Am I the only one who thinks the UNITY theme is a bad idea??

[polichick]

In Washington DC, UNITY = DEMS CAVING to Republican demands, so making that the theme of a campaign is like surrendering right from the get-go.

And that's not just true among DC politicos, I've yet to meet a Republican who was interested in embracing Democratic ideals. Unlike Dems, they stick together.

I like Senator Obama; he's a talented and inspiring person ~ but every time I hear him go on about unity, I think :wtf:

[Fresh_Start]

1. I know many Dems that are PO'ed at the Congress for not

standing up to the GOP machine which is supporting this disaster of an administration.

I don't think Congress's 8% approval rate is because they are fighting the administration; I think its because they are not fighting hard enough to win.

[waiting for hope]

4. No, they are caving at

every juncture. I think after so many years of this country being on the far right, the pendulum needs to swing hard left. John Edwards fits that bill nicely, thank you.

[DaLittle Kitty]

28. Unity Is An Element Of A Fascist Government, AKA Shut Up + Get In Line Behind Us...

Because We Know What's Best.... :puke:

[Armstead]

2. Unity ON OUR TERMS

I think it'd be perfectly appropriate for Democrats to seek unity with Republicans who are disaffected by the crap and failures of the GOP -- but only on our terms, not some watered down triangulating porridge.

[polichick]

8. I have truly never known Republicans to do anything on our terms unless forced to...

I suppose it's possible that a few will vote Dem this time, but I think our candidates need to be inviting them to join the Democratic party rather than insinuating that we have become more Republican (as Obama's Reagan remarks suggested).

[stravu9]

3. The Party Needs To take A JUMP TO THE LEFT!!!

Let's Do The Time Warp Again! Back to a time when being a DEMOCRAT didn't Mean GOP Lite!

[DaLittle Kitty]

29. You Still Have A Choice In John Edwards!

[stravu9]

32. HE IS MY CHOICE!

I'm just trying to be subtle!

[robinlynne]

5. agreed, agreed, agreed.

[readmoreoften]

6. No, you're definitely not the only one.

The call for "unity" shifts the blame for the neoconservative disaster onto the shoulders of the left. If progressives caved in completely there would've indeed been unity for the past 8 years.

A Democratic party united with the Republican party is no longer the Democratic party.

[polichick]

9. I feel better knowing others see how lame this is...

Good point about shifting the blame ~ this is the worst time in the world to be doing that.


"A Democratic party united with the Republican party is no longer the Democratic party."

Exactly ~ I keep asking why we need two Republican parties; doesn't make a lick of sense!

[tabatha]

7. I guess unity is better than the circular-firing squad.

[BringEmOn]

10. Unity...for repuke lites means reaching across the aisle with Astroglide hand...

to progressives, it means reaching across the aisle with subpoenas in hand.

[Clarkansas]

11. It is better than the Karl Rove message of "we only care about 51%, fuck the rest."

All the candidates talk about some kind of unity, so it doesn't really bother me.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. well, good luck to the candidate

who runs on a platform of INCREASING partisanship in DC.

[polichick]

15. That's not the other choice...

What our candidates should be doing is proudly and surely INVITING THEM TO JOIN OUR PARTY, rather than suggesting we are like them ~ and there's no better time to do it than now.

[RufusTFirefly]

34. Fuck all the words with "partisan" in them

Partisan, bipartisan, nonpartisan. They're all equally suspect.

The entire issue needs to be reframed. If you think it's about whether to be partisan or bipartisan, you are falling into a trap.

It's about whether to listen to the will of the people or to ignore them.

Most Americans are concerned about health care and some are literally dying to support a better system that takes the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies out of the equation. It is Congress, the President, and the aforementioned robber barons that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize Iraq is a huge mistake that is destroying lives, depriving the economy of billions, and sabotaging decades of priceless international good will, and they want to get our troops out of there is soon as possible. They don't want troop withdrawal to blow up in our faces, but they definitely want the troops out. It is Congress, the President, and the military industrial complex that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize that global warming is a real and serious problem and that we need to do something about it right away. They have concerns about the effect it will have on their lifestyle, but they don't want to leave their children with flooded cities and an uninhabitable planet. It is Congress, the President, and the fossil fuel giants that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

Most Americans recognize that NAFTA has been a big mistake and has left millions out of work or forced to work inferior jobs. Sure, they like cheaper goods, but not when they don't have a job so they can buy them or the time so they can use them. It is Congress, the President, and the greedy corporations that are providing the obstruction. Not the American people.

The fact is that much of America is already unified on these key issues and many more. It is Congress, the President, and the presidential candidates who are providing the obstruction. Talk of partisan or bipartisan is a diversion. It only makes the issue murkier and almost guarantees that things will get worse not better. The question is whether our elected officials are going to serve the people or whether they'll continue to do the bidding of greedy corporations.

I'd like to see which side of that question each candidate is willing to line up on. We already know where most of the American people stand.

[lurky]

13. Yeah, remember Bipartisanship?

AKA putting the squeeze on red state dems to get Bush's agenda passed.

[OneGrassRoot]

14. My take:

Unity is great once there is a level playing field. There is such imbalance right now that a fight is required to take some of the people's power back from the corporatocracy.

Then, and only then, can the spirit of unity take hold. Then, and only then, will I be a passionate proponent of the unity message.

As of now, what will we be united about? Obscene CEO bonuses at the expense of thousands of laid-off workers?

[polichick]

16. That's right - we need a level playing field first...

It's like an abused spouse talking about unity when the abuser doesn't even realize that he/she IS an abuser ~ FAT CHANCE!

[BootinUp]

17. This is probably

the main reason I am resistant to his candidacy right now.

[polichick]

23. Me too...

Makes me yearn for a brokered convention and the nomination of someone else entirely.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. It's a very good campaign strategy

If there's one thing that voters will tell you it's that they are fed up with partisan politics. Campaigning against them is a good strategy.

Once you're in office, people don't care about bipartisanship nearly as much as they care about things getting done. You use whatever combination of partisanship and bipartisanship you need to get things done.

[Skwmom]

19. Well who has the Divide And Conquer strategy benefited?

A hint: Not the American Public.

[polichick]

22. Of course you wouldn't use Divide and Conquer as a campaign theme...

But it makes much more sense to invite indies and Republicans to join our party, rather than try to show how our candidate is Republican lite.

[Skwmom]

41. Well I hate to tell you but the divide and conquer strategy

has been safely used on the American public for many years now.

The Bushes and Clintons are the ultimate dividers.

[mediaman007]

20. If unity were a possibility, Bush's* job approval rate would be about 10%.

Twenty five percent of our country are right wing zealots. Do you think that Rush Limbaugh will see Obama as unifier? I think 75% of the country can move in a progressive direction, but Obama can't really be serious about getting these guys to play nice.

[no name no slogan]

21. If UNITY was good enough for Rick James, it's good enough for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Exy5vA22chs

[Jamastiene]

24. It is a bad theme when the UNITY is with the Republicans instead

of the rest of the Democratic Party. There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

[polichick]

26. I agree - it's impossible to unite with those who won't ever walk toward you...

And to throw large groups of liberals under the bus is really sad ~ why not just run as a Republican?

[Tennessee Gal]

25. We did not start the partisanship.

I once wrote an article about this for Buzzflash. Here it is for those interested: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/09_Democrat.html

The Democratic Party has never been as aggressively partisan as the Republican Party. And I don't want to see us emulate their vicious partisanship. I just want us to stand up for our beliefs. I don't see Obama's message as doing that nearly as clearly as Edwards' message.

[polichick]

27. "I just want us to stand up for our beliefs." Me too - clearly & proudly! nt

[OzarkDem]

30. Agree this is not the time, Americans want change

they want to go back to the country they used to live in, one where they can work hard and leave it a better place for their own children.

That's something we can't take for granted any longer. Its something we have to fight for, and unity won't get us there.

[PsN2Wind]

31. I'll go for the candidate willing to "kick ass and take names"

over the ones that want to have a group hug or want to negotiate. We've been abused by the rePubs for over twenty years now. They show no signs of basic decency while dealing with our reps and now our reps act like so many abused women, "he didn't mean it, he really loves me".

[Tennessee Gal]

33. And which candidate do you think that is?

[PsN2Wind]

36. Edwards

Sorry, I saw no need to state the obvious.

[Tennessee Gal]

37. Good choice!

No need to apologize. It was obvious. I just wanted you to say it. Sorry if I was rude.

[here_is_to_hope]

35. K n R'd for the common sense!

Seriously, reach across the aisle? For what? This fuckers have shown no mercy, have cheated and lied and distirted and held for ransom everything I hold dear.
Fuck them and fuck anyone who wants unity with a poli-specie who has shown no redeeming values.

[Nutmegger]

38. Repukes are utter scum

They must be fought tooth and nail.

How many times have the Reupkes played nice?

They have filibustered more than the Democrats.

No, they are scum. We need to fight fire with fire.

[Jed Dilligan]

39. Just a strategy to win the middle, I think

no one can believe unity is possible unless they are one of the idiotic "moderate" voters.

[Tulkas]

40. Bush/Rove went "deeper" into the base instead of expanding it

They threw red meat at blocks like the Evangelists and turned them out in huge numbers. This won them elections (or so we are supposed to believe) but it alienated some of their traditional base. This can be exploited to our advantage.


Many people that would normally align with Republicans agree with us on some important issues. The environment is one such example. Just because they want to cut taxes and eliminate abortion rights does not mean they want to pollute the planet their children need to live on. The War, the Deficit, Trade Policies etc etc etc.


If you can attract people who are split on the issues between the two major parties you can grow your base while shrinking theirs. You have heard of "Reagan Democrats" now you need to spend 20 years hearing about "Obama Republicans". This does not mean we change our views to suit them, it means we point out that they agree with us on things that we can act on together while the other party is out of power.


Obama was praising Reagan's style, and his ability to draw people to the Republican cause. Obama will use his oratory skills to draw people to the Democratic cause.

This is what he is talking about when he starts up about "growing a sustainable majority"

[Orangepeel]

42. outside of Washington DC, most people want unity

The issue is who is united and what is their common cause.

Personally, I prefer Edwards' call for the people to unite against the power of large corporations. But if Obama wants to frame it as the people against the status quo, that's fine with me (even if he did lift it from Edwards).