Unity '08

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18355633/site/newsweek/

 

A Third Way?

Fred Thompson isn't the only 'Law and Order' character eyeing the 2008 presidential campaign. Inside Sam Waterston’s efforts to help promote a third-party ticket.

 

A Web-exclusive commentary

By Eleanor Clift

Newsweek

Updated: 3:08 p.m. CT April 27, 2007

April 27, 2007 - The actor Sam Waterston, who plays the hard-hitting assistant D.A. in “Law and Order,” has a confession to make. “I’m a moderate,” he declared in a speech at the National Press Club. “You’re looking at a bird rarely seen in Washington, even in springtime.” Waterston was in town to promote Unity ’08, an Internet scheme to launch a third-party ticket, made up of a Republican and a Democrat, to run together against the two major party nominees.

 

Waterston is much more animated in person than is his character on the show; he smiles a lot and defers to the political pros seated with him who founded Unity ’08. He calls himself a skeptic but comes across more like an idealist. Tall and angular, he’s played Lincoln so much that he’s easy to typecast as a president. Asked if he might run, he said no, but thinks his costar Fred Thompson will get into the race. Waterston just wants to do his part to shake up the system. “I know I’m just a bug running around in the sun who doesn’t know he’s about to be squashed,” he said at one point. “To me, this is a liberating thing to say what I think.”

 

Only in Hollywood is coming out of the closet as a moderate considered bold. Waterston actually lives in Connecticut, but concedes his Hollywood friends are having a hard time getting their heads around the notion of a third-party candidacy. “Part of it is fear,” he says. “Ralph Nader fear.” Democrats don’t want another election stolen from them by an allegedly well-meaning idealist wanting to reform the system. Republicans are skittish, too. They like control, and the Internet by definition is an uncontrollable force. With the field already crowded with candidates, will there be room for a third party?

 

There’s a sense that politics as we know it could come apart this election season. With an unpopular war, scandals consuming the White House and a two-party system paralyzed by partisanship, voters are looking for an outsider, somebody who’s not tainted by politics as usual. If the two parties don’t satisfy this yearning with their nominees, there will be a third-party candidacy, maybe more than one. Even if the Republicans and Democrats choose candidates who are broadly acceptable, those choices will be made in early February--leaving nine months for buyer’s remorse to set in, or for the nominees to implode. Of course, the notion of third parties have come and gone in the past, usually falling victim to the institutional power and financial might of the two parties. Still, the political landscape is readymade for more choices to emerge in a culture geared to the next new thing.

 

Republican consultant Doug Bailey and Democrats Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan, who worked in the Carter White House, originally planned to collaborate on a book about the broken political system. Then they decided not to just write about it, but to do something. Their idea: to attract 10 million people who would become delegates by simply going to the Unity ’08 site and registering. If 10 percent of them give $100, that would raise 10 times the $10 million to $12 million Unity ’08 needs to get off the ground and hold its virtual convention in June ’08. “The [Howard] Dean phenomenon was not some kind of fluke,” says Bailey, referring to the fund-raising potential of the Internet. The site is inviting “Dream Team” submissions, and the founders are briefing potential candidates. Among them: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who’s pro-gun control and pro-environment, and Nebraska GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, an antiwar Republican. The founders don’t quite say it, but Bloomberg is the one they’re really after. He could inject big ideas into a policy debate that is already threatening to be overly careful and focus-grouped. It doesn’t hurt that he’s a billionaire, and could fund a campaign out of his own pocket.

 

Unity ’08 is determined to get on the ballot in all 50 states. If that happens, the group will become a force for the other parties to reckon with. Bailey told NEWSWEEK that he could envision one of the two major-party nominees deciding to seek the Unity ’08 nod rather than run against a third-party ticket. “But he or she would have to name a vice president from the opposition party,” Bailey adds. That could prove a major stumbling block, of course. But Bailey sees it as an opportunity to also showcase cabinet choices that would be a mix of Republicans and Democrats. It all sounds rather fanciful, and with the front runners in both parties tending more toward political centrism than extremism, Bailey’s concept of a centrist ticket could give way to something far different. George Vradenberg, a former AOL executive who’s backing Unity ’08, told NEWSWEEK that if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war, and the Republicans choose John McCain, who is pro-war, Unity ’08 could become the vehicle for an antiwar ticket that pairs Hagel with Barak Obama. Once you empower people via the Internet, anything can happen, which is the promise and the peril of any start-up.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that's great, especially if they can put together a ticket that represents that moderate crowd, but also have the name on the front be someone with a lot of name recognition. Otherwise, won't work. Plus with both parties fielding wide teams this year, its a tougher year to try to start in.

 

I think maybe the best way to get something like this started is not at the Presidency, but at the state level, then up to Congress, etc. Build up support. Shooting the moon may doom the idea.

[southsider2k5]

I think you hit on a key for 3rd party success. It has to be someone in the middle, because it seems like everytime someone tries this, it is with some one issue wacko who has no chance of making any headway. If they really get something together, I would sign up to be a delegate if their fiscal platform is truely conservative.

[Gregory Pratt]

I think you hit on a key for 3rd party success. It has to be someone in the middle, because it seems like everytime someone tries this, it is with some one issue wacko who has no chance of making any headway. If they really get something together, I would sign up to be a delegate if their fiscal platform is truely conservative.

 

There will be no third party success if we consider "elected" to be successful. THe closest thing in America to third party success will be a candidate introducing reforms through campaign like, say, that man from Wisconsin whose name I can't recall from long ago in the early 1900s I believe though I've got to go bell's ringing byebye

[southsider2k5]

There will be no third party success if we consider "elected" to be successful. THe closest thing in America to third party success will be a candidate introducing reforms through campaign like, say, that man from Wisconsin whose name I can't recall from long ago in the early 1900s I believe though I've got to go bell's ringing byebye

 

I think you are referring to William Jennings Bryant?

[Texsox]

If we think there is gridlock and pork in Washington with two parties, toss in a third. Nothing would happen unless two of the three aligned.

 

Having said that, I love choice and I like the idea of a coalition running. There are DINOs and RINOs out there that in reality would fit perfect in this party, or so it seems.

[NorthSideSox72]

If we think there is gridlock and pork in Washington with two parties, toss in a third. Nothing would happen unless two of the three aligned.

I think having three parties will actually create less gridlock, not more. Because you will have issue-specific majorities, when a third party aligns with the Dems on one issue, and the GOP on another. The third party folk wouldn't be as concerned over the consequences of going outside their party, unless they suddenly became bigger than the others. So more things will get passed, not less.

[southsider2k5]

I think having three parties will actually create less gridlock, not more. Because you will have issue-specific majorities, when a third party aligns with the Dems on one issue, and the GOP on another. The third party folk wouldn't be as concerned over the consequences of going outside their party, unless they suddenly became bigger than the others. So more things will get passed, not less.

 

Yeah, with a third party, there won't be the bundling that goes on with being affiliated as a D or an R. They won't be having to vote the opposite of someone else, just for arguement's sake. There would definately be more aisle-crossing then we have been accustomed to seeing.

[Gregory Pratt]

I think you are referring to William Jennings Bryant?

 

No. He was a Democrat.

 

Robert LaFollette is the one!

[Texsox]

I wish it would happen that way. I see a small group that will be the swing vote on everything. Perhaps they will act differently than everyone else we send to Washington, but I'm thinking the new party will work harder at representing "their constituents" by pointing out the great projects (pork) they have brought to their district in hopes of getting more of their new party elected. It is pork grease that lubricated the wheels of congress.

 

No matter what, two of the three will be needed to pass. The only time I see the DEMs and REPs getting together would be to figure out a way to eliminate the 3rd Party and bring things back to "normal".

 

There will be even more pressure to keep the party votes in line or else a three way deal would be necessary, something even harder to do.

[Gregory Pratt]

There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe.

[kapkomet]

I wish it would happen that way. I see a small group that will be the swing vote on everything. Perhaps they will act differently than everyone else we send to Washington, but I'm thinking the new party will work harder at representing "their constituents" by pointing out the great projects (pork) they have brought to their district in hopes of getting more of their new party elected. It is pork grease that lubricated the wheels of congress.

 

No matter what, two of the three will be needed to pass. The only time I see the DEMs and REPs getting together would be to figure out a way to eliminate the 3rd Party and bring things back to "normal".

 

There will be even more pressure to keep the party votes in line or else a three way deal would be necessary, something even harder to do.

 

 

There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe.

Ummm, hmmm... why do you think there was such a bipartisan rush after 1992, and again after 1996, to change the campaign laws? It couldn't be that both existing parties were trying to kabosh any chance a third party candidate has to win a major election, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah. /rolly

[Texsox]

There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe.

 

I could see a third party wiping out the Dems or Reps, probably the Dems. At election time, both parties dive to the left and right, leaving the middle wide open for a viable upstart.

[NorthSideSox72]

I could see a third party wiping out the Dems or Reps, probably the Dems. At election time, both parties dive to the left and right, leaving the middle wide open for a viable upstart.

Well, during the primaries they typically run for the gutter, but come time to run against the other party, they wander back towards the middle.

 

And I think a third party may become viable, if as I said, its not starting at the top. It can't be a party about a person.

[Texsox]

And I think a third party may become viable, if as I said, its not starting at the top. It can't be a party about a person.

 

That makes sense, but I can't reconcile that to America being a celebrity society where flash and appearance is more important than ideas and vision.

[southsider2k5]

That makes sense, but I can't reconcile that to America being a celebrity society where flash and appearance is more important than ideas and vision.

 

Which is why they are trying to find a big name guy to step to the forefront. Once they get the attention they need, then they can establish their principles with the general public. First they need someone with a good reputation.

[Texsox]

Which is why they are trying to find a big name guy to step to the forefront. Once they get the attention they need, then they can establish their principles with the general public. First they need someone with a good reputation.

 

That seems like the correct strategy. They have to avoid character issues and grab the values that the GOP has abandonded (fiscal conservatism) and avoid the special interest pandering that caused the Dems to lose their backbone, and we have a winner.

[Balta1701]

That seems like the correct strategy. They have to avoid character issues and grab the values that the GOP has abandonded (fiscal conservatism) and avoid the special interest pandering that caused the Dems to lose their backbone, and we have a winner.

Couple of points...what exactly makes anyone out there think that fiscal conservatism is actually a popular political point of view? In some circles it gets brought up a lot, and there are a few people who get elected running genuinely on it, but just look at the performance of the supposedly fiscally conservative party. Massive expansion of government spending up and down the board, and still people keep supporting it. It took a lost war for people to genuinely start turning against that party.

 

The simple fact is this...if I'm a voter...it's in my best interest to vote for the candidate who promises me the most while making me spend the least. In other words, we won't raise your taxes, we'll run deficits to cover these tax cuts, we'll give you all these new medicare benefits without worrying about how they'll be paid for (and we'll lie about the cost while we're at it) and you will love us!

 

And second...what exactly makes people think that any viable candidate will be able to compete without pandering to special interests, specifically the moneyed interests, in order to run a campaign in this pricing environment?

Edited April 30, 2007 by Balta1701

[mr_genius]

Couple of points...what exactly makes anyone out there think that fiscal conservatism is actually a popular political point of view? In some circles it gets brought up a lot, and there are a few people who get elected running genuinely on it, but just look at the performance of the supposedly fiscally conservative party. Massive expansion of government spending up and down the board, and still people keep supporting it. It took a lost war for people to genuinely start turning against that party.

 

i hope you aren't considering GW Bush a fiscal conservative. it sounds like you are.

[NorthSideSox72]

Couple of points...what exactly makes anyone out there think that fiscal conservatism is actually a popular political point of view? In some circles it gets brought up a lot, and there are a few people who get elected running genuinely on it, but just look at the performance of the supposedly fiscally conservative party. Massive expansion of government spending up and down the board, and still people keep supporting it. It took a lost war for people to genuinely start turning against that party.

 

The simple fact is this...if I'm a voter...it's in my best interest to vote for the candidate who promises me the most while making me spend the least. In other words, we won't raise your taxes, we'll run deficits to cover these tax cuts, we'll give you all these new medicare benefits without worrying about how they'll be paid for (and we'll lie about the cost while we're at it) and you will love us!

I think you've missed the difference here between the perception of the average voter, and the reality. A lot of voters like the idea of a fiscally disciplined government, and will vote for someone who claims they will balance a budget. The fact that this would mean taking away pork and, potentially, taking money or services out of their pockets, doesn't occur to most voters. The politicians then deal with the reality by spending non-stop, and getting those fatty pork programs through Congress (all the while screaming that they are against all this wasteful spending!). So in the end, because the average voter doesn't see the dichotomy there and further that they don't see the indirect negative impact that deficits have on them, they will just keep on voting for people who claim fiscal restraint but still deliver for their state/locality.

 

This goes a long way towards explaining why the GOP and Bush managed to survive 2002 and 2004 elections. They spent like drunken sailors, created huge deficits, but were still able to get their message across as the party of fiscal restraint. Heck, look at Bush's 2004 campaign. How many times did he and his cronies label Kerry a "tax and spend liberal" - and that worked! It didn't occur to most people that tax-and-spend is a heck of a lot better for the country than spend-and-spend, which is what the incumbent administration and Congress had been doing.

[kapkomet]

GWB CERTAINLY is not a fiscal conservative, and that's hugely why we are in the problems today that we are... Iraq War notwithstanding.

[Gregory Pratt]

Ummm, hmmm... why do you think there was such a bipartisan rush after 1992, and again after 1996, to change the campaign laws? It couldn't be that both existing parties were trying to kabosh any chance a third party candidate has to win a major election, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah. /rolly

 

 

re: bold -- Because both parties were trying to squash any chance that a third party candidate has to win a major election.

 

Oh, right. You answered that for me because you had no interest in actually discussing the matter.

 

There are a variety of things at play. I'm not sure what campaign finance was like before Watergate but I know that 1968 was a great year to be a third party candidate unless you count the whole "getting shot" part.

 

Actually, I do know what campaign finance was like: minimal if existent at all. It didn't really start until the rush after Watergate.

 

Truth is, though, that Wallace was as successful, politically, as Perot, who was as successful, relatively, as Roosevelt, who was as successful, relatively, as Fighting Bob La Follette: which is to say, Not successful at all in the long run.

 

Third parties only work when they've got a genuine issue that the public feels deeply but the problem with them is that they get it accomplished by savvy politicians of the other parties and then they're done for. It's happened to the prohibitionists to the Progressives. The other example is Ross Perot who flamed out when people realized that he was nuts, which you'd have to be to sink as much of your own money as he did into a campaign for President.

 

The only scenario I can envision a third party succeeding long-term is what Tex suggested: a third party replaces one of the old ones, but even that's bogus, I think, as we haven't had a new party grow and replace one of the old ones since the Republicans took over for the Whigs.

 

But it might happen.

 

I doubt it.

Both parties are entrenched deeply.

[Texsox]

GWB CERTAINLY is not a fiscal conservative, and that's hugely why we are in the problems today that we are... Iraq War notwithstanding.

 

I believe all the professional GOPers have abandoned conservative fiscal policies in favor of giving the American public what they want, a free lunch. We demand that they borrow money and give it to us. I don't blame them, it's the way to get elected.

 

And I give him a partial pass because of the Iraq war. I just wish he had come on tv and said, hey, we're in a war and this is not a great time to be cutting taxes.

[southsider2k5]

Couple of points...what exactly makes anyone out there think that fiscal conservatism is actually a popular political point of view? In some circles it gets brought up a lot, and there are a few people who get elected running genuinely on it, but just look at the performance of the supposedly fiscally conservative party. Massive expansion of government spending up and down the board, and still people keep supporting it. It took a lost war for people to genuinely start turning against that party.

 

The simple fact is this...if I'm a voter...it's in my best interest to vote for the candidate who promises me the most while making me spend the least. In other words, we won't raise your taxes, we'll run deficits to cover these tax cuts, we'll give you all these new medicare benefits without worrying about how they'll be paid for (and we'll lie about the cost while we're at it) and you will love us!

 

And second...what exactly makes people think that any viable candidate will be able to compete without pandering to special interests, specifically the moneyed interests, in order to run a campaign in this pricing environment?

 

Nah, we'll all subscribe to the Homer Simpson party... Can't someone else pay for it? Damn, except massive wealth redistribution doesn't work.

 

 

GWB CERTAINLY is not a fiscal conservative, and that's hugely why we are in the problems today that we are... Iraq War notwithstanding.

 

Exactly. If Bush had stuck to half of the stuff that got him elected, he would still be pulling 50% popularity ratings, with the obvious group of people who weren't going to like him from day one being the other half.

 

I believe all the professional GOPers have abandoned conservative fiscal policies in favor of giving the American public what they want, a free lunch. We demand that they borrow money and give it to us. I don't blame them, it's the way to get elected.

 

And I give him a partial pass because of the Iraq war. I just wish he had come on tv and said, hey, we're in a war and this is not a great time to be cutting taxes.

 

LMAO. The irony is tax receipts are at an all time high. If he doesn't cut taxes, we might still be in the Depression from thinking that only rate cuts would have solved the potential crisis that was the Clinton recession plus the biggest terror attack this country has ever known. With the bubble that developed after the irrational exuberance stock market, there was no telling how far things could have fallen without restoring confidence in the economy. And silly me, I don't believe you restore confidence by taking more money from people who are already shaken to the core. If you think you could have balanced the budget after 9-11, you are kidding yourself.

[Chet Lemon]

It didn't occur to most people that tax-and-spend is a heck of a lot better for the country than spend-and-spend, which is what the incumbent administration and Congress had been doing.

 

Right on.