing to take a poll on damn near everything (e.g. "Naughty-Nice," the color of Doug's tie) - except the things that really matter.
If this is our movement, we should take a poll on which comes first -the cart or the horse.
I'm votin' for the horse.
Or what did Coach Madden say to his demoralized team at half-time in a tough insurmountable situation- "Don't worry about the horse being blind, just load the wagon!" Seems like this blog is sometimes "Maddenesque"! I'm all for finding a horse that sees!
I know the several folks in front of this post have a true drive to see our country act upon the long negelected will of a overwhelming moderate majority. I have followed their posts and comments for a year now. I can also tell by those post(and others) that an issue solution type platform will narrow that majority to a minority even if it could be hammered out in the short time that we have. It will also drive off almost every name that I am now seeing on the "Dream Tickets". If we want people of influence, they can not be robbed of the opprotunity to influence us by a premptive strike from the "my way or the highway" types among us. We can not win our mission for the country with 51-49 votes;we need 60-40 or better and we have to select the candidate that offers the best platform to get that.
The candidate inquiry phase will draw the platform guidelines from which each candidate will offer compliant solutions. What they offer combined with our perception of their ability to win the November vote will guide the delegate voting determination.
I do fail to see how you guys can and have articulated the goals of Unity 08 again and again, and then, quite inconsistantly pop up with this 'where's our purpose' stuff over your idea of a missing 'platform'.
You've got 13 months, you can get a candidate the country will love or a "platform" for you scrapbook. I am certain you will not get both in that time.
If our candidates don't give you a good platform, you will have at least four others to chose from....but will they have a candidate that can move our country and our legislators to act in the interest of the vast majority of our citizens? If they do...our mission is on track anyway....whether it's Doug Bailey's or not. (But I think that is where he is headed on this.)
Bill"for what we are together"
No Platform = No Delegates....
We can debate this all day long, but the current delegate numbers support my argument.
No Delegates = No Candidates....
If there is a candidate out there....
("that can move our country and our legislators to act in the interest of the vast majority of our citizens")
...with this amount of raw, dynamic charisma, then that candidate could easily win a major party primary and get elected to office without Unity08. This person could also easily move the base of the party of his/her choosing in whatever direction they wanted. Why then, would they work with Unity08 - a new, untested organization with no track record?
Ronald Reagan dominated his party (from the moment that he was nominated) and changed its direction. To some degree, the republican party still bears his stamp, and he's been out of office since 1989.
Why would any strong candidate run on the Unity08 ticket - given the amount of control that this organization wants to maintain? What is the payoff for a candidate?
Unity08 will only attract a statured candidate if Unity08 can deliver a large bloc of votes.
Whether we realize it, or not (and, whether we like it, or not), Unity08 is in the influence business. We become relevant only when we become strong enough to be influential.
So we must become stronger, or this will happen....
No votes to deliver = no Unity08.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
"with this amount of raw, dynamic charisma, then that candidate could easily win a major party primary and get elected to office without Unity08."
That's the point of Unity 08...good candidates can't get through the Rs and Ds machinery because extremist control of those parties primaries and conventions. I can certainly think of a good ticket amoung Ds and a good ticket amoung Rs that could comply with the Unity 08 mission but thier history indicates that will not happen.
Bill"for what we are together"
What I feel Unity should be about - a force for constant, consistent pressure from the moderate political center that includes issues and candidates and real people. We cannot ignore issues, potential candidates, and we need more real people. We need to reach out to ALL three in an organized rational manner sooner than later that achieves the Unity objective of a vibrant force for constatnt pressure from the politicla center. That's my read IMHO.
I'm more with you Jeff in "Standing For Something Sooner". I'm not going to be an apologist for Doug, but I do see some of his logic that since we are not an established political party with no present political base or candidate, we have never had the threshing out of issues really that normally forms the undegirdings of parties much less parties that can attract candidates and win. He's hoping that by early next year (Jan/Feb) we could thresh that out via votes on the major issues) and create that New American Agenda as far as I can gather. Maybe a spot by Doug and Waterston on NPR or something would help delineate that process better.
I also do think Unity needs to get something out there pretty soon by late summer/early fall or at least a broad centrist framework with some focus/parameters and viable options (costed out) that go back to what I feel Unity should be about - a force for constant, consistent pressure from the moderate political center that includes issues and candidates and real people.
I suggested 4/16 on reaching out in a more organized way to the Centrist Bipartisan Groups/Think tanks out there to some of their tap their moderate policies and add some heft and wherewithal to dovetail with our New American Agenda threshing. That might be the thing that attracts some good centrist candidates as well. We'll keep the pressure on and press the case to get some more issues focus beyond this blog sooner than later. Some of the rantings on this list may be big turn offs (to members and potential candidates) and kill the goose that laid the golden egg. So more issues/platform focus earlier is my sentiment as well.
In American politics, the term "platform" carries connotations of DNC/GOP business as usual. It smacks of the very thing Unity08 aspires to dismantle.
But in computing, the term means something different: it refers to a framework of technologies and notions that enable higher level functionality. If that is what we mean by platform then it is most likely a productive endeavor, particularly if the process remains true to Unity08’s open source culture.
I see the pros and cons below about having a platform sooner than later. I am obviously a sooner the better supporter as long as it is really a platform that represents the middle. In fact the "no platform" is a little worrying to me, what exactly am I supporting when I support Unity? If I send people to Unity then Unity ends up on the fringe, then I have some explaining to do to them to keep my credibility. Indeed I have asked not one of the groups in which I frequently contribute to join Unity08, and none of them responded when I asked if anyone had heard of it.
Anyhow, I have different thoughts about the platform, you know the supermajority thing. And my reasons are not just populist, albeit I am a believer in the common man vs. the elite battle being the primary problem.
I see the problem in the platform as needing a resolving principal that can be used to create consensus. The supermajority idea is as much about creating consensus by having a position for why certain viewpoints are NOT in the platform as well as which ones are in. We must realize that although the moderate middle has a majority position, any individual in the majority differs on some positions, and they may feel pretty strongly about them.
We need a way to say, "Look, keep fighting for your position, and keep educating the public. We respect it, but it is not supported by enough of the middle to be part of a platform for the middle and we still want you to support Unity even though some of your viewpoints don't match the unity platform"
I have seen this method work for some and not work for other members who have some non-popular positions on some issues. I have been observing and honing the response and there are some ways of saying this that seem to work better.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the platform must be the winning platform in the election. It must be the majority platform or I see it as having no chance of winning, and I am too busy elsewhere to spend my time on an effort that doesn't bear fruit.
This question has been up for almost 3 weeks and yet no Unity 08 founders have attempted to answer it. This non-responsiveness is going to turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be very active. We are going to need a platform soon. Maybe we should draft one on our own.
Could it be because it is too early?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Too early? For what? To stand for something? To actually have a reason to exist? The other parties are already campaigning and rasing money and we don't even have a position on any issue.
I'm sorry I didn't chime in on this sooner. I think it's important draw a distinction between having a thorough and lively discussion of the issues -- which we want to have -- and actually drawing up a platform.
I can not stress enough that one of the core principles behind Unity08 is that we will NOT create a platform before our on-line convention in June 2024. It will be up the candidates we nominate for President and Vice-President to lay out their specific platforms. Given the diversity of viewpoints that exist within Unity08's delegate base on specific issues, we feel it would be counterproductive to demand that potential candidates hew to every aspect of a lengthy wish list of positions.
Instead, we are asking delegates to discuss what issues are most important to them and to help create the New American Agenda -- the issues that our delegates believe are most pressing and that Unity08 administration would be in a unique position to deliver results on. Remember, a major element of our on-line convention will be detailed responses from all of the candidates on the New American Agenda. So I would encourage that this discussion continue, but that it be geared towards identifying what topics should be addressed in the New American Agenda.
The hope is that this process will produce leaders. We'll leave it the Democratic and the Republican establishments to force candidates to bend their own principles in order to fall into line.
Steve
Steve
In the mud by Summer, 2024.
You stand for nothing (other than useless platitudes), and your organization is going nowhere.
Yesterday I decided to move on since Unity08 seems so uninterested in growing into a relevant organization.
Good Luck to everyone...
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
and I absolutely agree for the reasons you state and more. It might sooth the compulsive needs of some to publish a guide for the candidate inquiry process around something like GEA's highly generalize "super" majority issues. That would be what i thought would constitute Unity 08's New American Agenda and it would preceed the candidates specific actions(thier platform, thier solutions)) so we could; in selecting our nominee, be selecting which combination of platform and electibility would win the White House.
This sort of clarity will help get the Unity Core Leadership and general delegates on the same page and headed in one direction as a team.
Bill"for what we are together"
You want us to help create the "New American Agenda", but you guys have already determined what the "critical issues" are. Maybe I don't just don't get how those are different. These issues have been discussed in the forums, which all seem to devolve into personal attacks, but we are no closer to knowing how the delegates as a whole feel about them.
All your efforts seem to be candidate-focused. Shouldn't we be more focused on attracting delegates and supporters? I think we'd be more likely to attract a good candidate if we could deliver a large number of voters. How are we supposed to attract more members if we can't answer their basic questions:
Me: Come join my new party, Unity 08
Friend: Really, what do you stand for?
Me: Bipartisian cooperation.
Friend: OK. What's your position on (issue X)?
Me: Well, we believe that both parties should work together to come up with a solution to (issue X).
Friend: Um... that's not really a position; its more of a method... Are you guys for it or against it?
Me: Well, right now we're trying to get a candidate; but when we get one, he'll let us know if we should be for it or not.
Friend: Wow. What conviction. Count me out.
Instead of "forcing" one candidate to "bend their own principles" we should instead ask 50% of our delegates to do so? Going into a convention with no platform sounds like a recipe for coming out of a convention with no voters if you ask me.
I TOTALLY agree Scorp! We need to STAND for SOMETHING (beyond just trite platitudes of swarmy Bipartisanship) or we WILL not get to the 1 million delegates and 10 to 12 million dollars that Doug Bailey thinks we need to have any sort of a chance. It's a balancing act for sure, but I think even Sam Waterston would agree. He gave an eloquent speech (high in generalities and platitudes) yesterday at the Natl Press Club on Lincoln and he quoted Lincoln profusely. I think Sam would agree that even Lincoln stood for something and that is why he won (or at least got 39.9% of the vote actaully).
We need candidates and branding for sure here at Unity. But If we are going to make a go of it and be more that a gleam in Jerry's, Doug's, and Sam's eyes, above ALL we need the right issues and we need to Stand for something!! Without that key ingredient all the wonderful branding in the world and all the wonderful bipartisan candidate combos will mean nada, zippo! Remember - Lincoln STOOD for something and had true political courage - THAT is why he Stood out!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I understand what you're saying. But what if you told your friend something like this:
"The delegates are going to determine what they believe are the country's most pressing needs -- whether it's the skyrocketing national debt, lack of affordable health insurance, the solvency of entitlement programs, climate change, or something else. They will then hold every potential Unity candidate's feet to the fire on each of these issues, demanding that they be addressed throughly and comprehensively. Then it will be up to the delegates to decide which candidate has laid out the best approach, and who is most committed to enacting real change. This way, we will nominate a Presidential and Vice-Presidential team on the basis of their dedication to addressing several specific complex, tangible problems whose solutions cut across partisan and ideological lines -- and not because they hew to a pre-determined orthodoxy on artificial wedge issues."
That sounds nice, but it doesn't answer the question "Are you for or against (issue X)?" I don't know who you hang out with, but the people I know who are into politics and are upset with the current system are upset for very specific reasons (in addition to the general problems we all agree on, but those could be overlooked if [issue X] was adequately addressed). If I ask them to change parties they are going to want an answer to the (issue X) question. If I tell them we don't have a position, moreover if I tell them their position isn't even concidered "critical" enough to even debate, what incentive do they have to join up? And if they join with the hope to sway people to their issue and then the convention comes and goes and their issue falls by the wayside, what incentive do they have to stay involved? In California, we already have six ballot-approved parties from far left to far right. They can find a party that agrees with their issue; why then would they join one that doesn't even have a stance on it one way or the other?
I think your last sentence gets to the heart of it. There are dozens of alternative parties out there, covering just about every conceivable combination of issues positions. They pop up (and disappear) all the time, each attracting a core audience, but none breaking through and enduring. For nearly 150 years in this country, the only two that have won at the Presidential level are the Democrats and Republicans.
So....Unity08 could do what all of the other new parties do and adopt a long list of positions, convert a small slice of the public, and run a candidate who espouses our position. It seems doomed to failure.
You are quite right that there is no shortage of political parties offering opinions. What there is a shortage of is results.
That's where we come in. The Democrats and Republicans draw up platforms every four years, and in them they always lay out their objectives on health care reform. But what has either ever done? They each have paltform planks on Social Security, but where is the action? And on curbing the national debt, which is getting awfully close to $10 trillion.
The idea behind Unity08 is to look at issues that can't be easily reduced and simplified to "I'm for X and against Y." Many of these are substance-less and designed by political consultants to divide the electorate. So we propose something radical: Change the discussion completely. Let's draw up an agenda -- a handful of big problems that will require big, creative solutions that rely on the good ideas of both parties (and of people not aligned with either party). Then let's elect a Presidential ticket that has a four-year mandate to address and solve these problems. That's what will set Unity08 apart -- the promise to actually achieve something substantive, and not just to put out position papers.
Well what makes you different then from the Republocrats, they say they are going to deliver too??
Is your argument that since you have never tried to deliver that you may indeed deliver? Oh my.
On the flip side, I can understand that a platform per se is not required if a platform process is defined, such as determining the platform from analysis of polling, or super majority whatever, of citizens (i.e. not just Unity08 members). While not a platform it guarentees a centrist platform when it is defined.
Forget the question and answer with someone I might ask to join Unity08, lets have a question and answer between us and here is my question:
"If I ask people to join Unity08 and put my effort behind it, how can I know I won't be embarrassed with a Unity08 platform that might include legalizing drugs (as was suggested here earlier this week)?"
There either must be a platform or a guiding principle/process to arrive at a platform that guarentees a platform that appeals to a centrist voter.
The results that Unity08 promises come from a revolutionary approach to governing: the belief, symbolized by the teaming of members of opposite parties on the same ticket, that authentic and meaningul solutions come not from party platforms but from thoughtful leaders from across the spectrum working together.
For a presidential candidate to embrace the unity concept is for that candidate to swear off wedge issue politics -- to ignore wedge issues completely, in fact -- and to commit him/herself to crafting practical solutions to problems that have festered because of our government's polarized paralysis. There are far too many votes in Congress in which one party lines up in lock-step on one side and the other party on the other side. A Unity government would find the best of both sides and create consensus.
Your cart is before your horse methinks because what you wrote is not an answer to my question.
"If I ask people to join Unity08 and put my effort behind it, how can I know I won't be embarrassed with a Unity08 platform that might include legalizing drugs (as was suggested here earlier this week)?"
You are saying that somehow two kooks, if that's what we get, will average out to get a middle platform?
One thing I have learned in life is to never try to predict the behavior of a kook, let alone possibly two.
The focus of the New American Agenda isn't to develop a list of "quick-hitter" positons on issues like drug legalization. It's to choose a team of leaders who are equipped with the insight, flexibility, and poise to tackle a specific set of significant and complex problems. It's about creating consensus with leaders on both sides of the aisle and up a comprehensive solution to, say, the looming insolvency of the Social Security program (if this is one of the topics the delegates choose).
Since the Democratic and Republican platforms are all over the place -- and since camapigns generally come down to issues and attacks that have nothing to do with what really matters to people's lives -- no party has emerged from a recent Presidential election with a true mandate to tackle the big and difficult problems our country faces.
(That's one of the reasons why President Bush's Social Security effort was a dismal failure. Say what you will about his proposed solution, but since he hasn't campaigned on the issue, he had no mandate to pursue it in his second term, and thus the Congress was free to ignore him with no consequence.)
If the Unity ticket focuses its campaign on its solutions to the New American Agena -- and remember, this ticket will first be ratified by Unity08's delegates -- then the Unity administration, unlike Democratic and Republican administrations of recent mint, will actually have the force of the public's will at its back when it demands Congress work toward a solution.
I agree on the "quick-hitter" position stuff there steve. That is why we need to focus on the really big Mega-Issues that MUST be addresses if this nation is to survive. Social Security, Entilements are at the VERY Top of my short list of course! But to attract a team of true leaders with true political courage to get something done and deliver on the goods we here at Unity have to give them some sort of overarching framework (aka Platform)of possible doable moderate options to frame/present the issues to the general American public in Nov 2024 so that people can judge them beyond the 30 second sound bites and hold them accountable thereof! Lincoln would have DEMANDED that at minimum!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I think we're not saying radically different things here. It's just a question of when the actual platform is devised. Our idea is this:
1) The delegates set the agenda for what big problems the Unity ticket must address
2) Prospective candidates -- who will already have shown some courage in (a) announcing their willingness to participate in our process and (b) teaming up with a running-mate of the opposite party -- will address these agenda items thoroughly and comprehensively so that the delegates can judge their ideas and their level of commitment.
3) The delegates will choose the team of leaders they (the delegates) believe are best-suited to govern in a way that will actually produce solutions to the agenda items. The approach these leaders outline to us and in the fall campaign will constitute our platform.
I know this is radical. But remember that the Dems and GOPers produce platforms mostly as a way of tossing meat to their base -- putting on paper some view that some interest group wants to hear, but then never acting on it. By limiting our scope to a handful of truly big issues, we will demostrating that we are truly committed to solving them.