Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads

6 Responses to “Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads”

1. alaska jake Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am

   The following is a bit long, and I apologize for that, but I thought some of you may be interested in an email I received yesterday from the Unity08 group. I didn’t want to post this as an off-topic response under a different heading.

   As a political history geek I had signed up with Unity08 early in their founding, not out of support for the cause but more to follow along with the process of starting up a new political movement within the confines of a two-party system. I’ve always thought, as did many others, that Unity08 was really just a shill group for Bloomberg’s run for pres. I never thought they’d be able to actually secure the support needed for a true independent third party movement. Well yesterday the group sent out the following email explaining the effective end to its campaign. And while I don’t claim to be the one who convinced them it was a worthless cause, it is nice to read that their reasons for not succeeding match exactly with my reasons as to why third parties always fail in this country (at least in modern American history). I won’t go into a history lesson on third party failures, but Unity08’s Board of Directors admits it was doomed to fail without a leader to steer it’s direction and a clearly defined message around which it’s supporters could rally (”reforming the political system” is just too vague). It is interesting to note that two significant figures within the Unity08 organization, founders actually, have already left and, as implied in the email, will be involved in some way with a potential Bloomberg run. (It’s also worthy to note that Bloomberg must decide in the next six weeks whether he will run if he wants to meet the election deadlines set in Texas, the earliest state with ballot requirements. The timing of Unity08’s decision, in my opinion, speaks for itself.)

   Anyway, below is a copy of the email I received:

   Dear Jake,

   One of our principles at the outset of this audacious project was transparency and openness. Too often in our recent political history, what you see has not been what you get.

   For this reason, we are writing you today to lay out the current status of Unity08 and its possible paths going forward.

   First, however, it’s important to reflect upon what we have accomplished together in shaping the current political discussion and building a sense of what is possible in this crucial election year. Two of our core ideas, the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation’s problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency, have already come from far-out to mainstream.

   Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign. And just last week, a group of former and present national office holders comprised of independents, Republicans and Democrats met in Oklahoma for the sole purpose of stating their belief that at the present perilous moment, a unity government is the only hope of solving the nation’s mounting problems. When you find agreement between the likes of former RNC chairman Bill Brock and Gary Hart, you’re onto something.

   Waiting in the wings, should the divide persist, is the potential of a serious non-partisan candidacy by Mike Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York (two of our founders, Doug Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon, have stepped down from the board and may have more to say about their plans in the near future).

   Can Unity08 take full credit for these remarkable developments? Of course not. But through this website, your active involvement, innumerable news stories, op-eds, and public appearances by friends like Sam Waterston, we certainly have helped to bring these ideas to the forefront of the current political discussion.

   So in a larger sense, we have accomplished a major portion of what we set out to do. But in the specifics and logistics, we have fallen short.

   At the current moment, we don’t have enough members or enough money to take the next step toward achieving ballot access in 50 states, reaching the goal of establishing our online convention, and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall.

   The past year has taught us that it’s tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.

   And the Federal Election Commission hasn’t helped. The Commission has taken the position that we are subject to their jurisdiction (even though two United States Supreme Court decisions hold exactly opposite) and, therefore, that we are limited to $5000 contributions from individuals (even though the Democratic and Republican Parties are able to receive $25,000 from individuals). Needless to say, this position by the FEC effectively limited our fundraising potential, especially in the crucial early going when we needed substantial money fast to get on with ballot access and the publicity necessary to build our membership.

   We were caught in a peculiar catch-22; we wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn’t let that happen. We have challenged this ruling in the federal courts, but are still awaiting a decision and time is running out.

   And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we’re forced to scale back, but not cease our operations, and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can’t in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.

   But we’re not closing our doors. We believe it is important to see our case against the FEC through (both for Unity08 and any similar movement in the future) and be ready to gear up if (when) we win our case and political circumstances warrant later this spring. Unity is in the air right now, and Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own campaign (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn’t work) if the parties leave the sensible center open. But all this could change in a matter of weeks.

   We still believe strongly that we have the right idea, but it just might (emphasize “might” because who knows what can happen in the next month) not be the right time. In the meantime, a sincere, profound thanks for your help, involvement and support so far and please keep pushing for the simple, but very powerful, idea that solutions to our nation’s problems are going to take ideas and hard work from all Americans, and that a political system whose stock-in-trade is division may well be the biggest problem of all.

   Please know that you have already made a difference and are at the forefront of a movement that may yet save the country.

   Robert Bingham
   Angus King
   Peter Ackerman
   Zach Clayton
   Lindsay Ullman

   Board of Directors, Unity08

2. FCOH Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 8:31 am

   Will someone please put a nice front page post together detailing McCain supposed Straigt Talk on earmarks please… His self righteousness on this issue is driving me insane! It is utter BS and John McCain knows it.

   And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state and I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.

   I have never asked for or received a pork barrel project or earmark for my state.

   - In 2006, John McCain and Jon Kyl requested $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist.

   - In 2003, John McCain slipped $14.3 million dollars into a defense appropriations bill to
   create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

   - In 1992, John McCain pressed for $5 million dollars to fund a wastwater treatment center in Nogales, AZ. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/McCain92Earmark_123107.pdf

3. FCOH Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 8:35 am

   alaska - thanks for posting that info - the unity08 and Newt’s American Solutions are two recent developments that have the ‘potential’ to really shake things up in our politics and government - hopefully in a good way. The reality is that there are many many issues on which the vast majority of the country supports, yet we end up debating the polarizing issues which in my view add to the inept progress in Washington.

4. Cole Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am

   Huckabee the big winner last night!

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008/01/barnett_a_big_night_for_huckab_1.asp

5. alaska jake Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am

   #3. . . Unity and American Solutions are just two of a lot of groups across the political spectrum which could help to reform the system. Unity’s problem is that it tried to compete with the current two parties rather than fix them from within. While a noble goal, it was doomed to fail from the start. Too often in recent history, political groups have discovered a problem they’ve identified as a serious threat to the nation, and for whatever reason chose to “go it alone” rather than work within the actual power bases (either major party). It can’t work that way, not in the US with our form of a Federal Republic. In a parliament, maybe. Had Unity formed as think tank or even a subgroup or caucus (say, like the Bluedog Dems) within the parties, it could have worked. As an independent third party it had to first overcome the current system before it could reform it, an impossiblr task.

6. FCOH Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

   alaska - great articulation of where unity is in the process - thanks