The question of why Unity08 does not plan to adopt a formal platform has been the subject of some pretty intense discussion lately on our message boards. The criticism boils down to this: How can we possibly attract delegates if we don’t stand for anything besides basic bipartisan cooperation?
I completely understand that line of thinking. But I think we actually stand for something much bigger than a platform. Look at it this way:
Every political party adopts a platform, addressing any number of issues, big and small. Since no one in the general public ever reads these, this is the chance for the parties to toss some red meat to their bases and interest group establishments.
But what matters is what a President does when he or she takes office -- and their actions are rarely if ever guided by what was in their party’s platform.
The idea behind Unity08 is a powerful one: that a bipartisan team can, for one four-year term, break through the paralysis and polarization in D.C. and produce practical results on some of the major problems that have long vexed our country.
To that end, we propose that next year the Unity08 delegates decide what handful of issues are the most crucial to the future safety and well-being of the United States (as opposed to those that are important, and maybe worthy of discussion, but not crucial to the future safety and well-being of the country). These issues will represent the “New American Agenda,” and anyone seeking the Unity nomination will be required to present -- in blog and video posts on our web site -- detailed and unsparing responses to questions about each issue that the delegates will draw up.
We are not dictating what issues should be included in the New American Agenda -- that is up to everyone here. But the soaring national debt (now approaching $10 trillion), the lack of health insurance for 47 million of our fellow citizens, the threat of global climate change, and the long-term solvency of Social Security and entitlement programs are perfect examples of festering catastrophes on which partisan polarizations has prevented meaningful results.
Every party can have a platform, and then everyone in that party can get upset when its elected officials ignore 90% of it once in office. Our idea is to nominate a bipartisan team that will campaign on the New American Agenda -- and not getting distracted by wedge issues and other topics that they don’t plan to address while governing. And this way, the Unity team, if successful in the election, will actually have a meaningful mandate from the public to implement its agenda.
Subscribe
Adopting a platform now would essentially disenfranchise a large portion of the Unity08 movement's supporters. I suspect that I disagree on a lot of issues with the above poster, but I support the principle of multipartisan (or, better yet, nonpartisan) compromise to more appropriately address those issues, even if the resolution isn't exactly how I would have done it if I were somehow elected Supreme Overlord.
But if Unity08 picked a platform sufficiently different from my own views, I'd drop it like a hot potato, and I'm sure a lot of other people around here would as well. By requiring our candidates to express their own views on what's important, this movement can grow through political discourse and debate, and even if I end up not liking the candidates that are eventually nominated, at least I'll have gotten a fairer shake from the process than what I'd get from either the Republican or Democrat parties.
Why are they here if they want to adopt extreme right or left-wing measures on issues?
Unity08 is specifically designed to promote a moderate agenda.
If you like these politicians, then you are probably in the right place:
Olympia Snowe
Chuck Hagel
Bill Bradley
Bob Kerrey
Joe Leiberman
The Governator
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Michael Bloomberg
If you adore these pundits and politicians, then you are probably fated to be unhappy with Unity08:
Lou Dobbs
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Tom Tancredo
Newt Gingrich
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Michelle Malkin
Some of these people might be good people, but none of them are interested in supporting centrist values and policies; they all have extreme agendas.
If Unity08 nominates two candidates from the second list, then the organization is drifting away from the "What We Believe" page of the website. Plus, the candidates have to be able to work together - is Michael Moore likely to work well with Ann Coulter?
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
He is the only true conservative in the field now. Does a constitutionalist fall into the catgory of having an extreme agenda?
Does he have a record of bipartisanship?
Is he a political centrist?
In my opinion, he would be a poor choice for Unity08.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Good List Jeff! I would add Mark Warner, Chuck Robb, Bill Cohen, Gary Hart, George Mitchell, Jim Webb, John Breaux, Evan Bayh with preferences going to those as Governors and Veterans with war experience IMHO.
And Ron Paul - we'll I'd put him firmly into your latter category IMO.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
With the exception of Chuck Hagel, and not much of an exception at that, it looks to me like some of you want to take our country back and then turn around and give it back to the bums you took it from. I assume, and I know that is a dangerous thing to do, that one of the unity candidates will probably be a Republican. Every delegate here should watch the South Carolina Republican debate on the 15th of this month on the sly network, FOX News and give some feedback since one of these guys is more likely to end up a unity candidate that someone who is not even running.
Hardly there RP. The people on Jeff's and my list have proven centrist moderate records and demonstrated true political courage at some point in their careers - risked ticking off base activist constituents to stand for moderate centrist principle. They are not panderbears politician who ARE the bums you speak of! If you can show me that Ron Paul has similar such centrist moderate rational stands and poltical courage (not an activist constituent panderbear), the I'll take you and Ron Paul seriously!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
But he is more suited to a traditional third party effort. If he ends up as the republican nominee, it would be quite a story. I'm not holding my breath.
Unity08 isn't supposed to be a traditional third party that is positioned to the left or right of the two major parties.
Here is the language from the "What We Believe" page...
(the following is quoted from the Unity08 website.)
"For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups — with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.
We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system — and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them."
The clear inference is that the "middle" is not being represented properly by the two existing parties. And every time Sam Waterston speaks, there is a constant reference to "moderate" issues and concerns.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
A novel idea would to make the Constitution the platform, all elected officals and our military take an oath to uphold and defend it, so why not hold them accountable to it?
Interpretations of the Constitution, depending on their personal political philosophy.
Look no further than the 2nd amendment; some would say that there is no INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - because of the wording in the clause.
Jeff C
Agree Jeff. I prefer the Supreme Court deciding over the other 10. The Founding Fathers made them as isolated from politics as much as possible and Thank God they did! No tellng where we might be if they were not around to put some wise kiboshing on all sorts of hair-brained Prez/Congressional Schemes over the years! The failures we see extant in Government now are not from the SC but from those other two branches IMHO. We have the power on those - if we choose to use it wisely!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
If you and I can't agree on a particlar point of the Constitution we can let a 12 year old of average intelligence read it and tell us what it means. It says what it means and it means what it says.
What rights are granted by this amendment? Is the right to bear arms collective, or individual? Why is the sentence constructed as it is? (Please remember that the Founding Fathers as a group were some of the most literate people on the planet - if they phrased a sentence in a particular way, it was for a reason.)
I know a few twelve-year-old children, and when I need advice on Harry Potter, they are first on my list. On matters of government, I usually look elsewhere.
Perhaps I should find smarter kids...
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Agree with you for the most part Steve. Party platforms are the most unread tossed aside document in American politics for sure. They are the purveyors of vast ends-means disconnects that to me are the real thing plaguing American Politics in the last 30 years. Platforms traditionally are red meat feel good mandates of what we out to do but they never lay out the sots of those mandates and HOW to do them.
They are fudge factories that Candidates and their handlers use. The mandates spun up in Platforms go unheaded when the rubber meets the road and we have to pay (or in the US case in recent years book-cook the costs away. Politics is NOT driven by party platforms but they do coalesce a party around some key central ideals that are extremist based red meat from the activists in BOTH parties.
That being said and with full awareness of that misuse/unuse of party platforms, we here at Unity must be of better stuff. We STILL need to stake out the middle ground centrist positions in some rational, dispassionate, sober way. And we need to do it in such a way that ties up the ends-means disconnects that are displayed in the 2 parties Platforms and are never followed implemented due to those ends-means disconnects.
I think Unity CAN be different by reaching out from various center-based delegates and Think Tanks (Concord Coalition, CSIS, RAND, CBO, GAO, CFR, Princeton Project, yadayada)and various great moderate Candidates (Sam Nunn, Bob Kerrey, Bill Cohen, Arnie, Rudman, Robb, Warner, Ridge, Hagel, Webb, Danforth, Hamilton, etc) who have some great moderate rational ideas (range of doable options) on how to get things done and bridge those ever existng ends-means disconnects.
We don't have to have Platform here at Unity in the Tradional Red Meat Sense as you describe it - would not want that for sure!! But we need to establish some overarching moderate bipartisan framework on the key mega-issues we determine where we can present/attract the delegates ask the candidates and eventually take to the nation. People must know what basically we stand for.
We must be flaming moderates and not be afraid of presenting moderate rational range of ideas and options on these mega-issues costed out the best we can where we can so we can question and judge the propective candidates and the American people can judge our eventual nominees and hopefully differentiate from the other parties palp and elect ours. But to do that, we and our candidates MUST stand for something however generaland not the redmeat variety. I just want it to be the centrist rational middle ground range of doable options costed out clearly delineated. Traditional Platforms do NOT do that. We CAN and MUST.
So let us think and act anew on these types of things. We do need issues, branding/marketing, and decent candidates (ALL Three)to make this all work and be successful. We must stand for something!! The American people need to know WHAT Centrist things we stand for and HOW we propose to get there. I want it to be the moderate something range of plausible doable implementable options and delineated for all. To that end I will chime in here as I have (ad nauseum I apologize) to steer all in the rational cogent direction esp on my two mega-issues Comprehensive Entitlment Reforms and US Foreign Policy Grand Strategy.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
You make a compelling case for a platformless approach, but you haven't said how you will attract delegates in the number needed to make a difference. In fact, how many delegates are here presently? Is there any way for us to find out how successful we've been?
I still don't see your point, Steve.
First of all, how does the "New American Agenda" differ from a platform? Are we just going to say, "Here's a list of problems," and not give any solutions to them? How does that motivate the candidate to move on them? Either way he goes he will anger half his own support.
Second and similarly, how do we hold a candidate accountable without a platform? You state that the other parties just use the platform as meat for their base, but the base uses the platform as a standard to hold potential candidates to, so it works both ways. If we have no platform, we have nothing to hold our candidate to. Then no matter what he does, he can claim he didn't break any promises since he never agreed to anything.
Third, how do we answer the issues questions our potential delegates have? Before anyone is going to change their party, they are going to want a reason to do so, and that reason will 99% of the time revovle around a key issue or two. We have nothing to offer them on that front other than wishful thinking.
Getting more delegates is the most important thing right now. We can worry about candidates later; if we cant offer ballot access and a voting bloc, no candidate will care about our "agenda". We need to offer delegates more than idealism.
Unity08 doesn't seem to be offering anything right now except "trust us, we know what we're doing".
This is the thing that is bothering me since I joined (ok, only a few days ago, but still).
What has Unity08 offered me since I got here?
Someone in which to place my trust? No.
Some forum for learning about the issues? No.
Some reasonable conversation about issues and solutions? With very few exceptions, No, in fact this board is filled with bile and moderated by someone who only wants good things about Unity08 said.
Some way to get organized in my own state? No.
A plan for getting ballot access (which is the ONLY thing that really matters at this point)? No.
My daddy came from a ranch background. He'd be saying "All hat and no cattle" about Unity08 right about now. All hat and no cattle.
While I tend to sympathize with the frustration, I actually think Steve has a valid point. Like it or not, those of us currently involved with Unity08 are the "wonky fringe", and it would probably be disastrous for Unity08 let us dictate the Agenda and/or Platform instead of waiting for everyone else to "join the party."
To be sure, I do agree that there is value in giving us early adopters a chance to highlight what is important to us, to help build some sort of consensus (if possible). But, frankly, we can do that today. If people really want something solid and well-defined -- then yeah, they should come back in six months.
Perhaps Unity08 simply needs to be clearer about where it is at in the process, so we know what kind of feedback and/or involvement is actually welcome/useful.
Cheers,
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.
RadicalCentrism.org is a tiny little think tank in Silicon Valley, California.
I do not think us "Wonkistas" should dictate the Agenda/Platform for sure but we do need to start sooner or later to build in some open way the Agenda substructure or at least the bare-bones basic framework at least to attract all comers to chime in and contribute. Rather than being a turn-off, we could do it in a way that would be a "turn-on" for the disaffected from other parties as well as the "non-Wonkistas". I think the upcoming series of Demo/Repub debates may disillusion a lot of people and make them ripe for the getting - that is if we had some sort of basic issue substructure in place to attract instead of the Wizard's (of Oz) curtain.
Coming from Iowa originally you need to til the soil and plant the seeds to get the good harvests - God I apologize this analogy but it is applicable I feel. It is a balancing act for sure but we do need to start contemplating the laying some basic sub-structure of what we are about sooner or later to attract the multitudes (Wonkistas and non)as well as the possible candidates who will ultimately take it too the nation and hold both parties to account - finally!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
You've hit on an excellent point: There is absolutely no reason why the discussion of what should and should not be included in the New American Agenda can't begin this very minute. That was our original intent in launching the message boards -- a place for delegates, as they signed up, to begin a healthy and robust discussion, all pointed toward the enactment of the agenda in the Spring of '08. Look around: There are plenty of solid, issues-based discussion on these boards right now. Let's build on that.
I would start by clearing out the real Shoutbox chaff and at least focus the issues a bit on the top 10 or 15 for starters. There is a lot of stray stuff all over the existential map on the site that do not relate to the political issues we can address in this realm. If we could just get people to post to maybe 10 or 15 of these issues that might help focus things a tad and keep the discussions on track toward some substance soour substracture pylons have some startegic placement. It at least might help all find previous posts that tend to get lost in the ether - and the newbies would not get lost in the issue Shoutbox morass.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
How do we decide what the top issues are? Everybody has a different list of issues and something you think is critical may not be important to me at all. We need a way to vote or otherwise determine what everyone cares about without just shouting at each other.
The key here is that we are asking people to give some serious thought to our country's problems, and to draw up the top few issues that they believe are “crucial to the future safety and well-being of the United States. This is not the same as “important, and maybe worthy of discussion, but not crucial to the future safety and well-being of the country." There will be many different answers, you're right, but I believe when people really sit down and think about what is really, truly crucial to the safety and well-being of their country (and when they talk it over a little bit here), there will be more overlap than you might now think.
And I truly hope we can have this discussions without shouting -- the "Shoutbox" label notwithstanding.
Steve, how's this for A Foundation On Which To Build ..
The Unity08 New American Agenda Seeks To Re-establish Government Based On 3 C's and 1 B : the Constitution, Creativity, Common Sense AND the Bill Of Rights ..
Utilizing those 4 Tools - to install Disciplines for Social and Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability, and develop and implement New Ideas to solve our most urgent problems related to Domestic & Foreign Policy ..
Domestically : Government Overspending - we need transparency and controls so we can create the means to fund Health Care, Social Security, Energy Independence ..
Finding new and better ways to solve the problems of Foreigners so desperate for work, they risk their lives and break our laws - and without meaning to : create massive social and economic problems for the American people ..
Legalizing and enforcing all reasonable means to protect the lives and property of Americans - both at home and abroad ..
Foreign : We need a Foreign Policy - that Leads By Example, not Force of Arms, that "invites" less fortunate nation's to seek our help ..
We need a foreign policy - that exports Democracy by effective marketing of its benefits to those in search of greater freedom and prosperity ..
We need a Domestic and Foreign Policy That Both The Leaders & The People - throughout this World : Have The Opportunity To Know About, Understand & Respect !!
My opinion - what say you !!
popo (Peter K.(Citizen) Evans of Boynton Beach, Florida
www.america-21stcentury.com
I know that everyone has issues and want them addressed. But there is a pervailing theme in the US today and that is fear. People often talk about the 50s (my youth) and what is different. The difference was fear. We are no afraid of everything. We don't let our kids free in the neighborhood because of perverts and accidents. We don't meet our neighbors out of fear. Fear is pushed on us by our religion and our government. Our policies are such because of fear. We would never have let our government listen to our phone conversations without fear. Fear has led us into wars that should never have happened. They dole out terrorist plots and captures to emphasize the issues. We can solve any issue in the country with honest and commitment. But we can overcome our own morals and beliefs with the right amount of fear.
How about an H. Honesty. If you look at the issues on this blog and also on Yahoo answer, the people are demanding honesty. I realize that an Honest Politician is like Military Intelligence - an acronym. But that is the reason that people are excited about a new vision - a new start. Let's honor honesty. Without that, we can not even try to solve the rest.
And I'll take all the blame for letting these boards get out of hand. I'm making a very belated effort to moderate them more effectively now and to steer to conversation toward the '08 agenda.
We are also looking at replacing the Shoutbox with a trimmed down, less cluttered, easier to navigate message board. Not sure if it will happen, but I'm hopeful.
Some of the issues will certainly not be solved or even defined in this method of communication. Most issues are huge with debates that have been going on for decades. That is the problem. We debate the issues but never get them resolved. What we need to do is define the issues that are effecting the US today. Global Warming, Welfare, Illegal Immigration, Taxes, Constitution Changes, Security, Relationships with the world, Medical Insurance, Retirement Funding, etc. We are not going to come up with solutions, but people want to know how would we address them. All the candidates have plans to offer health insurance but they won't succeed because they have not really defined the issues. They have a part of a solution. We need to work on the approach and not the answer. That people can understand. The issues can not be solved in 6 month.
>>>First of all, how does the "New American Agenda" differ from a platform? Are we just going to say, "Here's a list of problems," and not give any solutions to them? How does that motivate the candidate to move on them?
The New American Agenda basically is a platform. But we're assembling it in a very different way than the Dems and Republicans assemble theirs. It is basically a two-part process: First, we decide what are the top pressing concerns that have been negelected by the two major parties that we want a Unity administration to address. Then, all prospective Unity candidates respond to this agenda, and we select the candidate based on this.
As another poster put it here (or maybe it was on the message boards)-- this is not a perfect process, and in the end some delegates will be dissatisfied with the candidate nominated and the approach that candidate prescribes for the New American Agenda. But it's a fairer and more honest process than the two major parties use, because everyone truly has a voice and the New American Agenda will actually mean something to the candidate who is nominated -- unlike party platforms, which Democratic and Republican nominees routinely ignore.
The whole idea of not enacting a platform now is to give the millions of Americans who are shut out from the two major parties a chance to put the agenda together over the next year. A major component of this will be people whose lives are too busy to pay much attention to politics right now. When they tune in around this time next year and -- as they always do -- realize that the two major parties have nominated uninspiring candidates, they will have the opportunity to sign on as Unity08 delegates and help shape the organization.
Good luck on that Steve, I hope you are right. However, I believe you are not listening to your membership as the overwhelming response so far has been supportive of having a platform.
I believe there is a middle ground that acheives the best for both sides in this issue.
The problems is simple, if Unity08 says it wants to create an American Agenda and nominate a candidate, then how am I to believe that this candidate will be moderate as you suggest? What if the membership in Unity is not moderate but democratic trying to create a republican spoiler or visa versa. How can I know that the American Nazis who posted a while back haven't joined in vast numbers to hijack the effort? You offer no assurances, no information on the membership base, its numbers or politican leaning, as if there are no guarentees.
I agree that there are no guarentees, yet there must be a growing consensus among members of this "new American Agenda."
So there is a middle ground between creating a platform and having nothing - the middle ground is a "new American Agenda - in Progress."
Apparently there will be a "new American Agenda" selected by the membership at some time and key questions will be developed. The each member will have an opinion on the items of the new American Agenda and will vote for candidates accordingly, although the process may change some minds on specific items as the process progresses.
So, why not solve the problem of providing current feedback to the members about the leaning of the membership by creating an initial voting structure for the new American Agenda items, the key questions, and the potential stances of members on the issues. Allow us to cast our votes now and change them over time. Make it a "new American Agenda -- In Progress"
1) Agenda items could be added by polling. If a majority of members support a specific item as an American Agenda item, it becomes one.
2) Then for each American agenda item, key questions could be posed and then voting on the questions. Again if a majority of members support a key question for an item, it becomes one.
3) Stances on an American agenda item could also be proposed and members could register as supporting a specific stance. Stances on items would be ranked according to total votes for that stance and with that the general stance of the membership can be visible.
So you get a best of both worlds, no fixed agenda, it can change, and the members get some visibility into the probable platform by seeing the cumulative voting of the membership.
If Unity is about a middle ground, lets compromise between the no platform now and the full platform now folks. Let us see where the members stand on the issues now and how that changes as things progress.
What's wrong with that??
If you want a party that tells its candidates what to think, say, and do, look no farther than the two major parties we have today. I'd rather be part of a party that asks insightful questions of its candidates, listens to their responses, and decides accordingly whether or not they agree.
The day that there's a "Unity08: Straight Ticket" button in the voting booth is the day that Unity08 has truly failed. Sure, that would indicate that the movement had permeated every level of government, but it would also mean that the people behind the movement had abandoned critical thinking and true political discourse for the partisan domineering we already get from the Dems and the GOP.
I don't believe I said that.
All I am saying is that I want visibility into the membership by doing what we plan on doing earlier and spread out over time.
Unity08's New American Agenda will be based on a consensus from Feed Back of What It Is That Most People Want From Their Government ..
Any Candidate unwilling to adopt and fight for what the people want - is not a suitable candidate for Unity08 - it's that simple
popo
I have been vocal here and directly to Unity08 that doing nothing is not acceptable. It is the same thing that the other parties are doing. Putting a platform together as just that. But this is a new effort to make a change in the US. We need to get people excited. We may never have answers that everyone can like. But there are a lot of very intelligent people in the middle of the issue. They may not be rich or powerful but they understand the issues and the path to succeed. Plus there are issues that each extreme has talked about and can be accepted by everyone. Constitutional changes that have allowed our terrorist to listen to phone calls and kept people in isolation should be eliminated. All levels of voters agree with that.
I think those are Great Ideas there GEA and they could serve to jump start the way to the New American Agenda and attract committed moderate centrists to the cause sooner than later. We may get some new ideas out of it as well as new ways to frame the American agenda centrist ideas we're are supposedly judging the Unity candidates on. It'll be a refreshing cahnge from the staid an stale handler-heaven no substantive issues palp that both parties and their supposed "debates" will be spinning out! I say go for it!!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Maybe its just me, but I'd like to define what we're talking about here.
A "platform" consists of several specific policies or methods to address any one of several specific issues that a candidate or political movement supports.
An "agenda" is a list of issues to be addressed by further discussion, in a meeting or a political debate.
In this sense, by joining Unity 08 we are agreeing on a top agenda item : that partisanship and politics-as-usual is harmful to the future of our nation and desperately need to be changed. We're also agreeing to a particular platform by agreeing on a method to change this: elect a bi-partisan team as President and Vice-President.
I think it's totally appropriate for Unity 08 to select an American Agenda, a list of the issues our country needs to face head on in the next 5-6 years. I agree with GEA, that we can start this discussion now, and not later. If you look at the Shoutbox forums you can tell that this process has already begun. People are "voting" by participating in discussions on particular topics.
I think we'll get a lot farther in our discussion if we focus on defining the questions right now, and not the answers. For one thing, we're not going to agree on the answers. For another I don't want to elect a candidate based on a static platform of particular answers to particular problems. Inevitably, this makes the Presidential election a "mandate" for one relatively random collection of policies. I find it extremely offensive that the discussion of the most important problems facing our country stops after a presidential election, and the media declares that "our voices have been heard" whether the candidate won by 95% or 40%.
I want to elect our politicians based on their ability to foster productive discussion, implement new ideas, and act in the best interest of the nation instead of their party's election prospects. I want a candidate with a dynamic platform - a plan for implementing policies addressing the American Agenda while keeping the debate going.
I hope Unity 08 will eventually have a formal platform, but I hope it is more about HOW the White House will be run, than WHAT the White House will be doing.
Whomever is elected as the Unity 08 ticket will inevitably have platform policies they've already voiced support for that many Unity 08 delegates will disagree with. If we've done our job, that won't be a deal-breaker, because they'll also be a candidate who is committed to healing partisanship in our government, and encouraging ongoing discussion on the American Agenda.
I still think the middle ground that will attract people to our cause will be to provide a framework of centrist options to approach a problem(s)the nation faces. It does not/should not be a laid in cement answer of course. But we do need to start laying down some framework of centrist options to put some meat on the bones so to speak. As Walt Mondale said back in '84 - "Where's the Beef". At some point soon people are going to ask us that question. We better have something rather than a Smile and a Shoeshine.
And since we do not have a primary in the traditional sense of the word, we do need to provide some valid range of options (hopefully centrist moderate and full costed-out) so we are not labeled by others but we do start to stake out what we are - true centrists who DO offer a legit alternative (to the 2 parties palp) rather than the Wizard's (of Oz) Curtain.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Delegates should profile all the candidates they consider voting for or recommending to others. Perhaps Unity08 could have a candidate profile section showing how candidates stand on issues. I would assume the most desirable candidates in the end would be the ones who's stances on issues most reflect the stances of the delegates of Unity08.???
I think Steve said that is in the plans. I'd like that to start sooner as well and try to especially get the Repub/Demo non-runner centrists now (Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Robb, Danfoth, Cohen, Hart, Panetta, Rudman, Nunn, Whitman, Kassebaum, Arnie, etc) to maybe start a profiles section for each on how they view certain issues. They may or may not run (arnie could not) but they could chime on their views and be a bridge maybe to those centrist Repubs/Demos out there!
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The toughest part of "Taking Our Country Back" - will not be winning the White House .. it will be "leveraging" the current Congress to accept the Political Reforms it will take - To Deliver On That Promise ..
That leverage must be established "before the Elections" - if it's going to have any meaning and effect ..
I've provided Doug Bailey with a proposed plan to achieve that leverage, in a legal, practical and newsworthy manner, I am waiting to hear the organization's objections to implementing the plan before the end of 2024 ..
Pete
You make excellent points.
Look at this thread:
http://unity08.com/node/1161
An attempt to put forth issues....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Equal trade or none at all - that all consumable goods should be produced locally and not abroad whenever possible. That no aid should be provided to nations producing weapons or sponsoring terror. That foreign policy and the fight for Liberty abroad is done from the air, costing the homeland nothing in blood or treasure. Not the policies of either political party but the policy of the Protectionist Party - a bunch of toothless old men that died years ago! As real Americans will now pick up the very flag they once carried in the name of Liberty LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC! - Earn Snyder
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I thought that the item about not giving any aid to a country supporting terror is interesting. Does that mean that I do not have to pay taxes. We need to be honest with the world and our own citizens. We have always supported terrorism. It just happens to be terrorism that we consider good for our country. But isn't that what other countries do is support terrorism that supports their country, religion, or ideals. Isn't it terrorism with invading Cuba at the bay of pigs. Or the CIA capturing civilians that we consider maybe terrorism. Or invading Afghanistan because the government there isn't to our liking. Or capture people in another country like Spain and torture them. I know that we only do these things to protect our country or the our interest in other countries. There is a famous bible quote that states "Those without sin can throw the first stone." I am not supporting terrorism but you have to understand that we have cause some of the reactions against us.
Cheeeefs in the tent! Look in the mirror - we have war make-up on! This is not time to argue about dead men that wrote specifics when toilets were just becoming state of the art! Oh yes, by the way we don't use an a sword anymore! Now we use TRUTH TO POWER! As both must get in line yesterday! Not quite so messy and easier to get recruits. - Earn Snyder
PROTECTIONIST
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Look frenchless ones! Grow some... Let Congress make the laws instead of the President while we find a leader that makes us scream! Let's get crazy and after the party we will negotiate with the old men in Congress! - Earn Snyder
PROTECTIONIST
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
The Legislative Branch (Congress) does make the laws.
The Executive Branch (President) executes and enforces the laws.
The Judicial Branch (Courts) interpret the law.
The Federal gov't has broken most of the chains that limit it's power and are in the process of finishing it off. Almost everything the gov't has undertaken unconstitutionally is an abysmal failure. They have the Midas touch, but it is not gold that everything turns to when the statists touch it. They have a golden rule, give us gold and we will rule in your favor. If the People are to live and prosper they must bind the government's power with the Constitution. My God, if we can't agree that the gov't first and foremost must abide by the Constitution what can we agree on. It is the glue that holds the nation together.
And the Supreme Court is final arbiter of what you say "bind government's power with the Constitution" right? Or do you think we need to get rid of the SC Justices (by maybe your 12 year olds)? Do you and Ron Paul subscribe to that???
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter as long as their rulings are not prima facia Unconstitutional, then the remedy is for the People to relieve themselves of an unbridled gov't, cast it off and start anew. The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots, someone once said, and the tree of liberty is wilting.
But is the source of the Problem the Supreme Court (appointed and approved by the Prez and Senate) or is it the OTHER two Branches? Define the real source of the problem before you prescribe a solution. IMHO the source IS Congress and the Prez (elected by us the people BTW)and NOT the Supremes.
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com