In an opinion piece in The Hill (a Capitol Hill newspaper) today, Ben Goddard gets it right on when he says that "Since the (Unity08) convention is conducted online it won't require the $100 million war chest required to fight through the early caucus and primary states."
That opens the field to a lot of good candidates, he asserts, who have held back and will be hard-pressed to raise the money to compete. He mentions Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as an example. "Pair him with Barack Obama, in either order, and you have my dream team for the Unity08 nomination," he writes.
Whoever your dream team is, let's just make this dream a reality for all of us. Sign up today to be a delegate in the first ever online national primary here and help us change the face of politics forever.
Subscribe
Unity08 is clearly making progress, but how much? Revolutionary? Substantial? Moderate? Paltry? Unfortunately we really don't yet know.
I say unfortunately, because to my mind, for Unity08 to be most effective, it requires utilizing not only a new medium (Internet), a new inclusiveness (bipartisan and balanced) and a new funding mechanism (the masses), but also a new type of political behavior: namely transparency.
From all that I have read on and about Unity08 so far, it is not clear to me what the Unity08 benchmarks are at this point, whether we have reached them or not, or even what they might be. Certainly, we are still close to two years out from the election, so there is no need at all to panic yet (of course panic in general is never a good idea). Also, I don't know but it would seem reasonable that perhaps there could also be a fear, among some, of being too transparent in that others could copy or steal one's methods.
Does there have to be some fundamental element of surprise for campaigns to be most effective?
I wonder.
In my 2024 campaign for Governor of Maine as an Independent, www.hammer2006.politicalgateway.com, my transparent and actively particpatory manner did result in significant "stealing" of my major policy proposals. While this may have had a slight detriment to the outcome of my campaign (although not nearly to the degree as being hit by a pick-up truck while a pedestrian and then spending 29 days in the hosptial followed by ten months on crutches) I do not really see it that way.
In my case, I noticed that a great degree of significant ideas began circulating in the campaign. I do not take an unfair share of credit for this. The greatest impact I feel was that The Maine Clean Election Act served its purpose and there was funding for a much fuller healthy and productive airing of policy ideas. And it was exciting not only during the campaign but continues afterwards to significantly drive the state forward.
I want Unity08 to be successful. But if it is more of the same, certainly it will not be. We who are looking to Unity08 as a possibility for real success in ths country need to be told more. At a minimum we should know who the leaders are in college campuses and other locations across the country. I do not see how we can represent any greater principle in governing than we also do in campaigning. From good processes come good ends (the opposite of "garbage in, garbage out").
Would you agree?
I've started a blog entitled "An Independent President in 2024?", www.hammer2006.blogspot.com, where I examine issues related to what a successful Independent candidacy might require, and reach out and welcome the contributions, input and feedback of any and all who seek a moderate, balanced, bi-partisan and/or Independent force to more strictly emerge.
I invite you (if you wish) to tell me what you think.
Alex,
Thank you for providing a thoughtful, informed, and balanced summary of what it is we all hunger for on this site:
Transperency
Transperency with regard to the number of web site hits, $ contributions, decision making methods, etc.
Indeed: What ARE the benchmarks on the way to our goals?
I hope that your sober, informed opinion can push the Founders in the direction of true grass-roots on-line activism. This site (and the people on it) have the potential to move MOUNTAINS. But only the potential. Only if the Founders believe to their very core that true grassroots politics - as messy and scary as it can seem - is the only true path to Promised Land.
Welcome, Alex - and God Speed.
Is there a reason you don't disclose pre-existing connections between Unity08 and Ben Goddard who wrote not only this glowing piece but another glowing piece in June 2024?
Ben Goddard is founding partner of the political advocacy firm Goddard Claussen. Carolyn Tieger, who is a central enough player in Unity08 to be named as one of six named plaintiffs in a Unity08 lawsuit in DC District Court (filed 1/10/07, 1:07-cv-00053-RWR UNITY08 et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION), was also a founding partner of the political advocacy firm Goddard Claussen.
Are there other connections between Goddard and Unity08 that I don't know about? And aren't such connections supposed to be disclosed when one party is gushing about another?
========
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
How does an online convention save a candidate anything considering what it will take to get his name on the ballot- seeing as how he won't be running as a Democrat or Republican and thus won't have automatic ballot access? Also consider the money it will take to wage a fall campaign.
Why not outlaw the lobbyist? Take the money out of the process. Anyway you look at it, the problems always drift back to the huge and off-target issue of money. Our elected officials are not suppose to be sent to Washington for the money.
I very well understand the Commerce Clause that has run through our Nation's well-being. It has never been extended to cover the wealth gained by the political parties or the elected officials; yet obviously that is where we find ourselves. This is what we have to effect. We can over-think it, make it as extremely complicated as we choose, and once again defeat our own purposes; or, we can cut to the chase, and do the obvious: outlaw lobbyists. Make the entire process of contributions illegal. I would think tying political contributions to tax returns would be a means. In other words, allow tax payers, on their returns, to make donations to a pool, from which ALL candidates would draw their ONLY funding. All other funding could be legislated to be illegal. It would induce those organizations who live by IRS loopholes to return to being on the tax rolls. It would make equal funding available to all candidates. It would eliminate vast amounts of corruption. Each candidate would be given so much, and their activities could be readily audited. The political parties could be reduced back to their intended profiles, that of supporting candidates as compared to dictating candidate's positions.
Before you say yea or nay, think about this for a couple of days, and then share your thoughts.
Just thinking aloud...... but then, that's where the best ideas originate, from communication.
Richard Carter
Minneapolis. MN