This comment was made in another thread:
<
Change merely for the sake of change is stupid. An effort that tries to be all things to all people left and right will end up being nothing to all concerned. Unity08 sounds like a coalition and like any coalition in politics it cannot be successful in the long run. If Unity08 does not come up with a detailed, clear and consistent platform it will likely turn into Unity12 and Unity16. You cannot create a successful political movement by simply picking issues from both sides of the political spectrum in hopes of satisfying a majority of the voters in the next election. You must decide what you want and then convince a majority that what you want is right.
I believe it is possible to create a stable moderate coalition, but this cannot be done by simply picking a few things from the left and a few things from the right. As the Texan Jim Hightower has said the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow strip and dead armadillos. This type of moderate is really a coward since he either doesn’t know what he truly believes in or won’t take the time and effort to fight for what he believes in if he does know.
A legitimate moderate is a conservative or a liberal who is willing to accept policies from the other side, but for reasons that will uphold his own core values. For example: I am a staunch conservative, but I am willing to accept certain liberal policies that could be used to deal with global warming (something I don’t believe in as a scientist) as long as they could also achieve my conservative goals (such as conserving natural resources by saving energy, promoting national security by ending our dependence on oil from hostile countries and promoting societal cohesion by discouraging urban sprawl which is auto-dependent).
What I think needs to happen is a poll of americans about issues and then construct a platform that meets the majority. How can a platform that matches the majority lose?
GEA Check Out The One I Posted back in December on www.popope3te.com
I'd appreciate your input
popo
Popo, I believe I did look through your site a while ago . My concept is a platform for the people, BY THE PEOPLE. While I may or may not agree with what you have written, I don't see any polling of the people to ascertain the majority opinion.
My personal viewpoint is valid as one of many, but only to that extent. We need to understand how to best ascertain the will of the people. Once that is done, its pretty straightforward to construct a platform to meet the majority view.
Unity08 needs a research department that is more interested in polling and research of polling than "current events."
I tend to agree with you, and cite your conservative's support for responsible energy conservation and alternative energy sources as a prime example of what could be achieved. The key is to develop first a consensus of which issues government should and should not be engaged in. Government is totally secular and primarily economic, and our "way of life" that many conservatives love to extoll is based primarily on individual opportunity and individual liberty. If we were to agree to keep government out of bedrooms and private citizens' private lives, and to quit squandering precious resources prosecuting victimless crimes and unwinnable wars we would be more than halfway to where a broad centrist consensus could be reached.
I disagree that a coalition cannot produce lasting and meaningful results. The Founding Fathers were a coalition of pragmatists. Both Roosevelt and Lincoln pulled together broad coalitions to see the nation through trying times. Because a coalition is born of the moment and generally will not last does not mean that it is not worth pursuing in the face of real and answerable challenges.
Whether Unity'08 has the promise to anchor such a coalition remains to be seen, and is in my eyes very much in doubt at this point.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
We agree on so much that our differences are miniscule. What we need is a platform of the people by the people. Unity08 would be wise to invest time in collecvting polling results and making them available to all of us.
From there the positions needed to win the moderate middle would be obvious.
And as a reconstructionist populist, I embrace coalition.
After being with uo8 since October I have come to my own personal conclusion.(I have a feeling I am not alone) I think the founders of this organization wanted something that would grab the attention of the two parties and move them back to the center. I believe we are kidding ourselves if we believe u08 can capture the White House. But I think we should continue forward, play it out, if uo8 wins 20 million votes it will get the the republocrats attention and the winner will be more likely to end the partisan rancor, block off the extremes in their parties and try and govern from the middle. If they do not next time a REAL THIRD PARTY needs to be formed and organize in every state, run for state offices, and national too. Footnote: the term republocrats I first read in one of GEA's comments. Too many term papers have taught me to credit my sources.
An Independent
What about Perot in 1992? Wasn’t his whole premise essentially the same as Unity08's- Republicans and Democrats needed to work together? Perot's 19% of the popular vote didn't do anything about Clinton's partisanship.
Flaja-
As a (perhaps the only) paid county coordinator of Perot's 92 effort I can say that without question the same folks who supported him are being drawn by Unity08. This is one of the reasons I hang around here - feels like old home week.
The volunteer base of the Perot campaign was run by 40% true independents, 40% fiscal conservatives (libertarians for the most part who had developed an annoying republican voting habit) and 20% cranky ass old conservative Democrats who weren't going to vote for a big-haired philanderer from Arkansas or a carpetbagger President from Connecticut who was mesmerized by grocery store scanners.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
But, like I said, Perot’s 19% of the popular vote did nothing to alter the partisan climate in D.C. If Unity08 were to elect a president without electing anyone to Congress, the president won’t accomplish anything because both parties in Congress will be blaming him for costing their party the presidential election. You will likely end up with a Congress that won’t cooperate with the President and a Congress that won’t cooperate with itself.
Perot's 19% DID elect clinton and set the stage for many items in the Newt's Contract for America and Clinton's subsequent cooption. Things did get done as a result,but not the way Perot, Newt,or Bill anticipated. So Perot's 19% did have an effect. Much in the same way we at Unity 08 could set the stage if we choose our issues well. Mine are two: Comprehensive Entitlement Reform and Delineation of a Grand Strategy for America in the 21st world-the two mega nation-buster issues in my estimation. Let's stand for something and give a candidate something to latch on to and build on. Give it the best shot and if we lose at the ballot box with 9 or 15or 29% then maybe we can in some way set the stage for eventual successful resolution of the issues we choose.
I agree Perot's 19% did have an impact, it indirectly led to the pay as you go approach to fiscal policies which led to reductions in the deficit during the Clinton Years. I believe u08 will have an impact but I differ from John a little I think u08 would need to garner at least 20% of the popular vote.
An Independent
<
Such an attitude would effectively prevent me from participating, considering the fact that so many of our socio-economic problems stem from a climate in which the Judeo-Christian morality, on which American society was founded, is denigrated by the libertarians and the left.
You cannot complain about the country’s problems, and then support candidates that either refuse to take a stand against or actively encourage the behavior that created the problems to begin with.