After seeing the story on ABC this morning (Sunday Mar 18), I was compelled to check out the website. I applaud the stated goal of loosening the grip of the extreemist groups of both major parties. Their list of “urgent” vs. “important” issues that separate the substantive vs. hot-button issues is very compelling.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dammitman and others regarding the definition of “centrist”. I’ll go further by noting that there is no clue as to what unity08’s position on any these supposedly urgent issues would be. Under the urgent/important definition, Newt and Hillary would be a viable “centrist” ticket by simply ignoring gun control, abortion, and a few other emotionally charged issues.

I will say this – the internet and marketing savvy of these guys this early in the game is impressive. Using Sam Waterston as the front man is genius (I have no reason to doubt his true commitment to the cause).

Unity08 will make a difference, however, it will probably be as a spoiler that forces the spoilee toward the center while allowing the unspoiled and probable winner to continue to live in the fringes. It will all depend on who signs up as delegates, which will depend largely on the spin of the marketing. Oh, and if you don’t think that the fringe elements of both parties (you know, those whose grip is to be loosened) are not already signing up en mass to try influence the outcome, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to show you…

If you actually look at the facts, Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont spent the same amount of money — and Ned Lamontran on a couple of basic issues — opposition to the Iraq War, which is inline with both CT and Dem CT public opinion and generalized distrust and disgust of George W. Bush which again is inline with local, and national public opinion. OOOHHHH a politician who is actually running on major themes that have broad public support both within his party and then in the general voting population.

Lieberman won the general election by a combination of becoming the de facto Republican nominee, spinelessness on the part of national Democrats from making the consquences of him breaking party rules insignificant, and lying like hell in that he wanted US troops out of Iraq ASAP and saw a significant drawdown by the end of the year. And then on Nov. 8 started to support a significant escalation. Combine all of this with the power of incumbency and pork and he won.

So please get your facts straight

I believe that the Democrats are operating politically near the center because they can at least accomplish something there with a Republican in the White House and with more than 40 Republicans in the Senate.

In a few years, when a Democratic Party nominee is sitting in the White House and the Democrats have 60 or more seats in the Senate, the left side of the party will be able to do what it wants like gauranteed income, socialized medicine, mandatory “volunteer” service, etc.

For the next couple of election cycles, the Republicans may be able to remain competative based upon the telegenic nature of their candidates or even a candidates personality. But in the long run, all of the demographic changes in the United States give the Democratic party almost certain dominance.

I think individuals like Dobson are a boogie man that the left like to beat up on. Even at the height of the “Republican Revolution” very little that Dobson and similar groups wanted was put into legislation. I doubt that if the Democrats control all three branches of government that groups like the Congressional Black Caucus will be as poor at inacting its agenda.

I don’t agree with Shapiro’s position because it seems to me that there are relatively few gains to be made by playing to the extremes – the available votes are in the middle. If those votes are threatened by a centrist candidate the edge parties will compete for them.

That’s good, as can be seen by the Democrat’s restrained behavior to-date.

Kim, it’s not because of any fundamental shift in the Dems major players’ beliefs or any lessening of their liberal vitriol. Rather, they simply haven’t forgotten yet what got them elected this year.

That’s why I think that it’s disengenuous to pretend that the Dems are not the party with a greater tendency to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. They are and we’ll see that if they can consolidate power in 2008.

Are you truly indifferent as between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, such that if one were the nominee of his party and the other the nominee of Unity08 you would vote for the Unity08 candidate? And it would not matter which was which? I find that hard to believe.

Think of the issue most important to you – whether it is national security, economic policy, social issues, whatever. If the Unity08 candidate took a different position than the one you favor, while the nominee of a major party thought of it more or less as you did, would you really support the Unity08 candidate?

Where’s the beef?

BTW, I think the problem is bigger in the GOP, where just today a prominent member of the religious right, James Dobson, declared that he will never support the candidacy of John McCain, because he believes he would not advance the Christian agenda in the way Bush tried to. Only a certain type of Conservative candidate with the backing of the evangelical community will win the nomination for president in ‘08. Doesn’t that greatly limit the choices- to someone like Sam Brownback who has little appeal to the public at large?

In the long run, how can the Democratic Party move to left of center when it already gets about 50% of its votes from blacks and Hispanics and with that percentage rising?

I do not see how a political party that has segments like the Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus that possible draw most of its candidates and positions from the modreate center.

It is much more likely that the Democratic party will move left with the chaning demographics of the United States and the moderates will go along because they want to have some say in policy.

How about voting for a canidate because they are actually trustworthy? Or maybe if the canidate has an actuall thought in his/her head that make sense?

More political Balkanization this time from centerists amounts to protection of turf, and I find it to be just as bad.

Consider the candidates whose names are raised in the post. John McCain, for example, is not a centrist on economic policy; he is quite conservative indeed. Nor is he a centrist on foreign policy, as someone who has faulted the current administration for failing to be aggressive enough.

Nor do the candidates chosen agree with each other on the big questions of public policy that confront us today. Do you believe that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama would lead us in the same direction on these questions: should Social Security be fundamentally changed by diverting revenues into the stock market? What should we do about Global Warming? How should we proceed in the Middle East?

My concern is that too much emphasis is placed in the definition of centrism on rhetoric and personality, and too little on the substance of policies that the candidates prefer. To select one more example, it seems very odd to think of Sen. Lieberman as a moderate. His views on domestic policy have been quite liberal, and his views on foreign policy very hawkish indeed.

1. If Unity ‘08 succeeds at nothing more than advancing the voice of moderate voters, demonstrating to entrenched partisans that the disenchanted majority cannot be ignored, that the November ‘07 mid-terms were not an abberation, then it will be a succcess indeed. In the end, it’s less about votes — gained or siphoned — than it is about making a point. And that’s the part of this entire dialogue that encourages me.

2. The self-characterization of the Unity ‘08 organizers as “a one-shot affair—a dose of medicine strong enough to bring the two parties to their senses.” Maybe in its current iteration that’s a fair assumption, but I hope (and believe) the Unity ‘08 organizers realize that it will take more than “a one-shot affair” to affect real and lasting change. Maybe their legacy might be a Centrist PAC, as Paul has prevously sugggested, supporting those consensus-building candidates from either/both of the major parties, and preventing a recurrence of what I see as the one negative result of the November midterms, namely, the ejection of moderate Republicans from the mix, tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

NewsMax.com, about as conservative as DailyKos is liberal, has floated the idea of a possible John McCain – Joe Leiberman ticket in 2008. Article highlights:
Lieberman increasingly has made appearances with Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who…

Mr. Gingrich blames a flawed strategy for Republicans’ loss of a congressional majority that Mr. Gingrich was credited with winning in 1994. He said his party can still build a durable governing majority, but first must abandon the strategy of Karl Rove, the White House political director who has emphasized direct appeals to the party’s base.
“A base-motivation party inherently, in the long run, drives away the non-base,”Mr. Gingrich said.