Thursday, August 10, 2006


Okay, this is pretty ridiculous . Basically some folks are getting all wet in the mouth thinking about a new political party called Unity. I see three huge problems.
1. It's a backwards ideal in a democracy to consider creating a party that's intention is to represent a majority centrist viewpoint. Why? While the current battle of polarity between Dems and Reps is pathetic, it does fuel debate, which is the purpose of our political structure. If a third party we really a good option, it would have to be a new party with a new set of platform ideals. Not just a little of this and a little of that from the existing parties to somehow make an all encompassing Uni-Party. Contrary to most people's belief, we do have some "third" parties in the U.S. Sure they don't have the clout or ability that the big two have, but at least they come from a perspective of bringing a new idea to the floor.

2. These are their goals(from their website)
  1. Goal One is the election of a Unity Ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States in 2008 – headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties.
  2. Goal Two is for the people themselves to pick that Unity Ticket in the first half of 2008 – via a virtual and secure online convention in which all American voters will be qualified to vote.
  3. Goal Three, our minimum goal, is to effect major change and reform in the 2008 national elections by influencing the major parties to adopt the core features of our national agenda. With a group of voters who comprise at least 20% of the national electorate, we feel confident that our voters will decide the 2008 election.
So the first one is to elect their dream ticket and the second one is allow voters to select the actual candidates. That already sounds backwards, but read closer, "a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who represetns a Unity team for both parties" So we're talking about a new party made up of the old parties? That's not really a good way to bring up new ideas, I mean, we would be re-electing the same type of people already in office. The last goal is a crackup. Their "minimum goal" is to influence the major parties to adopt features of their agenda. Ummm... why would you create a party with the intention of changing the ideals of the current parties? That just seems like Dems trying to convince Reps to have more Democratic ideals. Again, that doesn't further debate, it creates an organization that just knows it's right and pushes that opinion on everyone else. Bad idea in a democracy.

3. The last problem I have is that think supporting Joe Leiberman is a good idea.

No comments: