Second-hand opinion on another "third" party
Thomas Keister
May 04, 2007
It was with considerable interest I read Eleanor Clift's April 27 Newsweek.com commentary ("A Third-Party Ticket in 2008?") regarding Law & Order star Sam Waterson's support of Unity '08, a proposed "third" party ticket in the formation stages. Part of my interest was peaked with the prospect of another contender in the ring, being a third-party official and candidate myself, while the remainder was due in part to my being a big fan of the Law & Order shows. I was wondering, much like a person approaching a bad car accident, if Waterson was going to nest with the annoying political celebrities, either fresh off a well-endorsed "charity" concert event or a well-publicized trip to the third world, or with the camp that actually tried to know a little something of what they talk about.
Thankfully, Waterson was fairly measured in what he had to say in his remarks at the National Press Club, not overestimating his own knowledge or hanging himself out on a possible candidacy, but merely offering his support while acknowledging the skepticism some of his friends, and no doubt others, are expressing toward another "third" party.
The same, however, could not be said for many of Clift's statements throughout her piece. Her notion that the election was "stolen" from the Democrats by an "allegedly well-meaning idealist wanting to reform the system" is wishful thinking. The libertarians, along with the Reform, Green, Constitution and other parties ran presidential candidates that many people pulled to rather than the major party options. That the Democrats failed to close the gap, even in the face of improprieties that may or may not have happened, is something they need to address internally. More to the point, what has either major party done to impress upon much of anybody at this stage in the game? Not enough for me to believe a combination of the two on one ticket would appeal only to those who supported them in the primaries, and since that was apparently not enough to gain the major parties' nominations, how is it going to be good enough come Election Day, let alone gain ballot access in enough states in the time given to pose any kind of serious challenge.
The plan is beautiful in its simplicity. The concept Republican consultant Doug Bradley and Democrats Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan, a former Carter White House staffer have cooked up first relies on drawing ten million people to serve as "delegates" by registering at Unity '08 website, and then hoping to raise $10 to $12 million for seed money and to hold their virtual convention. While I do not find the odds on that very promising, I do have to admire some of the big names Unity '08 is reportedly courting, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. According to Clift, Bloomberg would not only "inject big ideas into a policy debate," but there is the added bonus of Bloomberg being able to theoretically fund a presidential run completely from his own pocket. Yeah, I think we saw what a success a billionaire running a third-party presidential race was...either time.
With this election even more vital to the direction of this country than perhaps any other, with the damage President Bush having inflicted to the country due to either be corrected (no small measure) or extended in the years to follow, my advice to moderates like Waterson is to join the Libertarian Party instead, and then convince other major party "superstars" to follow suit. There is certainly enough give and take in the LP platform to appeal to any Democrat or Republican as truly interested in changing the political landscape as Bradley, Rafshoon, and Jordan are banking on. Another key factor comes back to ballot access, as the LP is already on or nearly on all 50 ballots for every presidential election, so the $10 to $12 million Unity '08 looks to raise would instead serve as one of the bigger, if not the biggest, war chest for a Libertarian presidential candidate. Maybe then, as Clift speculates, a third party would have a legitimate shot at becoming "a force for the other parties to reckon with."
Thankfully, Waterson was fairly measured in what he had to say in his remarks at the National Press Club, not overestimating his own knowledge or hanging himself out on a possible candidacy, but merely offering his support while acknowledging the skepticism some of his friends, and no doubt others, are expressing toward another "third" party.
The same, however, could not be said for many of Clift's statements throughout her piece. Her notion that the election was "stolen" from the Democrats by an "allegedly well-meaning idealist wanting to reform the system" is wishful thinking. The libertarians, along with the Reform, Green, Constitution and other parties ran presidential candidates that many people pulled to rather than the major party options. That the Democrats failed to close the gap, even in the face of improprieties that may or may not have happened, is something they need to address internally. More to the point, what has either major party done to impress upon much of anybody at this stage in the game? Not enough for me to believe a combination of the two on one ticket would appeal only to those who supported them in the primaries, and since that was apparently not enough to gain the major parties' nominations, how is it going to be good enough come Election Day, let alone gain ballot access in enough states in the time given to pose any kind of serious challenge.
The plan is beautiful in its simplicity. The concept Republican consultant Doug Bradley and Democrats Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan, a former Carter White House staffer have cooked up first relies on drawing ten million people to serve as "delegates" by registering at Unity '08 website, and then hoping to raise $10 to $12 million for seed money and to hold their virtual convention. While I do not find the odds on that very promising, I do have to admire some of the big names Unity '08 is reportedly courting, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. According to Clift, Bloomberg would not only "inject big ideas into a policy debate," but there is the added bonus of Bloomberg being able to theoretically fund a presidential run completely from his own pocket. Yeah, I think we saw what a success a billionaire running a third-party presidential race was...either time.
With this election even more vital to the direction of this country than perhaps any other, with the damage President Bush having inflicted to the country due to either be corrected (no small measure) or extended in the years to follow, my advice to moderates like Waterson is to join the Libertarian Party instead, and then convince other major party "superstars" to follow suit. There is certainly enough give and take in the LP platform to appeal to any Democrat or Republican as truly interested in changing the political landscape as Bradley, Rafshoon, and Jordan are banking on. Another key factor comes back to ballot access, as the LP is already on or nearly on all 50 ballots for every presidential election, so the $10 to $12 million Unity '08 looks to raise would instead serve as one of the bigger, if not the biggest, war chest for a Libertarian presidential candidate. Maybe then, as Clift speculates, a third party would have a legitimate shot at becoming "a force for the other parties to reckon with."
Print
Email
