For 2024, let's be practical. Perot announced his candidacy in Feb 1992. We have no chance to be taken seriously without having candidates picked by the end of the year, we will not be participating in debates. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that Unity08 will not make any more of an impact on politics this year then the Reform Party. The platform and agenda will be determined by the candidates we chose, not by us shoving some consensus of the mob down their throats. We won't get any serious person interested. And if they are serious, they already have a platform.
We have to define some people interested in using Unity08 as a means to show that the correct path isn't see-sawing back and forth between extreme views. The fastest path to the future is the straighter line of moderate views. We can scream about hot button issues all we want.
Abortion is horrible - but there are far worse things we could do something about as well. Abortion is horrible - but there are people who, despite soul-searching deliberation, decide that it is the best thing for them. Their free will and decision is to murder their unborn child. That is unfortunate, but that is their decision, and there are far worse things going on every day. The policy should be to encourage a society where abortion isn't a reasonable economic or social option. The winning argument has been safe, legal and rare. It needs to be more rare, but protesting clinics is less effective than providing economic incentives or ensuring adoption to all unwanted children born in America (or is it the world - are we concerned about unborn Americans, or unborn humans? Is an American life more valuable than the life of someone else. Is the life of someone making $400,000 a year more valuable than the life of someone making $100,000 a year? But don't tell me that all lives are equally valuable, look around the world, we KNOW it is not true). People can have strong opinions on both sides, but the moderate position of trying to stay out of other peoples business if possible and letting common sense and reason trump emotion is where moderates mostly stand (I believe).
Here is a proposal for 2024 and beyond. Surely this proposal can be improved upon. But if something like this is not done, it will be time to go back to choosing either the democrat or republican for me.
First, the Unity2012 candidates (one republican, one democrat) must be selected by a Unity2012 party virtual convention two years prior to the general election. (2010). We won't designate president vs. vice-president.
The democrat unity2012 will run for the democrat nomination for president. The republican unity2012 candidate will run for the republican nomination for president.
They will participate in the debates and campaigning as any of the other candidates for their party nominations. THE VOICE OF MODERATES WILL BE HEARD. Unity2012 will provide enough funding to complement the regular compain funding they might receive from republican or democrat supporters. The level of funding (we hope!) will make them competitive - after all they couldn't do much worse than Biden - and he's a quite reasonable candidate!
I don't think we need to win the presidency, nor should that be our major goal in the first 2 or 3 elections. However, the voices of moderation must be heard by the people. We can provide that. If as an independent party we can win 10-20% of the
The public will get a chance to see them as much as any other candidates. They will go to all the debates, they will get the coverage as any of the other candidates.
IF both of the Unity2012 candidates receive the nominations from their respective parties, the general election (which Unity2012 won't need to fund...) will decide which is the president, and which will be the vice-president.
IF one candidate receives their party nomination, that candidate will choose the other candidate to run as the vice presidential candidate.
IF NEITHER Unity2012 candidate receives their party nomination. Unity2012 will hold a virtual convention to choose which will run as president and which as vice president. Unity2012 will back the independent run of that ticket.
A shut down is not a consideration. The general election decides the future.
Great thing about America is that people are free to start any project they feel has a chance to succeed.
I submit that the Invisible Hand of the American Agenda will determine the best manner in which to integrate candidates with crucial issues. There is no attempt to shove any platform down the throats of candidates. However, there are ongoing efforts for the delegates here to teach and learn from one another (i.e. wiki) so as to come to terms on crucial issues. The vetting of issues is best achieved when we become informed and can find agreement. Candidates that will want our support will obviously share our concerns. The crucial issues are not the ones to be determined by mere passion. Rather, crucial issues are ones of necessity.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Agenda's are currently dictated by THE BIG MONEY BEHIND THE CANDIDATES & THE PARTIES - THE PEOPLE WILL GET ITS FIRST CHANCE AT CREATING THE AGENDA - WITH UNITY08 ..
We've got all the evidence we need to demonstrate what Kind Of Agenda's the current system produces, Agenda's that have the Nation more divided than ever in history, in debt to friends and foes, at the mercy of A Political System that is provenly incompetent and full of corruption ..
NO MR EBBOLE - your way got us in this mess, from this point on THE PEOPLE WILL CREATE THE AGENDA AND THE CANDIDATE(S) THAT PLEDGE THE ADOPT & FIGHT FOR IT - WILL BE THE ONES SELECTED/ELECTED - IN 2024
pete(popo)evans
Go for It Phil W, Steve, GP & John
Ok, do it your way. But if you don't think the 2024 nominees for Unity needs to be selected at the same time as the Dem and Republican primary campaigns start, I don't see how we will ever be more than a blip on the political radar screen. Let's just see how it turns out this year, and then perhaps we can revisit this issue after the election.
I guess I'm trying to take what, in my opinion, is a realistic view.
I can't sit around until the last minute to find out who the Unity08 candidate is before getting involved in trying to have the best candidates running for president. The primaries matter. Who should I be supporting? I do not think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for me or the Democrats, and I don't see much to my liking among the leading candidates on the Republican side either. I'm going to start working to get my favored candidates elected to represent the Democratic and Republican parties.
This group is composed of a lot of independent thinkers. I am eager to see the final Unity platform, but I don't see it here. How can we still be debating a platform? Movements need leaders, well, let's define the leader, and let's see the platform. We might not all agree with it, but presumably it will be better than the Dem and Rep platforms, right? Let's see the list of people who have agreed to run for the Unity08 nomination.
I also wonder what serious politician is going to risk their credibility for a group of - what are we now 100,000+? Do you honestly think that in 2024 our candidate can overcome the Dem and Rep machines and win this election? Throwing up a candidate at the last minute and hoping it sticks doesn't seem to pass the common sense test to me.
I totally believe that a centrist third party can be successful. But this is a long term endeavor, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024, 2024. Eventually, with a long term commitment, this movement could make inroads. I just don't think you can expect the majority of Americans to see the party as a serious political movement in a mere few months, or decades. This is a 20 year project minimum, or it is a waste of time. I don't see how throwing up a weak candidate late in the game is going to help the credibility of this movement. Where's the 5, 10, 20 year plan? Where's the strategic plan?
I know this is an earnest group, and I respect everyone's efforts and dedication.
I don't know if any will agree with me, but I'm not very interested at this point in selecting a candidate (be it a "home-grown" Unity08 candidate or one from the other parties). Instead, I'm focused on understanding what ought to be done to fix our country, what can be done realistically from that pool of ought-to's, and what we have to do to make these changes happen. This understanding will help us vet proposals presented by the other parties by comparing the details of their plans with the details of ours New American Agenda.
On the WIKI, we are beginning to: (a) develop questions and talking points about each major issue; (b) define strategies & tactics, along with the goals & objectives to measure success; (c) design comparison grids with which different proposals from inside and outside U08 can be compared in an "apples-to-apples" manner. All this will enable us to identify where there are gaps in the details of proposed platforms, where there are faulty assumptions, and how different groups of people would be affected by the various plans.
Once we have this knowledge and these tools, we can avoid being swayed by sound-bytes and superficial proposals that merely supply the “window dressing” without the necessary substance to understand them adequately. By delving into the fine details and doing due diligence, by collaborating with other centrist grass-roots groups to exchange ideas and information, and by informing the public of our findings, there’s a good chance that our efforts would impact the thinking of other parties, as well as the opinions of the masses. That’s the vision I’m operating under and it's the overall strategic plan I'd like to us deploy.
The challenges include great effort, strong focus, and the ability to keep open, critical minds.
Steve Beller, PhD
THREE YEARS AGO - I would have agreed with you - NOT TODAY, please click on www.america-21stcentury.com today's posting - and you will understand why !!
pete(popo)evans
Please, click on www.america-21stcentury.com Today's POSTING it's "on point" .. WE MUST BUILD THAT BETTER MOUSE TRAP AND WHEN UNITY08 HAS A GREEN LIGHT TO GO FOR IT - WE USE THE INTERNET & THE MSM TO TELL ELECTABLE CANDIDATES & THE WORLD ABOUT IT - THEY WILL FLOCK TO OUR DOOR !!!
Grandpa Evans
Ebbole's point is well taken that Unity08 can't impose "a consensus of the mob" platform on the candidates. All we can do is to put some ideas on the table, see how the candidates respond to them, then let the delegates vote on and nominate the candidates who compete for our nomination.
Where I disagree with Ebbole is that it's too late for 2024. Yes, Ross Perot did first appear in February 1992. No one was thinking of a Ross Perot candidacy before then, but by May 1992, Perot was running first in the polls, ahead of George Bush and Bill Clinton. So, there's plenty of time to select the candidates, and the optimum time to do that will be sometime around next February when the Democrats and Republicans have settled on their nominees and the country settles into buyer's remorse.
My concern is who will be available and willing to be our nominees. Chuck Hagel and Michael Bloomberg (in either order) were a ready-made ticket with an excellent chance of winning the White House. News coverage of Hagel's Sept. 10 announcement has him "retiring from politics," but his statement left considerable room for Hagel to still accept an independent nomination. Bloomberg is reportedly "not interested" in running but hasn't made a definitive statement. Hagel and Bloomberg will probably clarify their intentions around February when the country begins to weigh in on the Democrat and Republican nominees.
But if Hagel and Bloomberg are out of the running, who is left? I would see John Edwards and Bill Richardson as possibilities from the Democratic side. 2024 is probably their last chance for leadership, so why not take the plunge. Obama has a secure future in the Democratic Party. He would be unlikely to bolt his party for a Unity08 nomination.
But who would come from the Republican side? With the exception of Ron Paul, all the GOP candidates are vociferous supporters of George Bush's Iraq war and are pretty much locked into supporting the eventual Republican nominee. Opposition to the war seems to be the one issue that unites Unity08, which would also rule out Newt Gingrich. That makes Paul the only Republican suitable or credible as a Unity08 candidate. Could he successfully team up with Edwards or Richardson? Probably so, by focusing on a campaign of non-ideological solutions and compromise for the good of the country.
The danger of a becoming a "spoiler" campaign is unlikely. Unity08 would draw support equally from both sides. Exit polling in 1992 showed that was the case with Perot, who drew exactly evenly from Clinton and Bush. Preliminary polling with Michael Bloomberg as a third candidate showed him drawing about equally from Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. A Unity08 ticket would give American voters a better alternative without the danger of a worse outcome.
On Dan Rather's World Report (HDNet)....Bloomberg said...how plainly can I say it...I'm not running because I can not win. I was (am) a likely supporter but his group are marketing experts.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Unity08 can't impose "a consensus of the mob" platform on the candidates. All we can do is to put some ideas on the table, see how the candidates respond to them, then let the delegates vote on and nominate the candidates who compete for our nomination.
I agree with this point, Lee. The amount of influence we'll have will likely be directly related to the number of U08 members at the time. I'd love to see us have the influence of the religious right in the last election, though I realize that's unlikely in 2024.
Nevertheless, I believe that we will affect the platforms of many candidates through the public presentation of innovative strategies in a sound agenda. At the very least, we would pressure them into addressing our issues or exposing their refusal to do so.
I have mixed feelings about U08 selecting its own third party candidates.
Steve Beller, PhD
I read www.america-21stcentury.com , I am like-minded. I agree that the majority of the people around the country will not start to pay attention to politics seriously until January. So, there is time. I've posted on some of the news blogs about Unity08, hoping that might raise awareness. I guess I have a high level of anxiety about all of this because I sense that this election is critical.
The lessons of history seem clear to me - we are heading down the road to weakness. It is hard not to spout off to relieve some of my concerns. We have hired private mercenary armies, e.g., Blackwater. We are paying the mercenaries well - my colleague has a son who joined up with one of the Halliburton subsidiaries. Taxpayers are paying the mercenaries $30,000/month (plus overhead to the business) to be in Iraq. We don't pay "OUR" troops nearly that much. My colleague's son and others are actually excited about leaving "OUR" army to join up with the mercenary army to cash in on their experience. I'm stunned at this foolishness. What is that private army going to do when we leave Iraq? Disband? Or maybe find another employer - would they someday find an employer who isn't our friend? I would much, much rather institute the draft then go down this road.
We have consumers that are getting tapped out. A noticeable fraction of low income households are unable to pay their mortgages. What is the impact on business when our consumer base is eroded?
We don't support hand-outs to people who don't work. But cutting taxes on lower income households MIGHT actually stimulate our economy, since every bit of the cash those consumers don't pay in taxes will go to buying products from (hopefully) US companies, sustaining business income and improving shareholder value. (If there is a real economist here that can educate me on this I'd be pleased to understand more, because this is just a gut feeling I have, certainly not an expert view). We've done trickle-down, maybe this is trickle-up, or just trying to trickle up and down to meet in the middle.
I saw a post on a CNN blog that people making $50,000 or less pay 7.5% of tax revenue while those in the top 10% of income pay 67% of taxes. The person posting this used this fact to say that the lower income people aren't paying enough taxes now and that higher income households are paying too much. I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't want to wake up every day and see my neighbors struggling. I want to see them only slightly worse off than I am, not much worse. I'm not sure if I am a top 10% earner since that number wasn't given in that blog. But if I'm paying in the range of $10,000 to $50,000 (or more) in federal income tax each year, I think I would be willing to pay more in taxes if that would make the lower income group feel that our government understands the stress they are feeling. Tax cuts for the low income people don't have to be permanent. But maybe we could try it out for a few years. I also don't disagree that (excluding primary residences) capital gains taxes could be raised slightly. Now I know that many of you will view this as socialistic. But, I don't feel like I'm a bad capitalist or against free-markets. But I've done ok financially over the past decade or so, and I don't want to see lower income people take to the streets over every little thing because the financial stress they feel gives them a vague feeling that they are "Mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore".
Clearly, I support higher taxes on those making over $200,000 (not much higher, but slightly higher), to cover people who aren't doing well. I'm not saying we need to give money to the unemployed, but giving a break to those working and making $15,000 to $50,000 seems reasonable to me. But I also think that taxes don't have to go much higher for anyone if we cut out the waste, fraud and abuse. I believe a few months in Irag spends all the tax money that the $50,000 and lower income households pay in one year ($76 billion if I recall correctly). We've spent $450 billion in Iraq so far.
Well, I'd like to go on and on, but it would be rude to do so. Thanks for letting me blow off steam. And remember, be kind in your responses.
This thing is far from over - in fact if we create winning agenda - we may have more and better choices than either major party ..
You brought up a point that concerns me deeply, the Blackwater Mercenaries - the benefits here may be far outweighed by the price we pay now - and the price we may pay when the crisis is over ..
Ebbole, keep the faith - we can and will make good things happen - all it takes is common sense and focus/focus/focus.
pete(popo)evans
OH ! one closing observation TO ALL WHO THINK "THE CANDIDATES SHOULD PROVIDE THE AGENDAS" - Candidates DON'T HAVE AGENDAS - Their Financial Backers & Political Parties Have Agendas, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE" .. y'all should know this by now .. WE NEED COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY, ACCESS & OVERSIGHT - WISDOM, DEDICATION & INTEGRITY .. we don't have any one of these essentials AND THE DEMOCRATIC & REPUBLICAN PARTIES AREN'T ABOUT TO GIVE THEM TO US OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.
Candidates DON'T HAVE AGENDAS - Their Financial Backers & Political Parties Have Agendas, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE"
Something to think about!
Steve Beller, PhD
What Candidates Do - IS MAKE ORAL PLEDGES THEY KNOW THEY WONT BE ABLE TO KEEP - because the AGENDAS of their Parties and Backers wont let them !
Again - not cynisism - reality ..
pete
Most politicians say and do whatever they are told by their handlers. What most people in America seem forget is "We the People" are really in charge. Should n't we be the ones telling them what their agendas should be? After all they work for us. We don't work for them.
I understand your sentiment completely. But, forgive me, I am just tired of one-liners to sum up what our country is, and what politicians are, or what a policy is. I think you and I are both here because we realize things aren't always simple and blank and white.
So, "they work for us", well, I'm not sure if I'd put it exactly that way. We elect them leader, we then follow (although not without feedback). If you are the leader, you certainly represent (work for) your constituents, but we don't vote every time a decision needs to be made. Your sentence "we don't work for them" also strikes me as a slogan, we may not work for them, but we have to work with them. They are the representation of the government. They can send us to war, they can make us pay for it. So, does that sound like they work for us, we don't work for them?
I think what Popo is saying Eb is that we need to hold them to account for their actual legislative actions that accord in some way with their election campaign/promises. Don't know if a leagl contract would have any weight in that area but certainly the Court of Public Opinion is something for the Reps to ponder. We and they are BOTH in this together and we need to live up to our citizenry responsibilities in the election booth better as They the Reps need to be resposible and accountable for WHAT they promise and then enact in the real world of politics (connecting the ends-means disconnects of their campaign rhetoric).
If they the Reps fall short of whatt they promise at election time, we need to let them explain why and hold them to FULL account as to the acceptablity and validity of their explanation. Because things do come up unanticipated alongb the sausagemaking way of legislation. But there is no substitute (contract or no) to greater transparency and accountability by BOTH the Rep and the Citizen who elects them. Both have to be responsible and BOTH have to be accountable for their actions to make this Republic work! We get the government we deserve!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Sometimes like me - he's unwilling to make concessions that shouldn't be made ...
Unfortunately - you are right, THEY CAN AND DO - What They Like With Our Money and Our Lives .. that's why we are here in UNITY08 .... WE HATE WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH OUR MONEY & OUR LIVES - AND OUR COMMON GOAL HERE IS TO CHANGE THAT - AS QUICKLY & INTELLIGENTLY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE !!
There are Members Of Congress That Will WORK WITH US FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE : IF WE CAN FREE THEM FROM THE BONDAGE OF PARTY POLITICS & BIG MONEY, THERE ARE THOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT WILL DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO .. OUR JOB IS TO LOCATE & SUPPORT THE FORMER AND NEUTRALIZE THE LATTER !!
Ebbole - we must all face one simple fact : The Power Behind This Government Is Dominated By GREED, Greed for Power Greed For More - More Of Everything, Power, Money - you name it ...
These people GET NO CONCESSIONS FROM ME - AND SHOULDN'T GET THEM FROM YOU - OR ANY OTHER AMERICAN WHO WORKS FOR A LIVING & PAYS TAXES ..
We Want - Need - And Have To Have : Transparency, Access, Oversight - Wisdom, Dedication and Integrity, in Government - if we are to survive and prosper in the 21st Century and Beyond, ONLY A NATION OF VIGILANT & DEDICATED CITIZENS SECURING AND MAINTAINING SUCH A GOVERNMENT - CAN EXPECT TO ACHIEVE LONG
TERM SUCCESS IN ITS OPERATIONS.
My opinion - for what it's worth ..
Pete(popo)Evans
Thank you! I now see part of what I'm missing in my thinking. Holding their feet to the fire is supposed to be one of the main jobs of journalists. The news media are supposed to be the watchdog. They have been bought. The main stream media have betrayed us for money. We can blame the politicians, but it is a collusion between the politicians, their big money backers and the media. I didn't really notice how much - perhaps it has become worse in recent years - the news media only want to promote headlines and misquotes to outrage people and play on people's emotions. It isn't about uncovering the truth anymore. It's about selling themselves.
We have to fight for honest politicians, but we also need to find a way to hold the news media accountable for their betrayal of the American people. How do we do this?
We remind them we Own the Airwaves and The Cities, Towns and Streets of America, THE INTERNET HAS GIVEN US THE MEANS TO BOYCOTT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA IN GREAT NUMBERS (In Fact - We are already doing it) ..
We'll Look To The Internet For Our News - and Quit Watching The Micro Managed Garbage the MSM is doling out, RATINGS WILL DROP, SPONSORS WILL START LOOKING FOR MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS ..
We'll Quit Buying Newspapers - Many Of Us Have Already, that's why so many Newspapers are merging with other businesses or folding up their tents ..
Ebbole IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THIS - WE THE PEOPLE FINALLY HAVE A REAL SHOT AT MAKING THIS TRULY " A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE " The Government That The Founding Fathers intended and Our Constitution and Bill of Rights Guarantees ..
pete(popo)evans
The reason it is called the American Agenda is because this is all about what is good for Americans and America. We, as a voting block of Americans had better be clear about our role and authority to insist that our leaders understand why they are there.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
most people allow the status quo for a number of reasons:
They believe they have no power to change the system. What is one vote going to do?
Others believe the status quo is OK with them. They get everything they need from a corrupt government.
The media and the current parties are in a conspiracy to control the government(I think so too).
Except for our votes every 2 and 4 year cycle we have very little power to change anything.
The powers that be only pay lip service to the citizens concerns.
And last but not least, when voting time comes we only have a select few that were hand picked by the controlling parties.
What I and many others are here to do is make some of these items a thing of the past. We draft the candidates, we pick the agenda, we tell them what we expect and if they refuse out the door with them. We need to sieze power from the politicians this forum is a first step, the wiki is the tools.
Power to the People
It's hard to beat the "but I'm just one person" thinking. It really is. To do it requires that we, as the early-adopters, promote Unity08, especially when people who are "not so sure about it" ask us what we think.
Oddly, most movements are but a perception anyway. If in 2024, Unity begins to run TV ads, we'll be able to jump into the prime-time category. On the flipside, the effort does require a dedicated advocate base to match the vision promoted on TV. Newcomers need to find a thriving, motivated base of "true believers" (as much as I don't like that term these days).
We just have to keep a positive mindset. Remember that all great things started with just one person's ideas. We're 100,000 strong now. Let's just keep moving ahead and try to be strong adovcates and active participants.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
The Unity leadership is aware of the 15% barrier (that one has to beat to get into the debates). I too have these concerns, but the leadership is not only aware of it, but they have a plan to take care of it. That's their battle. They work within the system where we the people cannot.
We need to realize that Unity08 isn't going to operate like the typical 3rd party (Green, Lib, Nader as independent, etc). I would agree that in their case they do need to get a lot of awareness early on. What's different here is that the process is the showcase. The process by which we the delegates, will be debating, forming coalitions, finding common ground, choosing candidates, etc. that will be what is talked about. When we are done we will have a platform that has the mandates of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
That's more than the major parties have involved in their platform/candidate selection process. Further, the candidates in considering Unity, will at that point have a platform truly assembled by the people, which echoes a far better mandate than a platform decided by insiders.
The biggest hurdle we face? It's you and me. It's learning how to negotiate, get along, and find common ground for the greater good.
-GP (gp.in.minnesota@gmail.com)
Join the Unity08 Delegate wiki today! http://www.unity-usa.org
Be willing and able - to crearte and/or accept - new and better ways of doing things where validity can be provided, evaluated and confirmed.
pete(popo)evans
Okay, we have talked about getting along and finding agreement. Lets start putting some ideas together about how we can do it. Once we come up with some good ideas, we can organize it on the wiki.
Negotiating Considerations:
Goals: what do you want to get out of the negotiation? What do you think the other person wants?
Trades: What do you and the other person have that you can trade? What do you each have that the other wants? What are you each comfortable giving away?
Alternatives: if you don’t reach agreement with the other person, what alternatives do you have? Are these good or bad? How much does it matter if you do not reach agreement? Does failure to reach an agreement cut you out of future opportunities? And what alternatives might the other person have?
Relationships: what is the history of the relationship? Could or should this history impact the negotiation? Will there be any hidden issues that may influence the negotiation? How will you handle these?
Expected outcomes: what outcome will people be expecting from this negotiation? What has the outcome been in the past, and what precedents have been set?
The consequences: what are the consequences for you of winning or losing this negotiation? What are the consequences for the other person?
Power: who has what power in the relationship? Who controls resources? Who stands to lose the most if agreement isn’t reached? What power does the other person have to deliver what you hope for?
Possible solutions: based on all of the considerations, what possible compromises might there be?
The American Agenda and the Art of Win-Win Style Negotiating: NEGOTIATING TIPS
Despite this, emotion can be an important subject of discussion because people's emotional needs must fairly be met. If emotion is not discussed where it needs to be, then the agreement reached can be unsatisfactory and temporary. Be as detached as possible when discussing your own emotions – perhaps discuss them as if they belong to someone else.
If this is not the case and one person must give way, then it is fair for this person to try to negotiate some form of compensation for doing so – the scale of this compensation will often depend on many of the factors mentioned above. Ultimately, both sides should feel comfortable with the final solution if the agreement is to be considered win-win.
There are several negotiating styles and the win-win style seemed to fit our purposes best for what we want to accomplish. For example, the type of negotiating one does to buy a house is completely different from what is needed here. That hard ball style of negotiating does not suit a goal to be able to negotiate on a wide range of issues and maintain a cooperative environment.
I found these negotiating tips online. You business savvy and horsetraders out there can surely add to this list.
I started a new thread for this topic. Please go there to post your ideas.
http://unity08.com/node/2151
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!