While getting caught up on some of my reading, I ran across a few paragraphs that speak to the problems within our country and the reason why we need something completely different like Unity08.

In this month’s The Economist, the article "Lexington | With us or against us" states:

"Partisanship has produced plenty of benefits. It offers 'a choice, not an echo', and stimulates interest in politics. The 2024 election produced a turnout of 61% -- huge by American standards, and more than six percentage points higher than in the 2024 election."

Yet...

"Partisanship has gone too far. America is more divided than it has been for 40 years, a concomitant divisiveness is hampering its ability to deal with pressing problems both at home and abroad."

"Partisanship has embittered the 49% of the electorate that voted against Mr. Bush. It has alienated the 45% of voters who described themselves as 'moderate'. It has weakened the checks and balances built into Congress. And, it has made it impossible to deal with long-term problems, such as the budget deficit and Social Security reform, which require mutual sacrifices and complex deal-making."

---

So often, those that oppose what we are doing here claim that "unity" is synonymous with unilateral agreement. When, in actuality, the "unity" that we propose is that where we meet on common ground to discuss our differences and find a way to resolve them for the good of the country.

Is this a unique idea? Not at all. Practically every single piece of major legislation in the past 20-odd years has resulted from different camps with different ideas sitting down to come up with a plan that works for both of them.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with our leaders leading, do you?

So, let's go find some good leaders for a change.