Unity Politics Anyone?

Posted by Marlo Angell December 30, 2007 at 6:53 p.m.

I just read an article about NYC Mayor Bloomberg's upcoming meeting at the University of Oklahoma. The goal of the day long session will be to discuss ways to break down the barriers of party lines in an attempt to increase efficiency in the government. This novel idea (yes, any idea involving government and efficiency is pretty unheard of these days) is called unity politics. There are some heavy hitters on the guest list, including former presidential candidate Gary Hart, former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, Senator Chuck Hagel and former senator John Danforth.I have to say, I am quite intrigued by this notion of bipartisan politics and independent candidates. What about a McCain-Lieberman ticket? And surely, Ralph Nader belongs on somebody's administration. How about Ron Paul and: okay, I'm not sure who Ron Paul would team with, but you get the picture. Hey, if Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda could team up on The West Wing, the idea must not be too outside the realm of public consumption.Seriously, though, I think most Americans agree it is time for change. Our two party system has stymied things for too long and most of us are ready to shake things up a bit. Bloomberg and friends may have just the political muscle and funds to make that happen. I am not saying they will necessarily back the best candidate, but it sure would stir the pot and allow for some more options out there. I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting and can't wait to see what might come of it. Of course, there is always the possibility that nothing will materialize and this session will be gridlocked just as much as Washington. But political change begins with discussions and I say who better to start the discussion with your neighbors? So, let's hear from some Lawrencians: what are your dream teams for candidates- bipartisan, independent or otherwise? You can even throw in a few just for laughs if modern politics has gotten you really jaded.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Ideally, I would choose Al Gore (Presidential candidate) & Barack Obama (Vice Presidential candidate). Of course, Gore is not running and I'm not sure enough voters have "warmed" up to him yet. Still, according to Wikipedia, a poll conducted "in New Hampshire by 7News and Suffolk University" found that if Gore "were to seek the Democratic nomination, 29% of Mrs. Clinton's backers would switch their support to him [...] when defections from other candidates are factored in, Gore would gain 32% support.

I first considered Clinton as a partner for Gore, but I thought that the perception of the voters might be that there would be too much history with the previous Clinton administration. Barack Obama, ultimately, would bring in another set of voters to make the overall partnership work.
December 31, 2007 at 7:11 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Marlo,

I am not convinced that the two party system is the problem here. From my perspective, the problem is with our discourse which rather than focusing on issues gets side tracked by ad hominim attacks on people and use of hyperbole. That may be a lot of fun emotionally on occasion, but it is not productive. Having a bipartisan ticket isn't going to solve that problem.

Actually I have a good friend who is conservative and I am liberal but we manage to solve the world's problems at least once a year thanks to rational discourse and a couple bottles of wine. So I think maybe the two of us would make the ideal ticket.
December 31, 2007 at 9:29 a.m.
Logan5 (anonymous) says…

Let's face it, most people tend to be more or less moderate. Sure, we all have certain issues that we may feel strongly about, but on average most of us are middle of the road. The nature of the media today tends to give far too much air time to extremists like Ann Coulter and MoveOn. While I think it is important that these people are able to voice their extreme views and are allowed to express their right to free speech, I do not think that they are deserving of the amount of air time they receive. But such is the state of "journalism" driven by the free market.
December 31, 2007 at 11:31 a.m.
Solomon (anonymous) says…

Why do Democrats continually compare Ann Coulter (or Rush Limbaugh) to MoveOn.org? Coulter is a columnist, albeit an outrageous one, while MoveOn is an extremely well-funded political organization which has essentially captured the Democrat party with their big bucks.
January 1, 2008 at 5:17 a.m.
temperance (anonymous) says…

I agree that Coulter and MoveOn are incomparable. Coulter is a professional plagiarist
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pap...
MoveOn is a grassroots organization that opposes the war in Iraq (a stance that public opinion has resoundingly caught up with). I routinely donate money to MoveOn, whereas I wouldn't hand Coulter a cup of water if she were sitting next to me on fire.
January 1, 2008 at 8:35 a.m.
temperance (anonymous) says…

RE the blog post: It's funny that there's this call for "unity" and "moderation" now that the Democrats are poised to take the White House. People are excited about Bloomberg because he could split the Democratic vote. That's it. We have concern trolls like Sam Waterson and his lame "Unity '08" group trumpeting Bloomberg as some "postpartisan" redeemer, but all those folks were oddly silent during Bush's first term. Remember when Republicans were threatening to use "the nuclear option" against the filibuster? You know, before they made record use of the filibuster this last year? The now-Bloomberg-supporters were quite happy with the disunity and hyper-partisanship when it bolstered their interests.

Let's be clear, though. Bloomberg is not a centrist. In a 2004 rally, he said in the Iraq war was in response to 9/11: "throwing in his words of support for the president's decision to invade Iraq - promoting one of the notions that is central to the rationale for the attack, that the conflict was justified by what happened on Sept. 11."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
It will be more of the same with him in office.
January 1, 2008 at 8:36 a.m.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…

Moveon is heavily involved with George Soros, who happens to own a piece of Halliburton.
More info about Soros at: http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2856...
January 1, 2008 at 9:31 a.m.
Godot (anonymous) says…

If everyone had the same goals and viewpoints, we would not need politics. Unity politics is an oxymoron.
January 1, 2008 at 2:51 p.m.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…

right_thinker is says that he should have been, and therefore should be(?), referred to as *seÃ±or you idiot*?

Well... OK. If you insist.
January 1, 2008 at 2:56 p.m.
JJE007 (anonymous) says…

kill the is
January 1, 2008 at 2:57 p.m.
temperance (anonymous) says…

Godot: "If everyone had the same goals and viewpoints, we would not need politics. Unity politics is an oxymoron."

Exactly. Politics have been partisan since day one. It's American to disagree.
January 1, 2008 at 3:58 p.m.
BABBOY (anonymous) says…

I think the above posts pretty clearly illustrate why this country is in a bad way politically. I mean the blog is about unifying politics to produce a workable government that has become an abomination in regards to its effectiveness.

This whole liberal verse conservative battle is destroying this country. I see no solution. I mean I will never support a religious zealot that wants to legislate freewill or any moron that thinks that freedom of religion means their religion only.

At the same time, there is huge political movement to do just that in that some of the stated goals by the conservative right is to change interpretations of the Bill of Rights to insert their religious views into governmental policy.

All of this crap is keeping good people from running for office. I mean consider you have a potential senator or president or whatever. Consider that this guy or gal is the best administrator and leader on the planet. But, then consider that said person is also private and does not want their private life destroyed by either side of the freewill battle going on between normal people and religious nuts.

I do not think any person of merit would subject himself or herself to the crap involved in running for office.

Oh, by the way, Happy New Year to everyone (even right-thinker)!
January 1, 2008 at 5:46 p.m.
dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

"All humans are storytellers with their own unique point of view. When we understand this, we no longer feel the need to impose our story on others or to defend what we believe. Instead, we see all of us as artists with the right to create our own art."
Don Ruiz

Good words for us all.
January 1, 2008 at 7:58 p.m.
BigAl (anonymous) says…

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Why do so many of our highly valued LJW neighbors who are clearly at least leaning to the left or flat out far-left try to sell themselves as some form of 'moderate' or 'centrist'?

It is boring, tired and above all, extremely irritating.

Be yourselves, hard-core liberals:.it's OK.
************************************************************************

This is a large part of the unity problem. People like right_thinker will never see both sides of an argument. You either agree with him 100%, all the time, or you are a far-left, hard-core, left-wing, sp, liberal. Even in this post he refers to "leaning left" as "hard-core liberal".
Not all democrats are Michael Moore and not all republicans are Ann Coulter.
January 2, 2008 at 9:10 a.m.