Unity '08

[bobquasit]

Some guy named Doug Bailey from Unity '08 is doing a live Q&A over at the Washington Post, so for the heck of it I made a question/comment. To my surprise, he answered.

Woonsocket, R.I.: I was polled recently, and I suspect that the poll was on behalf of Unity '08. I have a comment, and a question. Comment: the poll was poorly designed, since it asked if I would be willing to support a unity ticket, but didn't allow an answer that would have been meaningful.

My question is, how would you respond to those who worry that Unity '08 will simply act as a spoiler, splitting the anti-neocon vote?

Doug Bailey: What's fascinating to us is that the neo-cons worry that Unity08 will split their vote, the Democrats worry that Unity08 will spoit their vote, etc. the people worry that neither the Republican, Democrats or Neo-cons either are giving them genuine leadership ojn crucial issues. We do intend to split the vote of both parties -- and in so doing elect a Presdient of the United States who will lead through crucial times.

I have to say, almost every answer he's given has been more than half a commercial, urging people to join Unity '08. Not that that's inappropriate, exactly, but he's pretty heavy-handed about it. And I'm rather offended by his characterization of the anti-Lieberman movement as "silly", to be honest.

Comments

[klyfix.livejournal.com]

Well, the answers to your question imply that, if he's not just running a front to create a Nader for 2008 (which I really think is the case), he's an overly optimistic or arrogant idiot. The anti-Lieberman characterization kinda supports the Front hypothesis; after all, we're talking the GOP's favorite Democrat. It's like that whole nonesense that for the Demos to win they have to be nicer, cuddlier Republicans.

At base, I'm all for Moderate and Unity and stuff, but when various hard-Right factions are putting the nation in danger of various forms of collapse, well, to sorta quote Goldwater "moderation is no virtue."