PDA

View Full Version : Unity08


dirk digler
07-11-2007, 12:06 PM
I saw Sam Waterston on O'Reilly last night touting this new movement and I think I am semi interested in it. I agree totally that the 2-party is corrupt and broken and we really need to take back this country from the special interests groups.

I also read Lou Dobb's article on Cnn.com which basically says that in 08 almost everyone in Washington is a lame duck.

President Bush isn't the only lame duck in our nation's capital. All 435 Congressmen are up for re-election next year, and so are 34 of our senators. That's a total of 469 lame ducks.

IMO we can really make a difference in 08 and boot the majority of these stupid ****ers out and get people that actually want to try and help fix the major problems of our country.

Check it out and maybe we can get someone better than Hillary and Rudy in the White House.

http://www.unity08.com/

Here are four reasons we believe the Unity08 movement will succeed:

1. The American people know that the current political system is broken and that the time is short to fix it.
2. A solidly-funded movement of millions of Americans can be built online in order to nominate a Unity Ticket of their choice for 2008.
3. Seeing the numbers, leaders in both parties will see that a Unity Ticket in 2008 represents the jolt the political system needs to get back on track.
4. The tens of millions of Americans who have not been voting out of cynicism toward the current system are likely to rally to new leadership with a new approach.

The genius of America is that every generation redefines freedom in its own terms for its own times. Unity08, in a tradition as old as our country itself, is committed to still another rebirth of freedom.

StcChief
07-11-2007, 01:28 PM
I'm all for throwing 'em all out. :clap: :thumb:

Hydrae
07-11-2007, 01:37 PM
Sounds great on the surface but I don't know that having a split ticket is the answer. I am not one for putting anyone from either party in the White House. When you watch some of these guys flip flop between parties like the mayor of NY (what party is he in this week? Oh yeah, after being Dem and then Rep he is now claiming Independent) I am not buying either parties crap any more.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 01:51 PM
I'm all for throwing 'em all out. :clap: :thumb:


Assuming there is someone better to put in.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 01:54 PM
Sounds great on the surface but I don't know that having a split ticket is the answer. I am not one for putting anyone from either party in the White House. When you watch some of these guys flip flop between parties like the mayor of NY (what party is he in this week? Oh yeah, after being Dem and then Rep he is now claiming Independent) I am not buying either parties crap any more.

It is not a split ticket it is whoever you want to be the President and Vice President. There are no rules that say it has to be a conservative and a liberal or vice versa.

Hydrae
07-11-2007, 01:54 PM
Assuming there is someone better to put in.


Not sure we can do worse.

Hydrae
07-11-2007, 01:55 PM
It is not a split ticket it is whoever you want to be the President and Vice President. There are no rules that say it has to be a conservative and a liberal or vice versa.


No but it does have to be a Republican and a Democrat between the two offices.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 02:02 PM
No but it does have to be a Republican and a Democrat between the two offices.

I don't know about that.

nity08 Ticket: Our goal is to eliminate gridlock and encourage cooperation among the major parties — Republicans and Democrats. Therefore, the Unity08 ticket will include a Presidential nominee and Vice-Presidential nominee who are not members of the same major political party.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 02:03 PM
Nevermind Hydrae you are right.

I missed this:

A Qualified Vice-Presidential Candidate must be a United States citizen and submit to Unity08 a statement in writing that he or she is willing to accept the Unity08 Vice-Presidential nomination. In addition, he or she may not be a member of the same major political party (Democrat or Republican) as the Presidential Candidate with whom they will seek to form a Unity08 Ticket. Questions of party “membership” will be reviewed and resolved by the Rules Committee.

trndobrd
07-11-2007, 02:17 PM
A front organization perhaps?


Unity08 Response to Bloomberg Leaving the GOP
posted by BobRoth on June 19, 2007 - 9:40pm

Earlier today, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg switched his party status from Republican to Unaffiliated. Several periodicals have predicted this as a move towards an independent presidential campaign, although Mayor Bloomberg has not announced his desire to seek the presidency.

Doug Bailey & Jerry Rafshoon, Co-Founders of Unity08, have released statements regarding this move by Mayor Bloomberg.

"The announcement by Michael Bloomberg reinforces what Unity08 has been saying since our inception, that the current political system is broken and does not address the concerns of the majority of the population. Although we had no prior knowledge of Mayor Bloomberg's intentions and we have no idea what it may or may not mean to Unity08, it is obvious that he too understands the need for common ground."
- Doug Bailey, Co-Founder, Unity08

"Michael Bloomberg is the perfect independent leader. And, a very competent one who knows how to work across party lines to get results."
- Jerry Rafshoon, Co-Founder, Unity08

Taco John
07-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Nice find. That's definitely the connection there. These things don't happen on accident.

Personally, I disfavor a "unity" ticket. Sounds hokey to me. I want a third party in that is running on their principles, not on some wishy-washy idea of unity.

StcChief
07-11-2007, 02:28 PM
ok so where's Alice Cooper and the Wild Party...

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Elected-lyrics-Alice-Cooper/A6765BE89929548448256C48000892C1

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 02:50 PM
A front organization perhaps?


Unity08 Response to Bloomberg Leaving the GOP
posted by BobRoth on June 19, 2007 - 9:40pm

Earlier today, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg switched his party status from Republican to Unaffiliated. Several periodicals have predicted this as a move towards an independent presidential campaign, although Mayor Bloomberg has not announced his desire to seek the presidency.

Doug Bailey & Jerry Rafshoon, Co-Founders of Unity08, have released statements regarding this move by Mayor Bloomberg.

"The announcement by Michael Bloomberg reinforces what Unity08 has been saying since our inception, that the current political system is broken and does not address the concerns of the majority of the population. Although we had no prior knowledge of Mayor Bloomberg's intentions and we have no idea what it may or may not mean to Unity08, it is obvious that he too understands the need for common ground."
- Doug Bailey, Co-Founder, Unity08

"Michael Bloomberg is the perfect independent leader. And, a very competent one who knows how to work across party lines to get results."
- Jerry Rafshoon, Co-Founder, Unity08

Could be but I doubt it. Every delegate gets a voice so I think if this organization tried to push a certain candidate it would fall flat on its face.

I don't know to many people that think Bloomberg would be a viable candidate for anything

Cochise
07-11-2007, 02:51 PM
Yes, we need a real third party, and not some cause-of-the-week 'movement' destined for a 1% showing.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 02:56 PM
Yes, we need a real third party, and not some cause-of-the-week 'movement' destined for a 1% showing.

Yeah but how do go about doing it without getting 1% showing the first election or so?

Personally I think it depends on the candidate more than the party itself. Ross Perot proved that.

Pitt Gorilla
07-11-2007, 03:12 PM
Yeah but how do go about doing it without getting 1% showing the first election or so?

Personally I think it depends on the candidate more than the party itself. Ross Perot proved that.Larry, Larry, can I...Larry, will you let me, Larry, Larry.

FD
07-11-2007, 03:55 PM
Bull Moose in '08, all the way

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:02 PM
IMO we can really make a difference in 08 and boot the majority of these stupid ****ers out and get people that actually want to try and help fix the major problems of our country.


Until we get rid of this kind of thinking in general, booting them out will only be a temporary or partial fix. Decades of big govt and the people clamoring for more govt to take care of them or save them from the bad in life has corrupted the electorate too. Afterall, these politicians come from the same group...the people. Not that I don't think special interests aren't worse and have too much say. I do think the Establishment Elite select who will run and then foist those limited choices on us...then say we're a democracy and free. I just think it'd only be a partial fix. Otherwise, I am for throwing 90% of them out.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:05 PM
Nice find. That's definitely the connection there. These things don't happen on accident.

Personally, I disfavor a "unity" ticket. Sounds hokey to me. I want a third party in that is running on their principles, not on some wishy-washy idea of unity.
I'd have to agree with this. No 3rd party will have full agreement and the same factions will appear in general.

Adept Havelock
07-11-2007, 04:15 PM
Bull Moose in '08, all the way

That'd work. I also wouldn't mind a US version of England's Monster Raving Looney party.

dirk digler
07-11-2007, 04:19 PM
Until we get rid of this kind of thinking in general, booting them out will only be a temporary or partial fix. Decades of big govt and the people clamoring for more govt to take care of them or save them from the bad in life has corrupted the electorate too. Afterall, these politicians come from the same group...the people. Not that I don't think special interests aren't worse and have too much say. I do think the Establishment Elite select who will run and then foist those limited choices on us...then say we're a democracy and free. I just think it'd only be a partial fix. Otherwise, I am for throwing 90% of them out.

So what you are saying is that you don't think the gov. should try to solve any of the problems we face? Like SS, health care, immigration, Iraq, and the WOT?

To me that makes no sense. I am not saying I want a huge gov because I don't but we have real issues that need to be fixed and some of them the gov has to fix. There is no way around it.

BucEyedPea
07-11-2007, 04:37 PM
So what you are saying is that you don't think the gov. should try to solve any of the problems we face? Like SS, health care, immigration, Iraq, and the WOT?

To me that makes no sense. I am not saying I want a huge gov because I don't but we have real issues that need to be fixed and some of them the gov has to fix. There is no way around it.
No not just "any" as in none at all. I don't believe in absolutes.

I prefer that they get out of the way more so the people can get the show on the road solving their own problems...the ones that are left to either the states or the people. Not the federal ones that are their responsibility.

Immigration is a federal matter and can't be handled by the people.
Iraq was not our matter but it's the govt that's there now so that has to be done by the govt as demanded by the people.
WoT is a govt thing, but I still say it's blowback from a fp that is flawed.
Health care is not a govt problem except where they got involved and fugged it up. So they can get out of it. Same with SS. These last two are examples of what I meant.