Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

I completely disagree with you.

Although the two big dogs – Republicans and Democrats – dominate the political news and elections, they are, by far, not the only portions of the political spectrum. They are not even the extreme ends of the spectrum. If you want true unity, you have to include the entire spectrum.

There’s no reason not to keep the two that are the biggest names – Democrats and Republicans – at the head of the table on a President/Vice President ticket for Unity 08. But, it also makes logical sense to include the rest of the spectrum by having those at the head of the table bring in other party backgrounds into the mix, revolving around the big two.

That would create a true Unity ticket and extend the possibilities of what Unity 08 is trying to achieve. I hope we see this one day.

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

Dennis....who is losing track of what? Do you have another question for the Founders Council in this? The topical question has been aired many times over.

I do not see anything in the U08 scope about cabinet members and I hope it stays that way. Unity08 will inherently require simplicity, and that is hard enough. And frankly, all those minor parties do not mitigate polarization in this country and our job is to show their supporters that we have the crucial issues that are prerequisite to any future success of their special interest that might benefit us all.

Bill"for what we are together"

You are losing track of where I am going with this. I am focusing on Unity 08's mission, specifically.

Currently, as I understand it, Unity 08 intends to elect a President of either of the two big parties, on the stipulation that whoever that person is must be willing to work with someone from the opposite party as a vice president.

It is on that intent that I recommend also including that those folks build a cabinet comprised of people from various, different party backgrounds and be required to do so as part of the Unity 08 ticket, just as they are currently required to worth as two seperate parties.

I know what the constitution says. What you are not realizing is that I am focusing on Unity 08's mission, specifically.

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

I will redirect you once again to the Constitution, particularly Article 2. We can't require the President or Vice-President to do anything. Their duties and responsibilities are clearly outlined in the Constitution.

We can encourage or discourage certain behaviors in advance by giving or witholding our support in terms of votes, contributions, etc., but in the end they will appoint those they wish to fill cabinet posts, judgeships, etc. and the Senate will approve or disapprove.

You should spend a day or two pouring intensively through this and other political sites to fully recognize the wisdom our Founding Fathers showed in dismissing the notion of direct democracy. However bad we think things are now - that would be immesurably worse!

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

As you said, the President appoints the folks that work around him.

We could have a President and V. Pres from the big two, as you are attempting to create now, AND have the President be required to select a cabinet that is comprised of individuals with a political background of most of the smaller parties (Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Moderates, etc)!

That would be real unity and get a lot accomplished! It's not too late for such a Unity 08 agenda to be put into place.

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

One of the greatest problems our country faces is the lack of education, understanding of and respect for the design and function of our government. It is a beautiful construction but fails in its function when the electorate doesn't understand it and doesn't participate intelligently.

I strongly recommend that you read and re-read the Constitution in its totality: http://www.usconstitution.net/ and also the Federalist Papers: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

The Consitution is the corporate charter. We are the shareholders. The President is the CEO and is allowed under the charter to appoint his management team. The fact is that the shareholders don't educate themselves on either the functions or performance of the executive, don't show up and participate intelligently in shareholder meetings (read "elections) and therefor don't often end up with the government we want. In every instance, however, we do wind up with the government we deserve.

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

Thank you for stepping in, Mark, and what you have to say is very interesting.

Apparently, there is more I need to know because I do not recall voting for the likes of Condoleeza Rice or Defense Secretary Rumsfield or all of the other folks that are surrounding the President which you say the voters have put into place.

It is those individuals that I think should be brought in from a President, as you stated, who are from different parties (Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalist, etc) to do the job that best fits them.

Please clarify again how these individuals are put into place and why I do not remember voting for them.

I also understand that Unity 08 has gone far in its agenda and it would be difficult to change course (even though there is still 1 and 1/2 years to go). But, is this a goal that Unity 08 could at least consider for the future?

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

Dennis-

The "administration" is the cabinet and other officials put in place by the prez/veep - the executive branch. These are the only executives the voters have a say on, and while I'm a fan of certain constitutional amendments, I am not a fan of direct democracy. The Founders have chosen to focus on the 2024 presidential race only, and whether one agrees with this or not, it is the sole focus of Unity 08.

Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle

Well, I think we might be talking about the same thing, as you stated.

Your words, "The Unity Ticket will be a powerful reminder and symbol to officeholders at all levels", conveys what I thought about your choice of focusing on Pres and Vice Pres as mostly a show and making a statement.

Granted, some things will get accomplished, I believe. But, have you given any consideration to what could be done with the focus on a multi-party administration and not just a Pres/V.Pres from the big two?

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

We may be saying the same things, just in different ways. The goal is to elect a Unity Team (particularly with members of the two major parties directly involved) to face the many crucial issues facing the country. The reason we stress a Unity Ticket of one R/one D, in whatever order, is that in times of trouble (and we sure have it now) America works best when the parties talk to each other and work together as much as possible. It doesn't mean that the President and Vice President won't disagree on a thing or two; in fact that's good. We all do. But let's end the intense partisanship between the parties that prevents crucial issues from being debated much less solved.

Some concerned with the Cheney Vice-presidency might argue that that is one vice-president who does a lot, even too much. But every presdiency is organized differently and the Unity presidency can be as well -- with a VP given some specific issue responsibilities representing his/her strength, but also fulfilling a role not now done (talking to his own party on behalf of the administration). So both parties have their representative in the White House. Remember also that the ticket isn't two people pulled by the cnvention out of thin air, but two people who come to seek the nomination as a ticket; they have worked out responsibilities; they have found that they work well together; they understand and are candid with the public about their difrferences; but they represent a team who recognize that political partisanship is far less important to the country than a willingness and effort to work together for the common good.

The Unity Ticket will be a powerful reminder and symbol to officeholders at all levels, that most voters in this country (1) are in the middle, (2) might have strong views about things but they have open minds too, and (3) are sick and tired of the blame-game mentality that has paralyzed Washington.

From the beginning of this movement the founders has stood steady that all Independent candidates will be considered as well as Republican and Democrats... what you are picking up on is the conversation regarding the need for any Dems or Republicans to denounce their party and become Independents in order to capture the hearts and minds of all for victory... to be clear, the founders will consider all 3 parties and positions during debates... My guess is that we will end up with a major icon at the helm with a independent vice president or vice verse, but I doubt a dem and republican will be able to find common ground and maintain party affiliations... Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

Is there any chance that the founders will answer this question, since this is the Ask the Founders topic?

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

And those are good points to consider. My example was just that...an example. I'm not dead-set on who should do what.

I'm more concerned with concentrating more on a variety of cabinet/administration folks instead of just a variety of presidential/vice presidential nominees in order to get some real non-partisan work done.

Who should be chosen for what position is all still up in the air, to me. We can get to that later.

http://IndependentMind.s10.forumsplace.com

Dennis,

Why would I want a Republican in charge of security policy? Our security situation is a mess after ten years of Republican "leadership."

Why would I want a Democrat in charge of civil rights? Democrats have stood by impotent as the Bush admin has "disappeared" people into secret prisons, violated the Geneva convention, set up illegal domestic surveillance programs, etc., etc.

Your general idea that we need an independent executive that picks people based on qualifications rather than polical party is a good one. I urge you to leave the demo and repo parties out of it, though. They are failed projects!

Best,

Steve

_______________________________________
Steve in AZ

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to
take it anymore