Let's start this out with a basic premise for which there can be no argument ..
The long term success of any venture DEPENDS ON PEOPLE, PLANS & PROGRAMS - APPROPRIATE TO COPE WITH ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS THAT CAN AFFECT THE SUCCESS OF THAT ENTERPRISE - NOTHING CAN BE LEFT TO CHANCE !!!
The People :
The People that manage the affairs of a Nation Cannot Possibly Be Skilled in all the Fields and Sciences involved, that said, There Are Three ESSENTIAL THINGS THEY NEED TO BE ABLE DEMONSTRATE BY RESUME & REFERENCES : Wisdom (Common Sense), Dedication (To Their Commitments), Integrity (Transparency/Loyalty) ..
The Plans & Programs :
The Plans & Programs for the AGENDA MUST ON THEIR FACE .. Reflect A Clear Understanding Of THE ISSUES & THE MOST EFFICACIOUS WAY TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES .. and Provide An Effective Means Of Marketing These Plans & Programs To Those Whose Support Is Essential To Success ..
The Criteria :
Our Target Audience RECOGNIZES OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN HI-JACKED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS, they don't trust the Willingness or Ability of Current Republicans and Democrats To - MAKE NECESSARY REFORMS IF EITHER PARTY CONTROLS THINGS AFTER THE ELECTIONS OF 2024 ..
Nothing The Democrats & Republicans are presenting through the Debates and/or the Campaigns of Their Candidates - is Tangible or Believable, the people have heard it all before ..
The Democrats haven't produced on any of the promises which gave them power in 2024 - in fact their actions have done more to harm and divide the nation ..
The Republicans seem to have lost the desire and ability to fight for what they believe in - rightly or wrongly ..
Our TARGET AUDIENCE (Electable Candidates - Millions of Potential Delegates & Supporters) ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT AND REAL ..
UNITY08 has the ability TO PROVIDE AN AGENDA THAT IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT & REAL ..
Contention :
Given the opportunity to put together a small team of Delegates - WILLING & ABLE TO THINK & WORK "OUTSIDE THE BOX", I can give The Delegates, The Founding Council - And The America People, AN AGENDA THAT WILL : Attract Electable Candidates & Millions Of Supporters For Our Candidates, Plans & Programs .. This Is No Brag - I can do this !!
We will need the Support of Steptoe & Johnson - UP FRONT, the two major parties will join forces to stop us from Releasing and marketing our Agenda, we can't afford to get tied up while we fight some kind of restraining order that would keep us off the Ballot in key States...
Folks, we can do this - I need your support to make it happen !
OUR GOAL : "T/P/A" TRANSPARENCY - PERFORMANCE - ACCOUNTABILITY !!!!!!!
The Ball's in your court now ..
Peter K (popo) Evans
Suggested Schedule Of Priorities ..
1. Create the ability to Eliminate Political Gridlock, Partisanship & Pandering To Special Interests !!
2. Develop new ideas and solutions for consideration relative to ...
(a) The crisis in the Middle East & our dependence on Foreign Oil
(b) The crisis at our Borders and what to do about 15/20 Million Illegals Already Here
(c) The crisis with increasing costs and decreasing revenues - and its affect on Social Security &
Medicare
(d) The crisis in our ability to protect ourselves from Domestic & Foreign Enemies
3. Develop new and better ideas FOR HANDLING "STATES RIGHTS" - to prevent them from IMPOSING
UNREASONABLE Social and Economic Burdens Upon The Nation and All Its Citizens
Just a few to be thinking about
pke popo
Any delegate council is useless - unless the Unity08 leadership gives the council an active role in the day-to-day functioning of the organization.
John Milligan, Kacz, and I attempted (separately, and then to some degree, together) to make headway on this back in February and March without any real success. The Unity08 dichotomy was (and is) odd in that the organization is ostensibly a populist organization, but only the leadership has the power to make decisions.
I'm sure Doug Bailey would have answered that Unity08 has a Founder's Council, which serves as an advisory board for the leadership. I've never seen any evidence that anyone, other than the leadership, has any power at Unity08.
The other problem is that the "Delegate Council" must be a representative body with somewhere between 1 and 3 representatives to advocate for the delegates; who would these people be, and who would decide?
The only answer is that the membership should decide, and for that to happen, the Unity08 leadership will have to organize the effort - since they alone have the database of the entire membership.
I don't see that happening.
If the leadership gave the membership an official role in decision-making, then the true nature of the organization would be apparent; the stated goals of the organization (as listed on the website) seem to be largely unacceptable to the current membership. Unity08 is structured as a moderate organization, and the membership (at least the visible membership)is much more reactionary; the organization wants to nominate two candidates who represent the middle between the two major parties, and the bulk of the delegates want to form a third-party, with "untainted" (and in my opinion, unelectable)leaders who identify soley with the political edge.
If the membership is allowed to have an active voice, then the dichotomy will be out in the open; the organization will then either be forced to change to reflect the membership, or the existing membership will get frustrated and drift away - a situation that would be terminal for the organization, since there is precious little time to rebuild a membership base (and in politics, membership is power). If Unity08 can't control the "hearts and minds" of the membership, then the organization isn't viable.
I see the Unity08 leadership persuing a different strategy; they will string the current reactionary membership along as long as possible, and hope that eventually a large block of unhappy centrist voters will come along and outnumber the current third-party oriented, disaffected membership.
These future members(the unhappy centrist voters) are the "millions" who really count; they either exist or they don't, and that will detrimine if Unity08 has any hope of influencing the 2024 election.
If the current membership votes on a delegate council (or anything else), the result will be a disaster for the survival of Unity08. The current membership would be very unlikely to produce responsible representatives, and the delegates who are itching to speak for the membership on this thread don't have the grounding in reality to be taken seriously - which is another reason why Unity08 will not allow a viable delegate council to form.
The foremost voice of reason ( and therefore the best delegate representative) on this forum is John Milligan. And it is telling that John is frequently the dissenter against the majority in many of the Shoutbox threads.
This tells me that the current membership is unequipped to make good decisions, and because of that, I really have no desire to see them take an active role in the leadership of Unity08.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I have never in my life read a more precise condemnation of the principles of democracy as I have just read in your post.
Where would this country be if our founding fathers had heeded your advice?
Indeed, the guiding premise of Unity08 is just the opposite: the center lies with the people, if only their voices were heard. It is this hope, this light, that Unity08 now holds up in the political darkness for people to see ... and they will see it. The formation of a true "Delegate Council" will only add to Unity08's light, making it brighter, reflecting an ever more centralist view as more and more people sign up to be members of Unity08's Delegate Council, perhaps thousands, which will surely overwhelm the extremest amongst us. It always has, it always will.
All you need do is place your trust in democracy and democracy will do the rest. If Unity08 leaders can't do that, how can Unity08 ever really represent the people?
ex animo
davidfarrar
of members who could join your "Delegate Council", wouldn't they then just be "Delegates"? Without the support of the Unity08 leadership, what would be any different?
If the Unity08 leadership wanted to put an agenda to a vote, they could do it next week - with or without input from David Farrar. Why then is a Delegate Council needed? The only reason to form a Delegate Council is to influence the leadership.
If the Unity08 leadership wanted to function as a true populist organization, they would have done it already, and there would be no need for a Delegate Council.
If Unity08 decides they don't want any direct sharing of management with the delegates, then they won't allow the formation of an official Delegate Council, in which case the entire question is mute, because any Council would function unofficially and have no ability to change anything.
Either way, David Farrar is left with two basic choices: to be a delegate (subject to the whim of the current leadership), or not to be a delegate.
You either approve of the leadership of Unity08 and support them, or you don't - and in that case, you are left with writing posts on the Shoutbox - just like the rest of us.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
"If Unity08 decides they don't want any direct sharing of management with the delegates, then they won't allow the formation of an official Delegate Council, in which case the entire question is mute, because any Council would function unofficially and have no ability to change anything." To me, this sounds precisely like the kind of reasoning the other two majority political parties are guilty of. I thought Unity08 was different. I thought Unity08 was actually going to be a direct reflection of its membership.
Without a true, "Delegate Council" working with Uniyt08's leadership, Unity08 cannot be strong enough to force the political discussion of the other two parties back to the middle. There are no short cuts to gaining political power. At present, all Unity08 is committed too is talking the talk.
But why debate imaginary numbers. The real answer is right here in front of us. All Unity08 has to do is poll the general membership on this issue and LET THE DELEGATES DECIDE -- that is where the real power lies. The owners know what the result will be. They know there are thousands of delegates who understand this point and who will participate in a true, demorcratic Delegate Council. The only question remaining is: can Unity08 walk the walk?
ex animo
davidfarrar
I'll admit I can't say it any better than David did, that said, I would ask you to respect this thread as one devoted to positive pursuits ..
This I do want to say, I don't remember you being at the April 16 meeting - I was there and stayed an extra day to get answers from Doug Bailey, man to man ..
My assessment is based on that meeting - and the fact that I lived through the same events and time as Doug Bailey, Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan ..
My answer to you is this : They are sincere - they have a Plan & Schedule designed to (a) limit the chances of someone Hijacking our Program & Our Delegates and (b) reduce the chances of The Two Major Parties of joining forces to block our efforts to get on the ballot in some key States ..
You've been with UNITY08 almost since the beginning, I hope you change your mind about what Phil, Steve, John, David (yes David) - and I are trying to do with this Thread and join us ..
pke popo
Your proposal - the same one that you have posted over and over, has been ignored by Doug Bailey, and by the new leadership.
You say: "They are sincere (the Unity08 leadership) - they have a Plan & Schedule designed to limit the chances of someone Hijacking our Program & Our Delegates"
If Unity08 is a true populist organization, then that is not possible, since the delegates could "Hijack" themselves, by voting for a particular position. If the organization was truly populist, then the Unity08 leadership would already be directed by the membership - and not the other way around. Do you see any evidence of this happening?
If the members form a "Delegate Council" with no official blessing from Unity08, then it will have no influence.
If Unity08 decides to cooperate in the formation of a delegate council (and if they decide to give it a true purpose), then the idea would be worth persuing; then, and only then, and not before.
Peter, you aren't looking to participate, you are looking to dictate - and you will never do that until you base your ideas on reality.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I never wanted to lead - my goal was and is to Contribute - BUT I didn't see you or anyone else Offering Ideas For Something We Badly NEED - An Agenda ..
Yes you are right - I've Given you'll the benefit of over 40 Years of Valuable Experience, and up until very recently FEW PEOPLE WERE PAYING ATTENTION AND APPRECIATED the accuracy of my information and potential value of my ideas ..
Just to set the record straight - my mentor for almost four years back in the 1950's was one of America's most successful and original thinkers, Boss Kettering (Kettering Ohio was named in his Honor), Boss invented the Self Starter, the Storage Battery and many more things - check his name out on the INTERNET C.F. Kettering ..
Boss taught me well years ago : When you see something that needs to work better than it is - DO YOUR HOMEWORK - LOOK FOR THE REASONS WHY It's NOT WORKING AS GOOD AS IT SHOULD - come up with a way to make it work better !!
That's precisely what I've done . now let's see if you have what it takes to improve on it or come up with something better ..
And yes I'm angry, I bust my butt to give you guys something positive to work with - and I have to keep reading this crap about who I am and what I want to be .. I DON'T WANT TO BE A DAMN THING - but someone who helped Unity08 Take Back The Country for The American People !!
POPO
You express your experience at a very high and often abstract level and very agreeably from that prespective. I, like some, don't say much about it because we have the gut feeling that there are many devils in many details. That only means those of that mind need to take one specific step after another not that they wish to impede those that want to go in leaps. You have outlined the leaps but you will need to trust us with the steps.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I need to back off, calm down and see where this THREAD GOES .. it started out on the right track - now its been thrown off course ..
You are right - let's see what steps evolve, in the meantime if anyone has specific questions or suggestions about Building The Agenda .. I'll be standing by ..
popo
Everyone should take a step back for a moment and look at the posts on these boards. We are activist-minded, not cooperation-minded. For every one person who is preaching common sense centrism, there are ten others who preach from the left or right wing.
We have to be realistic here. A successful Unity candidate is NOT going to be a "dream" candidate. He or she will be an "acceptable" candidate. The whole point is to have appeal to the common sense (read: non-activist) faction in both parties. This means that we have to learn to cooperate, and to compromise on our candidates and beliefs. This means that neither Ron Paul nor Dennis Kucinich are good Unity candidates. Both men are admirable in their principles, but both would fail to appeal to the center on the electoral battlefield.
Jeff is spot on with the assessment that if voting opened today on any matter that we'd end up with radical choices, not sober ones. Part of this is due to the Unity leadership being somewhat lax on leading in the realm of pointing out centrism thinking and grooming people away from the poles. Another part of this circumstance is simply that the most active participants in 3rd party efforts ARE the wing activists. They are the canaries in the coal mines; the first to sense the problems with the system. They come looking for new harbors, but they bring their wing philosophy with them.
I would further assert that this is precisely why Unity is operating as a focus group at the current time. To operate as a "full online democracy" presumes that the membership is committed to a common goal as opposed to their own special interests. That isn't the case at the present time, and so the leadership is wise to keep a large degree of control.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
The delegates should decide who realistic U08 candidates are. A centrist plurality from the two major parties that can come together to solve our problems is a myth. It is going to take radical change in politics to bring about the changes needed in government not some warmed over Dumbocrat or Republicrook.
U08 long ago promised candidates/issues polls but so far we have nothing. U08 needs to get these polls up and the sooner the better. When all is said and done U08 is still an Internet event and we all know who the King of the Internet is as far as politics go. When crunch time comes his supporters will flood U08! This is not lost on either you GP or monzoman which is the reason for your recent post on the subject. The delegates should decide who the U08 candidates will be and I think they will. Their choice will be seen as radical by those who want change but not too much change.
A radical candidate is not going to be acceptable to our target audience, which is the non-activist, non-wing voter. Yet most of Unity's current membership is radical, and hence would elect a radical candidate.
Your Ron Paul movement is a perfect example of this. If (or when) Ron Paul fails to win the Republican nomination, his supporters will most certainly descend upon Unity08 in an attempt to push Paul to the nomination.
Would such a maneuver be a reasonable cross section of democracy? No. It would just be the largest dedicated activist group beating out smaller activist groups. This is beacuse the Unity membership consists of activists, NOT a true cross section of Americana. So either we need to recruit our way to that cross section, or the leadership grooms us towards it.
That's our point. The founding fathers themselves knew this. They preached against "the beast of blind democracy" and structured the republican form of government that we have as a hedge against raging populism (radicalism). If you would assert that this mode of operation is a successful one, then I would think you would be willing to assert that this same mode of operation would be successful in other institutions...such as Unity08.
We therefore have a leadership body that is regulating the amount of pure populism that is permitted to flow through the institution in the same way the fuel system of a car regulates the flow of gas and air to the engine. This tempering is necessary. The founding fathers knew it and so does the Unity leadership. And that's why we're still in focus group mode...
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Our founding fathers were themselves elected officials from their own states. And while it is true, raw democracy would be little more than mob rule, the unelected owners of Unity08, working in conjunction with a properly convened "Delegate Council", would be able to rightfully arrive at and present a centralist consensus... when the convention hall doors open.
But to suggest that someone other the delegates themselves will have to artificially create a "centralist agenda" and then force-feed it to the delegates under any pretext, is a real recipe for political failure.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Go read the boards related to issues. There's almost nothing there that suggests to me that we'd arrive at anything other than a hodge podge of wing positions if the true democracy valves were opened. The extremist radicals outnumber the common sensists by an order of magnitude. The common sense body hasn't arrived yet because they're just not going to be into politics 2024 until they have to, which is next year, once the front runners are official.
Leadership leads. That's what it does and what it needs to do. The leadership should hash out centrism, or something near it that we can rally around. That activity is the realm of the leadership, not of "the people." It is tempered by the people, but it's still driven by expert knowledge and experience. It happens when the experts decide it should. The timing might be right, it might be wrong. But I can at least concede that Baily and the others have real world experience in this realm. They are more qualified than us.
If the process was as simple as a mass of people voting on an agenda, why would you need a delegate council to begin with? Wouldn't the delegation alone be just fine? To want a delegate council suggests to me that you're admitting that you need to tend the democracy valve with some judicious consideration. If that's the case, then I'd rather have the founders tend that valve than ambitious delegates on these boards.
Now make sure to vote me down, and savor that click. I'm hoping to break my record of -3 and get to at least -5 this time ;)
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Sound advice there GP. My gander at the posts reveals to me that Unity is just not ready for Prime Time to vote on anything. We need to til the centrist soil and grow the centrist base or else this org will be hijacked by the fringe "Paulistas" or whatever to the deteriment of sober sound rational centrist visions. Let the other Parties be captured as they have by their Activist Fringe elements but not us.
That "tilling" (reach out/coalition with BipartisanCentrist groups/key players) to prep the soil for the next 3 or 4 months needs to come from BOTH "on-high" for and from the masses. But Unity Leadership has to set the agenda and do it pretty quick IMHO. Doug Bailey said back at the 4/16 meeting that he hoped to get 1 million by Nov 2024 and THEN would open the discussion to building the Centrist New American Agenda. He theorized that with a bigger base Unity would result in more moderate/rational policies. I said that we needed to stand for something Centrist to grow the base.
One look at the shoutbox and its "fringy" non-centrist tilts and the raw numbers shows that None Of The Above has occurred. We have not grown the base yet sufficient to broaded our centrist roots ala Doug and thus the fringy element dominates the shoutbox. But I hate to admit but do think Doug may have been right and Unity will need to grow first to 1 million or else we will in limbo-land and prone to the fringe elements - just like the other parties. But we still need something that that 1 Mil will be compelled to come to and eventually beat the other 2 Parties. It won't happen by magic that 1 million!
But Unity can still Til the Centrist soil by reaching out to those Centrist Groups, drawing in some Centrist heavy weights for some Info-nairs or something on the various issues and start linking up with the Blue Dog Demos, Tuesday Group Repubs to draw in their ideas on the Agenda so we do not have to kowtow any more to the fringe. My advice to Doug and the crew is simple - lead, give us a little direction here, and be what you profess to be and start reaching out to the Vast Center and not just throw something up and hope against hope that something will stick.
"Which Road Do I Take," asked Alice.
"Where Do You Want To Go." replied the Cheshire Cat
"I Don't Know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the Cat, "It Does Not Matter"
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Thread started out way different from what is here now. Had something going but the post that would make this thread make more sense was moved to Does Unity08 have a Platform.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Tilling the centralist soil will only get you more apathy. Bipartisan, centrist coalition building in a super-heated election year will only work to isolate Unity08 even more and fill its ranks with well-meaning, but politically inactive members.
Trying to prescribe Unity08's agenda to the centralist camp instead of allowing the delegates themselves to decide where they want to go is a political death sentence. Not because centralism is wrong, but because it might be wrong. The one truism in politics is that nobody has a crystal ball. Nobody really knows for sure where the right answers are going to be found. Trying to manipulate the true, democratic voice of the delegates with a centralist slant, will automatically limit Unity08 political growth.
Do I know which way to go? No, and neither do you; neither does Doug Bailey; neither do any of the owners of Unity08, or their hired help. But I do know how to find the right path and when the right path is found, people will come, and they will come by the millions. All you have to do is put your faith in democracy. And when you put your faith in democracy instead of your brains, go out and find as much of it as you can, any place you can, as often as you can. That is the path Unity08 should take. That is the path Unity08 should have taken. That is the path Unity08 must take if it hopes to succeed.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I think you jump the gun on the epitaph thing there Dave. The clock is ticking but there still is time. If History teaches us one lesson it is this - NOTHING is inevitable until it happens. This politics above all is a crap shoot at best and as you say no one has a crystal ball. Unity does have a chance though still to effectively capture the middle if things break "right" in the 2 paries' pony shows and if Unity does get it together and do their do diligence to cultivate (before Feb 2024) that Center with some decent Centrist ICB and the requisite follow through reachout. Ultimately Unity will reap what they will sow but that will ultimately be soil that must be well prepped in order to succeed. I am seeing scant little prep on Centrist ICB that will capture that Center citizenry. Still, me being the eternal optimist, there is still time. But the clock is ticking folks!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
...but who elected these people to lead? What makes you think their leadership is going to be better than that of the collective leadership of the delegate body? And for that matter, what makes you think the right answers are even located in the center? In perilous times, the right answers are often located on the edges. What some may call extreme, others may call decisive. To many, myself included, hard nosed, decisive, out-of-the-box kind of thinking may be just what we need. That kind of thinking isn't going to be found in the center. Centralist thinking is, well, average thinking, middle-of-the-road, consensus-forming, fence-sitting.
The challenge here is not to have Unity08 delegates simply follow an already laid down agenda created by Unity08's owners, but to create an effective web-presence that will take all Unity08 delegates' voices into consideration and bring forth an accurate, true representation of their agenda. But without the active input of a true Delegate Council, which I believe the four owners of Unity08 have no intention of creating, all it will be is just talk.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Quote - "But to suggest that someone other the delegates themselves will have to artificially create a "centralist agenda" and then force-feed it to the delegates under any pretext, is a real recipe for political failure."
Anybody can create anything - it is the amount of support you get that is important. Without delegate support, Unity08 will fail.
But most organizations are built around specific ideas. "Focus on the Family" is a creation of James Dobson, as is the "Family Research Council".
You know exactly what you are getting if you join those organizations.
Unity08 is built on broad concepts, not specifics, and nobody knows for sure what the end result will be.
If the populist doctrine is followed, then Unity08 could easily veer off in any political direction, since there isn't enough membership at this time to form a broad-spectrum representative group of potential voters. GP is right; at this point, Unity08 membership is dominated mainly by activist members who represent only the extreme views of typical third-party organizations.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Jeff, you offer a reasonable assessment of the status quo and I really do not see where this 'dictator' talk comes from. I can expand your vision a little though. Unity 08 is gathering a delegate life outside of the Shoutbox that I am very aware of. The people responding locally are much more in tune with the Unity 08 mission, moderation, mutual respect, and readiness to get to work in our neighborhoods and civic venues. Working with the Ballot Access Director may help focus the organization.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
This comment has been moved here.
If you guys don't allow threads to develop under a specific topic, we will never get anywhere, you want to talk about The Merits of A System Delegate Council - look for it as A Topic, if there isn't one - start one ..
There is something I would like to point out to you both : The system is broken - The Two Major Parties Have Known What's Wrong for at least 4 Decades, They Will Not Fix It Themselves and They'll Make Every Effort To Stop Others From Fixing It - WHY ?? because To Fix It Means Establishing Transparency, Imposing/Enforcing Effective Checks and Balances on Performance & Accountability !!
Previous attempts of 3rd Parties To Institute Political Reform Failed - Because They Tried To Play By Rules Established By The Republicans & Democrats To Protect Their Power, Pay, Perks, Pensions AND Their Path To Big Bucks as Lobbyists !! You See That's The Real World of American Politics !!
If we play by those same rules - we won't even be an also ran, I haven't spent 40 + years paying my dues to lose this opportunity by default ..
It's going to take A NEW STRATEGY TO WIN THIS BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE - we need to make new rules and have a powerful affirmative defense ready to cut off opposition at the knees, my assessment of Steptoe and Johnson is - they are perfectly capable of handling this (that's what real Lawyering is all about) ..
Plse guys, The People On This Thread Want To Build an Agenda To Submit To The Delegates That Will : Attract Electable Candidates and Millions Of New Supporters - so you'll can VOTE ON IT AND THE FOUNDING COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT IT !!
Phil, Steve - where did you go ??
Pke popo
supposedly (hopefully) unity has in excess of 100,000 members. but if you look closely at the shoutbox it is basically a handful of people (myself included) who are consistently posting opinions. i don't think we know where the majority of unity members stand as far as issues and choosing candidates. i believe it has a long way to evolve. and as posted previously we still have a long time until elections.
If we had a Delegate Council created, we would have been able to inform the Unity08 leadership exactly where the majority of Unity08's members stood on the issues. But, of course, that assumes Uniity08's leadership cares where the majority of their membership stand on the issues.
ex animo
davudfarrar
"We have to be realistic here. A successful Unity candidate is NOT going to be a "dream" candidate. He or she will be an "acceptable" candidate." -GP
Then we'll have 3 "acceptable" candidates, Hillary, Mitt, and whatever pandering idiot we put in the middle (or rather side-by-side, since they'll all equally be in the "middle"). What a fantastic choice, a super-breed of a candidate, never being able to say or do anything definite for fear of not looking "centrist" and not appearing "electible."
Like Steven Tyler of Aerosmith once wrote:
"If you do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got" - who wants a Unity08 candidate that is exactly the same as a republocrat?
What it all boils down to, is that "electability" is a myth perpetuated by people like you and "special interests." Real electability is not what the news tells you 18 months prior to an election but what you find out after the election.
By "acceptable" I mean that the candidate MUST, absolutely MUST, be able to appeal to one-third of BOTH major parties. If it's otherwise, then it's just an activist candidate who will appeal to one side and thereby serve as a spoiler.
Remember that the Mainstream Media, at the behest of the powers that be, is not going to be our friend if Unity gets real traction. If they can paint Unity easily to one side or the other they will. That's why this only works with an "acceptable" candidate; not a Ron Paul, not a Ralph Nader.
I have worked on a 3rd party campaign last time. I saw first hand how easy it was to simply paint it as spoiler and relegate it to an activist vote. Electability is not a myth, and the special interests are what's connected to the major parties a lot more than Unity.
If we are in it to win it, we start with the rule of thirds. That means everything must be in the middle and bent on beating BOTH parties at the same time. "Pure" ideology feels nice, but it almost always appeals to one side or the other. If we are to carve out our own land from the two-party landscape we have to do it from both parties equally.
This requires the same sort of compromising that will happen after the dem/reps please the activists and then appeal to the masses. The difference is that their campaigns are still connected to special interests of the elite and ours the special interest of the people.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
I guess I just believe that you can appeal to 1/3 of both sides of the "spectrum" without being "centrist." It's quite simple, stand for personal freedom and equality. Politicians do it all the time, and usually lose, not because they don't appeal to enough people, but because people believe the labels perpetuated by the powers that be, "extremist," "unelectable," "spoiler," etc.
Appealing to the people is not the problem, you inadvertently hit the nail on the head: "the Mainstream Media, at the behest of the powers that be, is not going to be our friend" and more specifically, "their campaigns are still connected to special interests." Without pandering to special interests, anyone is doomed to be labeled "unelectable," whether or not they appeal to 1/3 of each side (which I'm convinced, talking to people of different persuasions, the Ron Pauls and the Naders in politics actually do).
I just don't think we, or anyone, can beat them at their own game. Whether or not the political concepts appeal to one side more than the other or whether they are "centrist," no one is going to stand a chance in the two-party system without redefining the rules of the game and explicitly rejecting the current labels.
You and I agree on all but the means. All I get from you is an endorsement of the system you paradoxically want to undo.
The word centrist is sort of meaningless. I wouldn't deny that. But it is a starting point. If you have a better word to encompass "the strategy of winning an election as an alternate party by intentionally wooing away one-third of the votes from both competitors and hence beating the spoiler principle" then by all means advance it.
"Centrist" is just the word I use. It was the word used for Jesse Ventura's campaign here in Minnesota in 1998 when he in fact did win exactly by the definition above. It's a starting point, an anchor; imperfect but nonetheless easy to grasp in broad terms.
As for the apparent paradox, I by NO means endorse the system as it is and want it to stand. I want change. However, my mode of change starts first and foremost with a sober evaluation of the arena of competition. We CANNOT - I want to repeat this to make it clear - CANNOT change the rules of the game until we win in some fashion. We therefore MUST play by the rules imposed upon us. They are unfair. They are against us, but they quite simply ARE.
I worked in Nader's campaign in 2024 as a protest to being angry having voted Bush in 2024. In 2024, I leaned right at the time and thought an "anti-incumbent" / "clean start" motive would be a good idea. Oh was I wrong. So in 2024 I wanted to bail on the system entirely and cast a protest vote.
In any case, I can assert with great confidence that people are in fact NOT at all open to 3rd party candidates on the wings. Once I got to know Ralph's positions and who he was I found a great deal to admire. I still admire him. Everything I had known prior to that, and what most people know now are just what his critics say, which is amplified by the media. And they chose to amplify that which would paint him entirely as left wing.
That's why this time around, as much as I admire Ralph, I want to work with something that has a chance to win. Thus, I will trade some ideology for some probability. It was clear in 2024 that Ralph would only take votes from the left. The dems spent millions to tie up his campaign in frivolous lawsuits, and the reps did a similar thing to the Reform party in 1996 for the same reason.
Ralph was not shaped by his own beliefs, but by his critics. Unity will face that same problem, so the only way to break out of that trap is to have a candidate that is clearly towards the center, and can advocate from the center. Further, if the mainstream media cannot pin the candidate left or right, and the candidate markets NOT TO THE BASE, but to the common sense, swing voters in each party, we have a chance. Again, Ventura did this perfectly in 1998. It can be done, but it's a darn tough tightrope act.
Quite simply, the 3rd party race is a contest of the 3rd party against the spoiler principle. People will NOT take a chance on a 3rd party unless it appears it has a chance to win, and the only group of people willing to take that chance are the ones near the middle, NOT the wings. That is why the strategy must start with centrism (or whatever you want to call it) and must operate in the reality and by the rules of the current duopoly.
It's the people vs the system. Practical victory first; ideological "purity" later.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
we can't forget perot getting 20% even though he kind of flaked out. i voted for him because i was voting for change. i think the nation is now ripe as it has ever been for getting a third party in the white house. but of course that all depends who the third party candidates are. fringe candidates will not get elected i don't care how good they poll on the internet. i did not vote (due to disillusionment with all politicians)in another presidential election until 04'. i voted kerry simply as the lesser of two evils and for the first time in my life feared the current president. i talk to many common people like myself and they also feel that the presidential election is about voting for who is going to screw things up less.
a sad statement on where we are today.
Your argument about avoiding media and special interest attacks is quite valid. Although I think I'd point out that a candidates political barometer has less to do with media attacks than with special interest association. In other words, an appealing candidate that, technically, is moderate, will still be painted as too liberal/conservative because they're not in anyone's pocket. It's exactly what you described happened to Nader. It's happened to candidates that were much more moderate too. Dean comes to mind as a recent example, being practically on the right side of the aisle with gun control and budget views but also heavily arguing against media conglomeration.
Too me it seems a see-saw because by being what we've been calling "centrist," candidates may appeal to 1/3 of each side but don't stand out enough to get their votes. I think that although most people would agree with most of their positions, they'll most likely agree more with one of the established parties.
The only chance Unity08 has with this plan of action, is to appeal to the idea of change in the system, someone fresh, a fresh party/organization, someone not associated with special interests, etc. (which is what you've been talking about). Ironically, however, I believe that they will not stand out enough from either of the other 2 candidates to convincingly represent that change. People will scratch their heads and say, "I'd like something new, but this person doesn't seem to represent anything new aside from not representing one of the two parties. I guess I'll just vote for..."
They won't be financed by special interests, which means they'll still get attacked just as much as an extremist.
You are correct "AD". In order to be viable, Untiy08's middle-of-the-read agenda will have to be compelling enough to overcome the inevitable media hostility against 3rd party spoilers, while attracting 1/3 of the voters from the other two parties. The problem is, unless this agenda is talked about on TV, in the press, and at dinner tables all across this country, Unity08's divided ticket will be shunned by both parties and the media as a nothing more than a political stunt, a gimmick.
To date, the only issue I have seen that rally electrifies Americans of all walks of life to this degree are taxes (personal freedom and equality). Most think they are unfair and most want them changed.
So I would ask all of you to cruise through the others items on this forum and ask yourself this qiestion: Which one will compel 1/3 of the voters of each party to support the Unity08 ticket, plus overcome the adverse media coverage of Unity08?
If, after looking at all the other suggestions, you agree that taxes should be our main focuse; I would like to ask you to simply press the "vote (+) (-)" button at the top, right-hand portion of this message.
Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I agree with much of what Jeff says. There are too many radicals here, moderates are not well represented. Indeed I think we scare most moderates off. I think Unity08 must know this by now.
This was the reason behind trying to use public opinion polls to guide us to a supermajority platform that will be broadly supported by the moderate majority.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
I thought we had worked out what a "moderate" issue was: One that can win the support of 1/3 of the voters from each of the two major political parties, and overcome media inertia.
Look, this is not rocket science. Moderates are just like anybody else. When they hear their issue being supported by whomever, they will respond. All we have to do is adopt their issues. And I would think taxes are just that kind of an issue....especially the unconstitutionality of wages being taxed as income.
Now I know you guys aren't buying this right now...but just keep it in the back of your minds, so you can compare it with all of the other "moderate" issues that will be coming forward soon.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I guess Jeff C was right about me - I do want to Lead ...
Check my posting to FOX News About Last Night'd Debate on www.america-21stcentury.com, I also sent an email to Britt Hume, Chris Wallace, Doug Bailey, Bob Roth and Peter Seep the Press Guy for the NTU ( Nat'l Taxpayers Union - 500,000 Members)
ALL PART OF THE AGENDA BUILDING PROCESS ..
popo
Though I think GEA's topic on Supermajority issues and it's attendant threads do very well in expressing "moderate" issues, I do think that 'consensus' issues is more descriptive of the objective.
These are clearly such matters as Border Security, Balanced Budgets, Accessible Healthcare, Campaign finance, etc., where a consensus position is available. Nothing about taxes will reach a consensus level (as can be seen in this shoutbox) and will only serve to marginalize the Unity 08 movement in the general electorate.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Unity08 should announce on these critical issues where there is broad support. This would drive the membership up.
This is also a sound reason to advocate for centrist candidates; a true centrist candidate will probably make no one completely happy, but almost everyone will find areas of agreement.
The bottom-line is simple:
Unity08 must draw an average of 50,000 delegates per month between now and next June to be a viable force going into the general election. Even if the process is back-loaded, that means Unity08 should be drawing (and Keeping!) 25,000 members a month between now and Christmas.
If Unity08 can't be over 200,000 members by the new year (and the start of the primary season), then the organization will flame out. Doug Bailey wanted a million members by this November, and that was a downward revision from previous predictions.
To achieve these numbers, we have to give out more detail about Unity08's positions on critical issues. All of the issues Bill mentioned are wide-consensus issues that will draw in new membership. There is no down-side to promoting these issues, and SOMETHING has to change to allow Unity08 to meet the membership goals.
Can we all agree on this? Is there anyone out there who doesn't think Unity08 needs to grow to survive?
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
... but I agree with your tactical assessment. But your political premiss is badly flawed.
I think Bob Roth said they were going to disclose the results of their poll next week. I am sure they will all be centrist issues, advocated by centrist candidates, leaving no one completely happy, but most finding things they can support. The question is: will there be something there that will compel the 100,000 present members of Unity08 to drop what they are doing, reach into their wallets and pull out a ten-dollar bill and send it into Unity08? Will there be something there that will cause the 100,000 present members of Unity08 to drop what they are doing and go out and get ten others in the immediate family and neighbohoods to join Unity08 who will send in their ten dollare, and then go out and get their ten other members to join Unity08?
We will see. Let's all hope so.
ex animo
davidfarrar
... but I agree with your tactical assessment. But your political premiss is badly flawed.
I think Bob Roth said they were going to disclose the results of their poll next week. I am sure they will all be centrist issues, advocated by centrist candidates, leaving no one completely happy, but most finding things they can support. The question is: will there be something there that will compel the 100,000 present members of Unity08 to drop what they are doing, reach into their wallets and pull out a ten-dollar bill and send it into Unity08? Will there be something there that will cause the 100,000 present members of Unity08 to drop what they are doing and go out and get ten others in the immediate family and neighbohoods to join Unity08 who will send in their ten dollare, and then go out and get their ten other members to join Unity08?
We will see. Let's all hope so.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Unity08 should announce on these critical issues where there is broad support. This would drive the membership up.
This is also a sound reason to advocate for centrist candidates; a true centrist candidate will probably make no one completely happy, but almost everyone will find areas of agreement.
The bottom-line is simple:
Unity08 must draw an average of 50,000 delegates per month between now and next June to be a viable force going into the general election. Even if the process is back-loaded, that means Unity08 should be drawing (and Keeping!) 25,000 members a month between now and Christmas.
If Unity08 can't be over 200,000 members by the new year (and the start of the primary season), then the organization will flame out. Doug Bailey wanted a million members by this November, and that was a downward revision from previous predictions.
To achieve these numbers, we have to give out more detail about Unity08's positions on critical issues. All of the issues Bill mentioned are wide-consensus issues that will draw in new membership. There is no down-side to promoting these issues, and SOMETHING has to change to allow Unity08 to meet the membership goals.
Can we all agree on this?
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
...during the time period Unity08 will have to be heard if it is to be successful.
Again, lets be clear on our terms: "Moderate" issues. An issue that is strong enough for tear 1/3 of the voters away from the other two major political parties and overcome media hostility to 3rd party spoilers in the time period allotted.
Remember now, right about the time Unity08 says it is going to pose these questions to its nominees, the other two political parties will have chosen their candidates, consolidate their resources and changed their campaign focus from their fringe base to the center, moderates and independents. So all effort by both parties, and the campaigns of their two nominees, will now be focused on the ideological center, making it much, much harder in the few remaining months left until election time for Unity08's moderate, consensus-forming message to be heard by millions and flock to our cause.
But wait, this will be the very time Unity08 leaders plan to be at their most attractable. So what makes anybody think "consensus" issues Unity08's candidates support are not going to be echoed again, and again by the other two candidates' campaigns, and their parties, in their fight for the center, moderates, and independents as well?
But if Unity08's candidates publicly call the constitutionality of the federal income tax into question, it will be heard, irrespective of the noise the other to two political parties, and their candidates campaigns, will be making at the time. It will be a powerful question, touching the hearts and minds of the electorate, and igniting full-fledged media attention right when Unity08 will be at its best and needing it the most.
Hey! it's just a thought. Take it or leave it.
ex animo
davidfarrar
We want to get the electorate thinking, not laughing.
The horse you are beating died long ago. The Federal income tax is constitutional.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Where is the positive law from Congress, statutorially authorizing a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of Americans?
Article XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration."
This is the Sixteenth Amendment; but notice that it makes no provision for the repeal of the clauses requiring apportionment. Why? Because it was not the "intent" of Congress to levy a direct tax (or a "capitation" tax for that matter), the "intent" was to clarify that a tax laid upon the "income", derived from real and personal property, was in its nature an excise tax. In other words, Congress specifically intended that the "gains and profits" derived from the "income" of real and personal property be treated in the same manner as the "gains and profits" derived from business and professional pursuits. In other words, the Sixteenth Amendment is a "net-income" tax, not a gross income tax.
It is the Treasury Department that has said as a laborer you have "no cost basis" in your own labor (property), therefore your wages are surplus (gains and profits). Read: 7. ARE WAGES TAXABLE AS INCOME? and: PITTSBURGH v. ALCO PARKING CORP., 417 U.S. 369 (1974) 417 U.S. 369.
The following section illustrates the progression of the Federal Income Tax from the original "intent" of the Amendment in 1913, up to our current system under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. The changes in terminology are subtle, yet immense in reality.
Congressman Berger of Wisconsin, in his address to the House of Representatives provides an interesting clue as to what changes occurred even by on December 12, 1925 His statements are recorded on pages 747 and 748 of Volume 67, Part 1, of the Congressional Record. Under the heading "Word ‘income’ used in two ways", he says: " Whenever the word ‘income’ is applied to a corporation or business, it means net profit. It means the surplus which remains after provision is made for all expenses and the maintenance and replacement of machinery.
"On the other hand, whenever the term is applied to the individual worker, it simply means his wages or salary.
"There is no consideration for the human asset that is being used up—none for the replacement of the person worn out by the stress of modern industry---no provision for the raising of a family."
ex animo
davidfarrar
From the point of view of electoral traction and the issue you're proposing, David, the real questions are:
1) How do you solve the unemployment problem OVERNIGHT caused by the eradication of the funding source for the largest employer in the United States (the government)?
2) Do you really and truly think that people are going to line up behind a proposal that would derail the entire economic system of the country and leave vast tracts of our society unemployed? (Remember that among the vast expenditures by the government are billions going to private entities; killing the tax intake kills them too).
3) Do you think that the functionality provided by government's "unconstitutional" tax system will just continue to exist if the means to pay for it disappears overnight?
If you still really believe this is marketable just look at the past cases of people trying to market this sort of lunacy. They are deemed crackpots the moment they appear on screen...and they are.
It's not a matter of believing that something is unconstitutional. Many things probably are. The CIA and FBI are also painted with this brush. What matters is the sobriety and maturity of the plan to make positive changes. You can't simply eradicate insitutions like the IRS any more than one can achieve weightloss by hacking off their gut with a machete; the process has to improve the patient through realistic practices, not kill it through radical action.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that they (Fed, FBI, CIA, and IRS) are NOT part of the U.S. Government?? Haven't they in fact ruled that they are and for the IRS/Treasury that taxes are not voluntary?? The Supremes are the final say in all this. Until they act (and they have do date) otherwise this Tax issue is a non-issue IMHO and a REAL red herring crack-pot issue that can only discredit Unity.
However I'm all for repealing the 16th Amend and enacting a new Amendment that would ban all income taxes (as before the 16th Amend we did have some income taxes as a precedent). This would probably be necessary in order to phase out from income taxes and phase in a sales/value added tax which I am for. I just do not think it should be a Unity priority as this would take away from other more pressing issues.
And we should keep the Fed and the rest also. And the IRS I have no problems with as long as the Supremes say it is an authorized part of the Govt. But the Fed Tax Code is the Prime Beast in my cross-hairs and the mother-milk/mother-lode of the 3,000 plus K-Street Lobbyist Special Interest PACs (most representing you and me BTW) working their ways in Gucci Gulch up there on Cap Hill. They are perpetuators par excellance of the entire Entitlement Mentality that has gripped this nation inthe last 30 years. THAT is where our focus should be directed and not Dave's "Tax Ghost".
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The judges sitting on the Supreme Court, as well as all federal judges, are paid by the government. It is Congress that makes the laws.
All this question would do, if posed, is ask Congress to pass a direct, positive law on the inclusion of wages as gross income that would make it unnecessary to have to go to the Supreme Court to decipher it in the first place. That is all the question, itself, does, but the stage will be set to address the whole issue of the federal income tax, its fairness, it possible replacement with a fair tax, a consumption tax, whatever.
So let me get real here for a minute. Ron Paul will not participate in a 3rd party bid for the presidency. I believe he is a man of his word. He has said he will not participate. With the inclusion of this one question in the vast repertoire of Unity08's nominating questions we can attract all of Ron Paul's supporters -- I'd say the political risk of posing it is worth the shot.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The purpose of this proposed question being adopted by Unity08, and subsequently asked to its nominees, is not to cast stones or encourage outrage against the "system", but to bring to the forefront the issue of tax fairness in general.
Unity08, itself, has recognized and is trying to take advantage of the fact that a large portion of the electorate has lost faith in their government. That it doesn't matter who you vote for, or what party you support, nothing changes. Unity08's political goal is to identify the true underlining cause of this loss of faith and expose it in the public arena of political ideas. In a constitutional republic, this is the proper venue the people are to address their grievances with their government.
No one should believe that in questioning the constitutionally of including "wages" as income in the federal income tax, we are suggesting that the government should no longer be supported by its citizens, but that such support must be constitutional, derived from Congress through positive law, and be accurately reflected in its codification and regulations through plain language every citizen can read and understand.
The fact that our present tax code is complicated, cannot be understood by even IRS attorneys, let along average citizens, and does not appear to have any positive law authorizing individual wages to be taxed, all seems to indicate to me that the federal income taxe on individual wages is not constitutional.
ex animo
davidfarrar
What has the Supreme Court ruled on this Dave? What are they really likely to rule in the real world?? They are the final arbiters. Goes back to what the biggest power the Prez has - Supreme Court noms. But the Supremes ARE the final arbiter and until so I think adopting this proposed questions is ridiculous unless we are going to have another "litmus test" for our Candidates on Supreme noms. Is that what you are suggesting??
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
...not a legal one. If Congress is faced with a raising political demand to address the federal income tax, it will do so. All it will take is a good, sustained political effort.
Once this issue is in Congress, the issue of a fair tax, a consumption tax, or even no taxes at all on individual wages, but increased taxes on corporate profits may be the result. Whatever the outcome, we will have gotten a new tax code out of the effort and that would be progress, undoubted progress.
ex animo
davidfarrar